Out of curiosity, why do you think being as rational as you possibly can is a goal in and of itself. Mark Manson has a whole bit on this, in The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck if I recall correctly, that lobotomized people would fit that description pretty well, purely rational. Except it turns out that once you take the emotional side out of the person, what's left is merely a hull that doesn't care about anything, because rationally, why would you. I don't think being more right is a noble goal. We all know the type, people who pick at every little thing to be technically right, but mostly they're just asshats who miss the forest for the trees.

What definition of rational are you using? Being a rational actor typically means displaying consistent goal-oriented behavior. Being lobotomized seems pretty irrational. It reduces your power and makes you less able to achieve goals (if you can achieve them at all), including basic self-care.

>Except it turns out that once you take the emotional side out of the person, what's left is merely a hull that doesn't care about anything, because rationally, why would you.

That's not what rationality is. What terminal goals one should have, which in humans is informed by emotions, is not a concern of rationality. Rationality concerns how to achieve terminal goals.

If you think rationality is a lobotomy, maybe your emotions are running a dictatorship?

Being right doesn’t make you an asshat. Refusing to correct yourself when proven wrong does.

> I don’t think being more right is a noble goal.

That’s a pretty telling sentence. If someone doesn’t value being more correct, what kind of compass are they using to navigate the world... Vibes?

Rationality isn’t about amputating emotion. It’s about not letting your emotions pilot the plane blindfolded while high on conspiracy podcasts telling you which way to bank.

Emotions are data. Rationality is how you integrate them, not ignore them. A rational person doesn’t become unfeeling; they align their feelings with reality, and update when their model of the world is provably flawed.

The lobotomy comparison is just absurd: actual rationalists care deeply about things- they just make sure their caring isn't built on delusions. That’s why rational frameworks helped de-stigmatize homosexuality, dismantle phrenology, and challenge witch trials. Emotional reasoning alone got us the burnings, not the liberation. Emotional reasoning got us Turing's chemical castration, not gay marriage rights.

A rationalist by YOUR definition wouldn't even care enough to fight homophobia with reason. See the difference?

Also, literally the entire system of justice (an exemplary combination of rationality and feeling) doesn't make sense, given your anti-justification for rationality. The accused looks like a rapist, I just know it, he's just got that look in his eyes. Let's go with that. Judgment for the plaintiff!

Also: Being “technically right” is only annoying when it’s used to score points. Being functionally right- especially when it affects policies, freedoms, or lives- is kind of the point of civilization.