But this is just unfair. You're judging rationality according to rational arguments, and so OF COURSE you end up finding that rationality is sooo much better.

I, on the other hand, judge my irrationality on an irrational basis, and find that actually it's much better to be irrational.

What's the difference? Of course in response to this question you're bound to come up with even more rational arguments to be rational, but I don't see how this gets you any further forward.

I, on the other hand, being irrational, don't have to argue about this if I don't want to. What kind of sense would it make to argue rationally about the advantages of irrationality anyway? Surely this is a contradiction in terms? But the nice thing about being irrational is that I can irrationally use rationality from time to time anyway, and then just stop and go back to being irrational again when irrationality is clearly more inspired.

OK - so I'm messing about. But you can't prove rationality is more rational by rational argument. Well, you can, but it's irrational in a way as you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove. It's as example of trying to pick yourself up by your own bootstraps.