Nothing in Dan Luu’s writing is ever ambiguous. Quite the opposite.

He just writes in the same voice for both researched facts/studies and personal anecdotes. But it’s always very clear which is which, and an informed reader should (IMO) not have a problem differentiating.

The commenter you’re replying to is objecting to unnecessary couching and cloaking of opinion/anecdote. And I think there’s very, very little of that in Dan Luu’s writing — and it comes off as a “matter-of-fact tone.”