The premise of the article is a bit more simple: things we can imagine more clearly, have more meaning to us.
It's very simply articulated using concept of 'describing' vs. 'seeing' vs. 'doing'.
It's hard for us to empathize with soldiers fighting wars, or refugees fleeing them - but when someone shows us pictures, or better yet, tells us their authentic story, it becomes visceral, and therefore we give legitimacy to the situation.
Indeed, that was a strange diatribe that seems to go way beyond the content of the article (which does flirt with some neurobabble and dubious philosophy here and there, I opine, but I see nothing that would merit the terror-laden response of the OP). If we focus on the central claim concerning imagination and discard the rest, we can still have an interesting discussion. Worth mentioning is John Henry Newman's "A Grammar of Assent"[0] which begins precisely with a discussion of what he called notional and real assent which relate how we assent to propositions with what you might call the associated "vividness" of experience.
It's very simply articulated using concept of 'describing' vs. 'seeing' vs. 'doing'.
It's hard for us to empathize with soldiers fighting wars, or refugees fleeing them - but when someone shows us pictures, or better yet, tells us their authentic story, it becomes visceral, and therefore we give legitimacy to the situation.