i've said this before (sorry), but cockburn, in cooperative game, describes shu ha ri - http://alistair.cockburn.us/Shu+Ha+Ri - as three stages of mastering something: following, detaching and fluent.
anyway, this post is so second stage it makes me wince.
Maybe, however I read the original article to mean that the process some people use to make life decisions is the "following" stage in the context of shu ha ri.
From what I can understand: It isn't possible to reach the second stage without first exploring the first as you need to know the baseline to understand the differences between options. Also it isn't possible to reach the third stage without the second because you don't have a full intuitive understanding of what effect each variable has.
Based off this I don't see the post being second stage as a necessary negative, the aim of the article is to nudge people from the following stage into the detaching stage.
I imagine when reading the original article people in the following stage have most potential benefit, people in the detaching stage will agree with the article and won't learn much (but maybe it will affirm their beliefs a bit) and people in the fluent stage have surpassed the advice in the article and will regard it as backwards.
i don't really disagree with you (and i felt unfair even when posting).
in my defense, all i can say is that what rubs me the wrong way is not the process, or the fact that someone is learning, but the tone. yes, we're all on these different stages at different times. but once you acknowledge that, shouting about any particular one as "the" solution seems a bit strong. especially when you know that you're going to look back on this particular point as just one more - perhaps confused - step.
anyway, this post is so second stage it makes me wince.