Well, we have reliable agriculture, reasonably effective transportation infrastructure, flight, telecommunication, powerful computers with lots of useful software because lots of people worked hard to believe things that are true, and used those true beliefs to figure out how to accomplish their goals.

Those are the products of rationalism. I'm asking about evidence that the practice of (extreme) rationalism produces positive effects in the lives of the people who practice it, not the benefits that other people get from having a minority of humans practice it.

Asking for evidence is not a fully general counterargument. It distinguishes arguments that have evidence in their favor from those which don't.

It is if you also apply the status quo bias to choose which evidence to count.

You might discover the greatest anti-akrasia trick ever, but if you can't explain it so that other people can use it and have it work even if you are not there to guide the process, then you have only helped yourself and your clients, and talking about it here is not helping

I really wish people wouldn't conflate the discussion of learning and attitude in general with the issue of specific techniques. There is plenty of evidence for how attitudes (of both student and teacher) affect learning, yet somehow the subject remains quite controversial here.

(Edited to say "extreme rationalism", as suggested by Nick Tarleton.)