It can easily be read in the form of how cheap it is, rather than how expensive it isn't.

This reminds me of an amusing segment of one of Frank Kern's marketing classes, in which he explains that it doesn't matter how cheap the product is if no one wants it. He then proceeds to illustrate this idea by joking about having a "new" device here that will cut off a chunk of a certain masculine body part, for "only" $1/day.

IOW, believing that cryonics is cheap is only relevant if you want it in the first place.

If you say the sky is blue because it is made of blue jeans, I can counter your argument by saying the sky is blue because it is made of paint.

Ridiculous! Everyone knows the sky is made of blue cheese.

(Seriously, your argument makes no more sense than that. There is no direct causal relationship between the argument that convinces you of a thing, and the argument that talks you back out of it or into something else.)

Persuasive methods do not, however, imply the intended or even accidental employment of irrational methods when making a case.

Perhaps "arational" would be a better word. The point is, when you are enjoying listening to a story, you are not engaging in reasoning, as it's incompatible with experiencing the story.

And if I thought I gained most or all of my "current so-called rational beliefs" through irrational methods, I would be very disturbed.

Which is what keeps you motivated to not pay very close attention to what beliefs you actually have, and act on.

The beliefs I am aware of currently adhering to

...are a ridiculously tiny subset of the beliefs you actually hold and act upon, accumulated by observation, priming, and simple conditioning -- none of which include any conscious involvement, awareness, study, or reflection, let alone reasoning.

And these beliefs -- whether irrational or arational -- form the framework through which you view the world and make judgments about it... including such judgments as to which reflected, conscious beliefs you should hold.

I thought my phrasing made it clear enough that it wasn't just a gut feeling, but that my opposition to it was strong to the point where I actually had a gut feeling about it, not just an intellectual position. Instead of merely thinking "I know that's wrong" I was thinking "How could that possibly be right."

My point is that the feeling invariably precedes the logic, because it's the feeling that told you to look for reasons to justify your initial impression.

I mean, I doubt you're claiming that you were simply studying the situation and, after accumulating various bits of evidence with no preconception whatsoever, suddenly stumbled upon a realization that this was the way it was!

Instead, the sequence was almost certainly that you read the post, felt something bothering you about it, and then went looking for what already bothered you. And what bothered you was not a product of reasoning-in-the-moment, but merely a cached thought... perhaps that persuasion is bad, or bad for rationalists, or maybe even just a dislike of people saying something is $1/day.

Now, I'm not saying this is unique to you, or that I don't do it. After all, I went through the exact same sequence in order to reply to you!

I'm just saying, I don't think it's a good idea to trust it when I get "a bad feeling about this" until I've rooted out the cached thought and crosschecked it against the actual situation. And even knowing this, I still forget or goof it up. A LOT.

Which means I have a low expectation of trustworthiness when someone speaks highly of their gut feelings instead, as though they were some sort of verification of truth, rather than a highly suspicious sign of cached thoughts and bottom-line reasoning.