And yet the conclusion is so...Hansonesque.

Every week I talk to people who say they are trying to figure out the truth about something. When I ask them a few questions about it, I often learn that they know almost nothing of logic, probability theory, argument, scientific method, epistemology, artificial intelligence, human cognitive science, or debiasing techniques...I conclude that they probably want to feel they are truth-seeking, or they want to signal a desire for truth-seeking, or they might even self-deceivingly "believe" that they place a high value on knowing the truth. But their actions show that they aren't trying very hard to have true beliefs.

Really? What percent of people are aware of the existence of cognitive biases? One percent? At least I wouldn't expect more than that to realize that probability theory or artificial intelligence bear upon questions in seemingly unrelated fields like philosophy or medicine.

And of people who know of the existence of cognitive biases, how many are even capable of genuinely entertaining the thought that they themselves might be biased, as opposed to Rush Limbaugh or unethical pharmaceutical researchers or all those silly people who disagree with them?

And of people who are worried about cognitive biases, how many have access to "debiasing techniques"? I'm not going to put a percent on this one because it's pretty vague, but outside of Less Wrong and a few ahead-of-the-game finance companies, you can't exactly go on Amazon and buy Debiasing for Dummies.

I think I agree with the conclusion (well, maybe, since I don't know enough psychodynamics to really be able to cash out a phrase like "their actions show that they aren't trying very hard) but this particular argument breaks Hanlon's Razor aka the Generalized Anti-Hanson Principle.