I both agree with the point that the artificial dichotomy has its potential downsides as well as the point about the Western meditation world being pretty hyper-psychologized, and walking that line and knowing when to step to which side is clearly part of the art of the practice.

I hope that article is part of a much deeper discussion that investigates both points of view.

Clearly, the Buddha advocated for mental health, the removal of distracting thoughts, in cultivating skillful mind-states, in investigating the causes of both skillful and unskillful thoughts, mental patterns, and actions to come up with something much better and to craft a mind and life that was to be praised by the wise and that reduces suffering. His frameworks were in some ways very different from those of Western psychology, but the emphasis clearly is there.

Simultaneously, there is clearly the point of view that one simply observe and investigate what arises, be it skillful, not skillful, neutral, or otherwise, as demonstrated in the Greater Discourse on Mindfulness, as well as suttas such as One by One as They Occurred, and numerous other places.

Clearly, the trick is to have both options and learn when to apply both of these skillful options, with there likely being more disagreement about when to apply each than whether or not either is as good idea, as both clearly are.

I was heartened by the article despite its flaws, as I think that conversation in the McBuddhist world is long overdue. May it spark skillful debate and promote good outcomes.