[_yb2s]

As a long time reader, I don't feel like he asserts things from a tone of authority, but usually makes self contained well reasoned arguments, and cites his sources.

He is a practicing clinical psychiatrist, and also knows a lot about AI, but I find him to be hilariously naive and almost always wrong when he talks about relationships, sex, or social dynamics- almost like an alien trying to understand humans with no firsthand experience.

Overall, I would also say he is an extremely intelligent person, which probably means his ideas are more likely to be correct, but also that he 'overpowers' readers into believing his perspective. Even when wrong, his arguments have an unusual amount of complexity and nuance, and an unusual amount of time and effort spent reasoning and arguing them, which is likely to compel readers to blindly accept them.

[ausbah]

your comment seems like a very good summary of the rationalist / lesswrong / effective altruist crowd in general