Well if you’re still here to read my response, he believes really strongly that a strong sense of individual responsibility and personal freedom (as in liberty)

Well if you’re still here to read my response, he believes really strongly that a strong sense of individual responsibility and personal freedom (as in liberty) is the only path to happiness. I live in a kind of a commune and I’ve never been happier, so I know that this is false first-hand, and it shows that he’s using his science to promote his political agenda. This is fine, but he really plays off his ideas as fundamental truths instead of opinions. It isn’t any single thing he says but kind of the underlying ideology of his writing and speech. He says bad things about the right wing but the. mostly says it’s due to personality differences. Right wing people are less open, more conscientious, etc. But when he says something bad about left wing thinking it isn’t due to personality but a giant moral failing and disaster of democracy. It’s kind of like attribution error but applied to political thinking. I can’t rally point to any one thing but if you listen to his lectures on personality you’ll get what I’m talking about. He really does have so much worthwhile to say about ontology and social interaction that I think he’s worth it, he just shouldn’t be anyone’s guru.