It just seemed more like another article rooted in experience and not evidence.
The way they phrase the self isn’t what is used in psychology and there doesn’t seem to be data to back it. My psychology professor mentioned how twins can be genetically similar but have completely different interests, which is indicative of a “self”. It’s not a mask, and while feelings and thoughts rise and fall they do provide us with information and they also recur when presented again.
I know the counter they have is that this is only in relation to other things and that without them there would be no reaction, but I don’t find that convincing anymore. After all, something did respond to that stimulus in a way different from someone else, so it is inherent to an extent. Also we don’t exist without relation to anything else, which I get is their main point but that doesn’t mean there is no “self” and in some cases the whole is distinct and in some cases separate from it’s parts.
I guess I’m saying that their definition of things isn’t how we use it today.