I don’t think that’s a remotely fair characterization of the author’s self-evaluation. A fair bit of the article is spent expressing embarrassment, presuming th

I don’t think that’s a remotely fair characterization of the author’s self-evaluation. A fair bit of the article is spent expressing embarrassment, presuming they were in fact wrong, and surprise at discovering that presumption was their error. What you’re describing would be an entirely different post, likely making a very different point. There’s value in exploring “sometimes your idiosyncratic intuitions turn out to be right”, without muddying that with the obvious intuition that this won’t always be the case. There’s value in exploring the idea through demonstrative anecdote without counter examples. If anything, counter examples might influence the kind of pattern matching biases which lead to such faulty intuitions. Anyway, I think the author has demonstrated that they’re fallible and happy to be corrected. They’ve acknowledged more concrete problems with the post and made changes to address them at least a couple times.