Those make sense to me. Like all maxims, they're overcompressed; they imply a context that the reader has to be able to fill in. But I think they're useful in context.

E.g., the phrase "It is what it is" is on the surface tautological and useless. But in context, it's a valuable reminder about coping with some of the flaws in human consciousness.

They "make sense", but they aren't really true. They are not such much "overcompressed" as subject to whatever interpretation makes them sensible, but as such, they are dependent more on the good sense of the person unpacking them than on their inherent virtue.

So, for example, the "Rule of 7" is a ludicrous exaggeration (by the time you actually go through a chain of 7 people you're talking to a random stranger and weeks have passed), but someone who had done some research might mentally fix this to a rule of 3 (which would be a pretty reasonable thing). However, a maxim that's on the face of it pretty dumb until you fix it up is Not Good.

Similarly, the one about "pros" vs "amateurs" is Just Plain Made Up - it's easy to conjure up situations where it seems clever, but in general it doesn't make a lick of sense.

I suppose I'm perennially annoyed - one might even say "triggered" - by these kind of wildly variable mixes of folksy wisdom, mild common sense and Just Plain Opinion. No-one has any business mixing fairly reasonable ideas about how to find a missing object or get a cable while traveling with Deep Wisdom About How To Live Your Life; the net effect is to anesthetize our critical facilities through sheer volume.

Putting your advice as to what constitutes a meaningful life on the same level as advice on how not to get into credit card debt is a serious category error; at worst it's banal, at best it's a way of smuggling a bunch of unexamined values in as universals.

I am fascinated that you are sure you know more about journalistic research than Wired's founding executive editor, a guy who has written a half-dozen successful books.

But I think we get a little closer to the truth about what's going on when you admit that you just really don't like this kind of thing. Which is fine! Nothing's for everybody. But your problem here isn't the article, it's your expectations. Reading this, all I expect is what it's clearly signaled as: things he in his life has found to be true. Personal insights, not carefully researched scientific fact. The opening paragraph makes it clear what he's up to.

That you take your irritation with something not being what you want and universalize it into Evil Mistruth Worth of Death is exactly the same sort of value-smuggling that you're complaining about.

You have a point about "journalistic research" (very likely what he means by "research" for obvious reasons) - I am applying my value-smuggling and reading "research" (which is all it said) as either academic or "post-academic" (i.e. the sort of research you might do as a working practitioner with a PhD). A generalist writing for Wired might well be more reasonably expected to take 7 steps (give or take) than someone already practicing in an area.

That being said, you're histrionically exaggerating for no apparent reason. When did I call these "evil" or call for the death of the promulgator? I have never wished death on anyone from Wired, not even for those responsible for the very worst color schemes in the earliest days.

I think it's reasonable to read my response at the same level: "OK, so here are some things you found to be true? Well, fine, here are some things you wrote that I find to be a load of bollocks".

What exactly do you think happened to Polonius?

They make a lot of sense, they’re just not necessarily literally true.