I don't think they, or the author, are so far down the rabbit hole as to imply anything like that. What they are implying is more rational, but still, in my opinion, is wrong.
Well said! We agree then. Rudimentary vs Advanced decision making in a rigged test where rudimentary happens to work better, doesn't really mean anything.
We are, as they say, in violent agreement as to our interpretation of the article. You, however, still maintain there is value in this emotional information, because a rigged test indicates there is, when as a species we've done really well by painfully learning to minimize emotional information in our decision making activities.
Now, let me throw you a bone. There are definitely cases where it's good to know our body and it's responses, so that we make better decisions. Absolutely! Thousands of them. Knowing this is vital, if you're a day trader in stocks. It's also pretty important when you're making a sale, or being sold to. There are tons of times, when the knowledge that you are being influenced by your cortex will help you.
But that's exactly the reverse situation. "Bodily Awareness" allows you to ignore your body's panic so you can make better decisions. The article implies that you should "tune in" to your body, and listen to it. This just isn't true. The instinctive "fight or flight" responses of the body are important, of course. They get us out of jams that our conscious mind is too slow to logic it's way out of.
But if you actually have time to think "I wonder what my body's opinion of this is?", than you are in a situation where your body is much more likely to be wrong than you are.