The OP asked about benefits from rationality. You gave something that looks like a negative effect. And mention that this is the only thing you get. Hence you seem to experience a net loss by being rational over not being.
You know that rationality is not just about being right. It is also about achieving the things you set out to do. Winning and such. If You do not win, something is wrong.
I don’t see that as a net negative. There may be a lot of people who are “rational”, and possibly those who are already “winning”. Knowing how to communicate with them is indeed a net plus, since this gives you an exclusive network other people won’t have (letting you “win” as well).
I recommend you re:read the original posting and the other comments. There seems to be a difference in how you interpret the question and everyone else.
I only expect that my communication with others will be easier—if and when they will be more rational.
Nothing else.
That sounds like a net negative.
I don’t see this reply as a rational one.
The OP asked about benefits from rationality. You gave something that looks like a negative effect. And mention that this is the only thing you get. Hence you seem to experience a net loss by being rational over not being.
You know that rationality is not just about being right. It is also about achieving the things you set out to do. Winning and such. If You do not win, something is wrong.
I don’t see that as a net negative. There may be a lot of people who are “rational”, and possibly those who are already “winning”. Knowing how to communicate with them is indeed a net plus, since this gives you an exclusive network other people won’t have (letting you “win” as well).
Internal rationality I take as granted. But any cooperation with not so rational people is more difficult than with those (much) more rational.
The rationality increases the communication bandwidth.
What else do you expect—except a better information exchange with others if the rationality goes up with time?
What else?
I recommend you re:read the original posting and the other comments. There seems to be a difference in how you interpret the question and everyone else.
Seeing the thing. just as everybody else, or at least as the local majority? How do you call it? The confirmation bias?