This is a fascinating and dangerous account of systematic errors in how we raise children. Lies are damaging because they make truth harder to find -- the opposite of a lie is almost never the truth. But, once revealed as lies (a key problem), they are highly informative about the state of mind of the liar.

What the essay suggests in various ways in describing how we lie to children is that we are afraid of conflict. The world is full of conflict and violence though we wish it were not. But we can wish it away for our children for a short while.

Which leads, I think, to the underlying reason for Paul's discomfort with these lies. The way to resolve conflict is to engage with it in a highly choreographed way. There aren't many, but there are some ways that society has devised for dealing with conflict in non-violent ways. The constitution of the U.S. of A. is an example. Litigation and contract law are others.

Unreflective lying is thus counter-productive to a long-term goal of raising children that have the right combination of courage and humility that is necessary to repeatedly engage in conflict without resorting to violence.

A few other thoughts on specific passages:

"Very smart adults often seem unusually innocent, and I don't think this is a coincidence. I think they've deliberately avoided learning about certain things."

The thing that "very smart adults" have in common may not be selective ignorance, but rather strong skepticism. They haven't "learned" because they remain skeptical long after the rest of the world is satisfied with the lies they've been told.

"You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational, and believing things that are true."

The way I understand what you're getting at here is through the distinction between a public good and a natural monopoly. Some people naively assume that all public goods have the natural monopoly characteristic of declining average total costs of production. This is not true. Natural monopolies occupy a middle point in the temporal-spatial spectrum. At the low end, we have black markets that operate in small geographical regions for short periods of time until legal firms can enter. A black market may have a natural monopoly, but it is not a public good. At the other end of the spectrum, we have religion and political ideology, which are neither non-rivalrous nor non-excludable, and yet may have natural monopoly characteristics in how their doctrine are established and disseminated. The bizarre payload can be explained by the leverage these natural monopolies have over their followers. Incidentally, I am a Christian, and believe that learning and practicing Christian doctrine would be of benefit to everybody. But I am acutely aware of the bizarre payload that the church as an institution has accrued over many years. That bizarre payload is a problem for people like me to try and fix, not a reason not to adopt and practice Christianity.

In the end, I connected with this essay because I find the author engaged in what I consider to be one of the more difficult and important human endeavors: becoming free. Freedom cannot be had by force. It grows up in the detritus of shattered false beliefs about self and others. Its growth is fostered by the sun of social acknowledgment, but can wither under the same sun when not also watered down and washed off by humble listening and a habit of self-criticism.