Sides aside (heh), arguing that personally experiencing something means that it is reasonable to claim a wider-than-you trend is utter insanity. And that's exactly what this post spends 5,680 words arguing for.

Misunderstanding of data is a big problem. That's not a problem with relying on data. That's a problem with widespread innumeracy. Pretending like you're some kind of universal subject to whom all things happen and all thoughts occur is really not the solution. Your eyes may not be lying, but you are still a very small fish in a very big pond, and your own personal experience is less than epsilon against the world at large.

There is a positionally valid form of knowing from experience of a thing happening: "I have seen a thing happen therefore the thing happens sometimes."

And there is an extremely invalid form, which is the form that the post defends and holds dear: 'When you generalize about “how people are likely to treat a stranger in need” or “how should one live to be happy” based on examples from your own life.'

The problem words there are "generalize", "likely", and "should".

There's a phrase for this ilk of anti-logic: the False Consensus Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

It's a known cognitive bias, not something to lean into.

But if you want something shorter than a three word phrase, there's also a single word for it: egocentrism. It's bad. Let's please not uphold it as our guiding standard.