When I first encountered Less Wrong I tended to avoid the ethics posts, considering them lower quality. I only recently realised this was because I had been reading them as "epistemic rationality" and as a non-moral-realist they therefore didn't seem meaningful.
If you mean by "non-moral-realist" "someone who doesn't think objective morality exists," I think that you've expressed my current reason for why I haven't read the meta-ethics sequence. Could you elaborate a bit more on why you changed your mind?
Another point I should elaborate on.
"Would you sacrifice yourself to save the lives of 10 others?" you ask person J. "I guess so", J replies. "I might find it difficult bringing myself to actually do it, but I know it's the right thing to do".
"But you give a lot of money to charity" you tell this highly moral, saintly individual. "And you make sure to give only to charities that really work. If you stay alive, the extra money you will earn can be used to save the lives of more than 10 people. You are not just s...
So after reading SarahC's latest post I noticed that she's gotten a lot out of rationality.
More importantly, she got different things out of it than I have.
Off the top of my head, I've learned...
Where she got...
I've only recently making a habit out of trying new things, and that's been going really well for me. Is there other low hanging fruit that I'm missing?
What cool/important/useful things has rationality gotten you?