I think the linked article is completely the wrong way to respond to pessimism. It's also a rather naive approach, reminiscent of daytime-TV self-help stuff, or perhaps certain libertarian novelists. The correct response to pessimism is not to promote delusional, unscientific "magical thinking" that fantasizes about how any individual can accomplish whatever they want with enough grit and determination etc etc, riddled with survivorship bias and lack of critical reflection.
If a certain statistical interpretation is simplistic and naive, the response I'd like to see is a more sophisticated but still evidence-based interpretation. I don't think that "I'm a unique snowflake and I don't need evidence or science because of GRIT" is a good substitute.
Most of life is lived beyond where scientific evidence applies. The studies dry up, and what you have left is determination fueled by passion and commitment. Everyone is sitting around with the same feeble facts (e.g. percentage of companies in the US that fail annually, divorce rates, etc.), and if you are met with thinly-supported pessimism about your personal endeavor that you care about, you have to be prepared to supply thinly-supported optimism.
When life gets real, there is no comfort in figures. Real (and wonderful) commitments such as marriage and a challenging work environment have taught me that. And the more you excel, the more unusual you become and the more statistics will predict your failure.
If a certain statistical interpretation is simplistic and naive, the response I'd like to see is a more sophisticated but still evidence-based interpretation. I don't think that "I'm a unique snowflake and I don't need evidence or science because of GRIT" is a good substitute.