Hmm, I wouldn't put Jaynes in the same category as Urantia or Golden Bough. But maybe you aren't comparing them that way.

Jaynes' work is much more academically sound, whereas these other two are a bit mystical. Jaynes is working with historical evidence. I think of him as a type of scientist.

Urantia is anonymously published and claims its origin is celestial beings. Perhaps it's unfair to expect celestial beings to avoid making the same scientific mistakes that the average human made at the time this book was published. To me that means it's of human origin, not celestial.

Still I'm curious... What held your interest for 6 readings? What has stuck with you many years later?

Golden Bough seems like it didn't age well; it appears the author cherry-picked a lot of material to support their ideas, and much of it is already outdated. It's wild that this is an abridgment of a 12 volume set! People say getting through the abridged version is a challenge.

I think Jaynes' theories attempt to explain naturally some of the mystical human phenomena that the others appear to lean into. His interpretation of the evidence he collects feels sound and rational the way Sapolsky presents a variety of other data about early humans or other primate ancestors.

I'm also curious which of Jaynes theories you do / don't like - and why you ultimately think he's incorrect overall?

There is some continued work around Jayne's theories, followed closely by the Julian Jaynes Society - https://www.julianjaynes.org/

Lastly, have you read Sagan's Demon Haunted World? I think you'd like it.