Get Better

Sure, here’s three points, even though there’s many more (I can’t be bothered to type them all out):

• His so-called “Paradox of Abundance” claims that most people are hurt by having too much information available, with no evidence to support his claim. However as a hard counter example, more internet usage (eg. access to the largest abundance of information in the world) is strongly linked to higher academic performance.
• The “Paradox of Creativity” is a lovely thought but simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny in a general sense. Some things do indeed become simpler as they are refined, while others do not. For example, very few would look at the Sistine Chapel and think “oh, I could have painted that.”
• His “Paradox of Consensus” is spectacularly stupid, because it implies that if everybody agrees, they are likely wrong. I think it’s reasonable to say that we all agree murder is morally wrong, but we shouldn’t take that as a sign that there’s something wrong with our moral system. (Moreover, using ancient Judean law as a basis for your theory is silly.)

This whole thing sounds like it was cooked up by some LinkedIn startup blogger who wanted to sound deep. Very little of this advice is generally applicable.

Also be aware that the tactic being used here (framing every step as if it’s a paradox) is a literary device intended to make the content sound more legitimate. This is related to the rhyme-as-reason effect, where someone is more likely to believe something if it rhymes.