I think that the essay is too ambitious. I admire that ambition, especially given that English is not the author's first language, but there is an attempt to pack too much into this, and so, despite its length, it tends to rely on superficial assertions of facts. This results in an interesting contradiction; despite the main thrust of the essay being how many people hold their worldviews uncritically when they should engaged in deeper examination and reflection, the essay itself is uncritical of the myriad assertions it makes, and comes across as cherry-picking from the lengthy history of philosophy and psychology those select quotes that support the points being made, and dismissing all else.

This essay also indulges in the common trope of treating the whole of homo sapiens as if it were some sort of singular hive-mind, rather than a vast collection of individuals who see one another in different lights depending on their own worldviews. In other words, the author routinely refers to "we" to mean humanity writ large, rather than speaking of those people who fit the specific description. Because clearly, the "we" who "are stubbornly refusing to embrace our 'irrational side' and waiting for things to make rational sense" is not the whole of humanity, given the number of people the author quotes in support of their viewpoint.

And there is little point in positing some unenumerated percentage of humanity must go along with some random Substack essay in order to conclude that "we" are now right-thinking and properly cognizant of all of the factors that drive "us." Especially when there seems to be no allowance made for different cultures or circumstances.