Of course analyzing arguments logically is a valuable skill, but here's the thing: the educational preparation for fields where rational thinking is most valua

Of course analyzing arguments logically is a valuable skill, but here's the thing: the educational preparation for fields where rational thinking is most valuable is already chock full of opportunities to practice and refine rational thinking. After years of practice, what further marginal gains can be made by further analysis and study of the skill itself? Isn't it overwhelmingly likely that a person with that background has other, more pressing weaknesses they can work on to promote their success? Unfortunately, the people who gravitate towards rationalism tend to be people who are already good at it and naturally oriented towards it, people who are more likely to lack the skill of turning it off. When somebody makes an argument to you, you want to think along with them, try to inhabit their head temporarily. You'll learn things about them that allow you to work productively with them and even understand the factual content of their speech better. If you're diagnosing the logical structure of their irrationality while they speak, it's going to knock you out of their headspace, like spotting plot holes in a movie takes you out of the film. You've spotted something invalidating, and now you have to wrestle your brain back into paying attention. I would wager that the best movie critics aren't generally elite at spotting continuity errors. Learning to turn critical distance on and off, and to direct it where you need it to go (focusing on emotional dynamics, for instance, instead of logical structure,) is probably the skill that many people attracted to rationalism really need, but by doubling down on rationalism they're making it even more automatic. That aside, I think the fundamental question of the article is bizarre. Where are the successful "sprinters" in professional football? Speed is a critical factor for wide receivers and defensive backs, and they train for it, but they don't go around calling themselves sprinters or talking about sprint training in their press conferences. Speed is a skill and a quality for them, not an identity. Self-identifying as a "sprinter" would be counterproductive for a defensive back, because it takes one element of success and elevates it above the others instead of balancing it against them. It only makes sense if being a sprinter is more important to them than being successful as a defensive back, and you wouldn't imagine a person with that order of priorities to achieve elite success as a defensive back. As a skill and a quality, rather than an identity, rationalism might be common at the top of every field; who knows. That's a more interesting question at least.