Very first sentence of the article.
God do I hate this style. Do we always need to start with your own, personal, true-to-you, totally-happened experience this one time?
Is it a new thing or it's always been like that and I didn't realize it?
And maybe the article eventually uses data that goes beyond "my 2 weeks visiting my dad", but then why do I need this idiotic intro? Is it supposed to build some sort of credibility, like "I was there, I saw it, I experienced it, now you have to agree with me"?
Anyway, no I didn't keep reading.
Anecdotes aren't bad if they lead into something more substantive. E.g., "My experience with my kids in Greece got me interested in [concept], and here is the data that I collected; my conclusion is that..."
But no, it's usually like: Check out this experience I had or quirky thing I do. Now let's talk about something tangentially related.
It's really a need to vent being displayed most prominently. Maybe covid/social media/WFM/inflation/whatever you want to blame has made people lonely to the point of trying to add water cooler talk into their publications.
but often it tells you how little time they have spent actually engaged with the real truth of the place or places they are about to compare the problems of wherever they live, instead of the idealistic view of someone who was visiting family or being a tourist … it is a shortcut to that emotional connection to the reader, but taking that can sometimes leave the writer clearly marked as not actually having any grounds upon which the rest of their arguments can stand…
This however doesn’t appear to suffer from that. It seems quite well considered.