Hey, I just saw this post. I like it. The coin example is a good way to lead in, and the non-quant teacher example is helpful too. But here’s a quibble:
If we follow Bayes’ Theorem, then nothing is just true. Thing are instead only probable because they are backed up by evidence.
The map is not the territory; things are still true or false. Bayes’ theorem doesn’t say anything about the nature of truth itself; whatever your theory of truth, that should not be affected by the acknowledgement of Bayes’ theorem. Rather, it’s our beliefs (or at least the beliefs of an ideal Bayesian agent) that are on a spectrum of confidence.
Useful distinction: “rationalist” vs. “rational person.” By the former I mean someone who deliberately strives to be the latter. By the latter I mean someone who wins systematically in their life.
It’s possible that rationalists tend to be geeks, especially if the most heavily promoted methods for deliberately improving rationality are mathy things like explicit Bayesian reasoning, or if most of the material advocating rationality is heavily dependent on tech metaphors.
Rational people need not fit the stereotypes you’ve listed. Most people I know who seem to be good at living have excellent social skills and are physically fit. Some well-known rationalists, or fellow travelers, also do not fit. An example is Tim Ferriss.