The article seems to argue that the best state of affairs for individuals is for others to be either consistently negative (so they can be ignored by individual

The article seems to argue that the best state of affairs for individuals is for others to be either consistently negative (so they can be ignored by individuals) or consistently positive (so they are listened to and make individuals feel good). That is not only a recipe for groupthink, but also for individuals to stay in denial about ugly truths. I grew up reading the NY Times, the New Yorker, etc, believing it to be sophisticated, and am continually disappointed by articles that just cater to the biases of its readers- in this case, explicitly saying being challenged in their beliefs is bad for their health.