I did start reading the QM sequence, but then realized I wasn't getting anywhere and stopped. I don't think knowing QM is useful for philosophy or rationality, except as an example of how science works, so I'm not sure why there is a sequence on it. I figured that if I actually wanted to understand I'd be better off working through physics books. My impression is that the physics community thinks it is well written for but not somewhat misleading. I'm not sure which cryo-writings you are referring to - all the ones I have come across are opinion pieces about why one aught to do cryonics. I haven't come across any pieces referring to facts....but biology contains my own domain and i trust my own opinion more anyway. You are correct that none of those reasons are good reasons to respect Eliezer Y.

This discussion essentially seems to be "boo vs yay" for Eliezer Y. Let me explain why I really respect Eliezer Y:

What I did read is his work on logic and epistemology. It was the first time I've read an author who happened to agree with me on almost all major points about logic, epistemology, and ontology. (Re: almost: We may or may not diverge ontologically on subjective experience / the hard problem of consciousness / what makes reality real- I'm not sure. I'm confident that I am not confused. He's written some things that sound like he knows, and other things that sound like he's making the classic mistakes, so I'm uncertain as to his actual views. Also, decision theory. But that's it.). Granted, it's not uncommon for other people on Lesswrong to be equally philosophically correct, but Eliezer Y. was the gathering point that brought all these correct people together. Some of them might even have become less philosophically wrong as a result of being here. That counts for something, in my book.

He expressed insights identical to the ones that I had in younger years, and often in more articulate terms than I could have. He compressed complex insights into snappy phrases that allow me to have a much higher information density and much shorter inferential distance when communicating with other Lesswrongers. Creating a community where everyone understands phrases like "notice confusion", "2-place word", etc...save entire paragraphs of communication. Having these concepts condensed into smaller verbal labels also helps with thinking. It doesn't matter that many others have thought of it before - the presentation of the ideas is the impressive part.

When someone independently converges with me on many seemingly unrelated topics for which most people do not converge on, I begin to trust their judgement. I begin to take their opinion as evidence that I would have the same opinion, were I presented with the same evidence that they have. When that same person introduces me to cool concepts I haven't considered and plays a key role in founding a community of people who have all independently converged on my philosophical insights, putting even greater weight on their opinions is the natural and correct reaction.

This really isn't hero worship or an affective death spirals - I could write this paragraph about a lot of other people. It's a measured reaction to seeing someone do impressive things, firsthand. I could say many of the exact same things about philosophical convergence combined with showing me lots of cool new things about many other people I know on the internet, many other people on Lesswrong forums, and at least one person I know in real life. I'm just give respect where it is due. If we broaden from the bolded text to other domains of life, there are multiple people IRL who I respect in a similar way.

But an external observer has no way of assessing your expertise other than looking at objective signals. Objective signals don't necessarily have to be degrees or PhDs. Relevant work experience or a record of peer reviewed publications would also qualify.

In addition to those things, I also consider a history of conversations or a reading of someone's writing as evidence. Granted, this might get me people who just sound verbally impressive...but I think I've got enough filters that a person has to sound impressive and be impressive in order to pass this way.

And by that metric, from the outside view E.Y. (and quite a few other people on Lesswrong) have put out more signals than I have.

This is the only one obviously correct soultion to the problem, and everybody who thinks otherwise is an idiot" while in fact he often ignores or strawmans known opposing positions and counter-arguments

Yeah, the words can be rougher than optimal. I can see where you are coming from. I think that because smart people are accustomed to other people making mistakes more frequently than themselves, a lot of smart people have the bad habit of acting dismissive towards others. Occasionally, you might dismiss someone for being wrong when, this time, they are actually right and it is you who is wrong. It's a bad habit not just because it is socially costly but also because it can prevent you from changing your opinion when you are mistaken.