I think “rationalists should win” is one of those snippets that is picked for its catchiness—it embodies a kernel of truth, but simplifies it and smooths it over much, to the point that perhaps it becomes counterproductive. The kernel of truth is of course “having a systematic way of grounding your knowledge in the real world gives you an advantage in pursuing any goal compared to people who don’t do the same”. This is more of a general on-average statement. For example, you might still lose to people pursuing different goals that are just easier. Or you might lose to people who are not acting rationally, but just happen to have very good heuristics for that specific goal (this is actually IMO a common thing with politicians—they often have a very good instinctive feel for the problem of getting people to like and support them, then they’re absolutely terrible at anything involving object-level problems because their only mental toolset is the one that deals with people).
So yeah, honestly, I think in the end it does more harm than good. It sounds like a badass boast, which already makes you sound arrogant and loses you some points in some people’s eyes; but nothing worse than a badass boast on which you can’t even consistently deliver. And adding all the required caveats would make it not sound sufficiently laconic any more, so honestly, maybe it’s better to drop the snappy motto altogether.
I think “rationalists should win” is one of those snippets that is picked for its catchiness—it embodies a kernel of truth, but simplifies it and smooths it over much, to the point that perhaps it becomes counterproductive. The kernel of truth is of course “having a systematic way of grounding your knowledge in the real world gives you an advantage in pursuing any goal compared to people who don’t do the same”. This is more of a general on-average statement. For example, you might still lose to people pursuing different goals that are just easier. Or you might lose to people who are not acting rationally, but just happen to have very good heuristics for that specific goal (this is actually IMO a common thing with politicians—they often have a very good instinctive feel for the problem of getting people to like and support them, then they’re absolutely terrible at anything involving object-level problems because their only mental toolset is the one that deals with people).
So yeah, honestly, I think in the end it does more harm than good. It sounds like a badass boast, which already makes you sound arrogant and loses you some points in some people’s eyes; but nothing worse than a badass boast on which you can’t even consistently deliver. And adding all the required caveats would make it not sound sufficiently laconic any more, so honestly, maybe it’s better to drop the snappy motto altogether.
Proposing a softer version:
Rationalists should not suck (compared to average population) at the things they strongly care about.
Yeah, somewhat less inspiring.
parades around with Game of Thrones-like heraldry crest
“WE DO NOT SUCK”