> My understanding was that that words are typically ordered differently in other languages, is that true? That would seem to disprove the idea that "all brains work this way" (although it may be how the brains of native english speakers work).
Well, first, the quoted extract is referring to the subject of the sentence as "the object", which is a terrible mistake to make - the claim is incomprehensible unless you pay attention to what should be a superfluous example. It is very common for languages to put objects before verbs by default, but not in English.
Most potential word orders are attested in some language or other. Creoles (new languages that don't develop from ancestors) are usually subject-verb-object, which is evidence that supports the idea that that word ordering is more natural. Creoles can develop that word ordering even when no language in the local environment uses it.
As further support for SVO order being "more natural", you can also observe that it seems to have spontaneously developed in the major trade languages. Latin was SOV; French, Spanish, and Italian are SVO. Most Chinese languages are SOV today, but Mandarin is SVO. (So is Cantonese. Old English, unfortunately for this line of thought, seems to have already been SVO by the time it's documented.)
All languages feature ways to rearrange the words in a sentence.[1] The reason it's an option in English to say "the ball was hit by the boy" is that you might be talking about the ball. A text written entirely in the active voice is going to end up being much harder to understand than a natural text, specifically because using that style will prevent you from organizing your ideas correctly. The call to "learn how brains organize ideas" is misguided puffery.
[1] Active/passive is kind of an impoverished way to do this, though English does also support topic fronting. In Mandarin there's a three-way syntactic split between SVO ("active"), O被SV ("passive"), and S把OV (with 把 being a "preposition marking the direct object").