Similarly, I think it’s quite feasible to outperform (in rationality) most of the top-performing physicists. I’m not sure that I have reached that level yet, but I think I certainly could.
Definitely. Scientists in general and physicists in particular are probably no better than other professionals in instrumental rationality outside of their area of expertise, not sure about epistemic rationality. The “top-performing physicists” (what a strange name, physicists are not athletes), whoever they are, are probably not very much better, as you mention. I have seen some of them committing a number of standard cognitive fallacies.
In fact, I personally think that you are way more rational than many famous physicists, since you took pains to improve your rationality skills and became an expert in the area, and they did not.
However, what you have no hope of is to competently judge their results and beliefs about physics, except by relying on the opinions of other physicists and deciding whom to trust how much in case of a disagreement. But I guess we are in agreement here.
Definitely. Scientists in general and physicists in particular are probably no better than other professionals in instrumental rationality outside of their area of expertise, not sure about epistemic rationality. The “top-performing physicists” (what a strange name, physicists are not athletes), whoever they are, are probably not very much better, as you mention. I have seen some of them committing a number of standard cognitive fallacies.
In fact, I personally think that you are way more rational than many famous physicists, since you took pains to improve your rationality skills and became an expert in the area, and they did not.
However, what you have no hope of is to competently judge their results and beliefs about physics, except by relying on the opinions of other physicists and deciding whom to trust how much in case of a disagreement. But I guess we are in agreement here.