Philosophically I partly agree with what he said. it is inspiring and thoughtful and not totally baseless. But scientifically, I think I need more proof supporting that theory. Modern science is based on experiment and careful deduction, which I have learnt neither about it. But I doubt the theory has them, for the psychology with only less than a century years old has too little time to fully build itself. It's not that I'm saying what psychology says right now are nonsense, yet psychology lacks the reliability and credibility for you to treat it as fact, comparing with other subjects like physic and science. For example, chemist are always joked by physicist as alchemist as well as chemistry as non-science. It's very embarrassed to admit but not purely joking because you can hardy find one theory having both theoretical supports and extensive application to all evidence in chemistry. The attitude towards a lot of thesis is that as long as it's applicable in industry and laboratory, no one will and can proof its correctness until more evident comes, and the result of it is too many thesis are unrepeatable thus actually useless. It is same for psychology, only much worse since psychology is much more complicated and much harder to conducting creditable experiment. It's not kidding that most of the psychology thesis in hing-ranked journals are unrepeatable, so my recommendation is just to take them as thoughtful advice but put too much faith in them, or you may want to learn and proof yourself.
