One of the argument he makes is that everyone on the internet is an amateur psychologist, and that anonymity was the only prerequisite for a psych degree. He th

One of the argument he makes is that everyone on the internet is an amateur psychologist, and that anonymity was the only prerequisite for a psych degree. He then used this to assume that people who called him self-centered had no basis for doing so. I was asserting the fact that he came across as self-centered, and I did, in fact, have a psych degree. His response wasn't a good argument, it was dismissing naysayers out of hand as not having expertise in the area. What will his response be to me? That I don't have a PHD? That I have never met him? If I met him, and still thought he was self-centered, would that change his mind? What about 50 people who meet him? Even if he knows he is not self-centered, if his perception is as such, wouldn't that warrant addressing outside of "no you guys don't understand me, you never met me, you guys are a bunch of amateur psychologists". You do three things in your post: claim that I can't tell he's self centered, claim that self-centeredness isn't important, then call me self-centered. Which is it? Is it all three? If so, what does it matter that I think he's self centered, since it doesn't matter? As for the final statement, I gave my opinion as to how I think his post could have helped more people, including me. Is it self-centered to lament that there could have possibly been a better way to go about the followup? Or should critique not be part of any article or post at all?