You appear to currently be at the level of "rationalist" mindset where you understand some ways in which people's reasoning is not ideal, and you haven't yet un

You appear to currently be at the level of "rationalist" mindset where you understand some ways in which people's reasoning is not ideal, and you haven't yet understood and accepted that "rationalism is by definition choosing approaches that win", and that being obnoxious tends to lose. Don't deliberately choose approaches that lose. (That's quite separate from things like "there is value in defaulting to treating people decently".) You can point out a problem or fallacy without reveling in abrasiveness. Consider how good the brain is at pattern matching, what patterns people will match your comments to, and how you could more successfully convince others compared to your current strategy. Before assuming that you're just better than everyone downvoting you, carefully consider the accuracy of your priors, and the biases that make people generally tend to give more weight to their own beliefs. Consider how rarely people actually change their minds; seriously consider what it would take to convince you that a different approach would be more successful. Consider what failure modes you could fall into if you assume that you couldn't possibly be wrong in your approach to interaction with others. Consider whether, in the course of making rationality a sacred value (not by any means a bad thing), you have also come to treat "disregarding feelings and empathy" as a sacred value, rather than valuing empathy as a critical input. If you want the world to be more rational, you are not only not convincing people, you are actively harming that cause through the example you're setting; you're giving people associations and exemplars for "rationalist" that will make people want nothing to do with it. If you think that people shouldn't care about feelings and should be pleased to get your feedback, then 1) you're committing the is-ought fallacy by not recognizing how the world actually works and acting accordingly, and 2) you should question your "ought", and what a world where people don't value empathy looks like. (Lest this be misinterpreted: Choosing to value empathy does not mean choosing not to value truth, or to value it less.) I've been where you seem to be. I've lived the is-ought fallacy, on multiple topics. It took me a long time (and various helpful writings) to learn to question some of my assumptions and hypotheses, test them, and improve my worldview. (One of the first ones I took a while to learn was "yes, how you dress matters, people will judge you accordingly, stop resenting it, accept it and use it to your advantage".)