Nonetheless, if you take a look at his actual ideas, there's still a few glaring problems with them:
https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... l-of-Otaku
Miyazaki approaches animation by observing others. In the interview, as Miyazaki sketches, he explains he's able to create art because he spends time watching others.
How could one even prove that?
Firstly, unless said experiences are on tape, or are otherwise held to a lot of scrutiny, we cannot prove the truthfulness of someone else's claimed life experiences, let alone the claim to incorporate them into one's movies. I know it seems uncomfortable to always have to consider the possibility that someone who provides us such entertainment could also be lying to us, but other people involved in entertainment have lied through entertainment to a far greater number of people. Not that I would consider Titanic as wholesome a form of entertainment as Studio Ghibli movies, but we can't afford to conflate catering to consumer demand for wholesome entertainment with honesty.
Secondly, the people he "watches" in real life might differ from the people anime viewers "watch" in real life. Countries differ. Towns differ. Circumstances in which one encounters people to "watch" differ. Hell, interpretations of what one sees when "watching" people also may differ. Whatever real-life observations he claims inspired his shows, they may or may not come across that way to his viewers who've come to different conclusions.
Thirdly, people believe; or at least claim to believe; things that are often at odds with their personal experiences. How often have you seen the same online profiles touting one's fondness for GTA or Mortal Kombat fearmonger about the effects of violent media on other people? How often have you seen people put immense amounts of effort into content posted, for free, that argues that the profit motive is the only thing that can drive hard work? They can't prove they mean it... but in light of the above, that point is moot.
Last but not least, on the aformentioned Titanic example, there really are two main categories of ways to interpret its success, especially compared to other "non-fantasy" movies. The first is that moviegoers aren't really discerning on the "realism" of movies, even when they're spreading easily-debunked falsehoods... in which case, why expect moviegoers to be that much more discerning on the honesty of fantasy metaphors for real life? The second is that they never really wanted realism in the first place... in which case, why expect moviegoers to care how honest said fantasy metaphors are?