No, because failing to ignore the history of the person telling you something and their motivations is how you get slippery slope logic that leads to things like using Eugenics to validate killing people who are poor or mentally ill.
I generally am not concerned with who said what but whole "wind-up" of OP kind of hinged on this "1-7-8" conceit and Steve Pavlina as the authority documenting it.
The truth of a statement can be determined by two things:
1. If the person is an authority or expert on the topic being discussed. In this case, the person has credibility and it is smart to give them a level of trust.
2. If the person is providing a reference to some objective, public evidence that can be independently evaluated to determine if the statements are valuable.
The post in question did not provide either #1 or #2.
Steve Pavlina is popular because he's a good writer, not because his ideas are supported by evidence or because he has credibility or legitimate authority.
With the general public, all it takes to be influential is good writing. e.g. Jesus Christ is popular.
Hacker News should aim for a higher level of discourse: discourse based on verifiable facts, or based on credible authority. Not sophistry by well-spoken demagogues.
