I used to have the idea that finding flaws in something (a piece of writing or entertainment or an idea or a person) made me better than the person or the creator of the thing I was criticizing. Then I realized two things which got me to stop: 1) Critics are parasites; they don't generally produce anything that valuable and entertaining themselves, and even beautifully written reviews are pretty low on my list of things to read for edification or fun. 2) When I go around finding flaws in everything, I stop enjoying it, and living a life where I can't enjoy anything I read or hear or see is not pleasant.

So now my strategy is to like things and people I'm inclined to like, but remain confident in my so-far-unfailing ability to find fault with them if I decide I need or want to do that. Being accused of slavish devotion to something is one of the things that can make me want to turn critic-mode back on, even though that only winds up proving a lack of slavish devotion after the fact (since I will tend not to notice the sorts of flaws I point out in critic-mode until I actually turn on critic-mode).

All of that having been said, Paul Graham is awesome, so is Eliezer, and GEB is overrated (either that or it was ruined for me when I took a class on it with non-philosophers teaching it; I do have a history of hating anything I'm obliged to read for school).