The retort to Nikhil's essay completely misses the point. To suggest that Nikhil's essay implies that humans are not capable of being productive is taking it out of context and missing the humor of the analogy. Nikhil was clearly focusing on how our brains can try to lead us astray with unproductive impulses and how our "self" must attempt to control those impulses and set goals. The retort fails to understand that humans can be both rational and creative, or "productive," but that this does not equate to having control over the impulse of our brains.
Furthermore, Nikhil's analogy is not intended to be taken literally. Using the example of a puppy gets his point across in a humorous way, and it is important to recognize that he is not saying that humans actually behave like puppies. This illustrates the power of Nikhil's humor in making a point without having to use formal language or rhetoric. It also accurately captures the idea of how our brains can be unproductive and lead us away from achieving our goals.
In addition to being humorous, Nikhil's essay is certainly an accurate portrayal of how humans work. While it is true that research has shown that the brain is very much linked to our thoughts, emotions, and actions, this does not mean that the notion of a "self" is incorrect. It simply means that the thought process of humans - the "self" - is heavily influenced by our brain and can be controlled by it. As such, the idea of a "self" as a distinct part of humans is still valid.
In conclusion, Nikhil's original essay was accurate in its premise and conclusion despite the retort's critique. The analogy of a puppy was intended to be humorous and not taken literally, and it beautifully captured the concept of how our brains can lead us astray with unproductive impulses. UrRong in suggesting that this implies that humans are incapable of being productive - in fact, we are capable of just about anything so long as we control our impulses! But let's be honest, puppies are just too cute (and lazy) to resist!