"Rationality" as used around here indicates "succeeding more often". Or if you prefer, "Rationality is winning".
That's the idea. From the looks of it, most of us either suck at it, or only needed it for minor things in the first place, or are improving slowly enough that it's indistinguishable from "I used more flashcards this month". (Or maybe I just suck at it and fail to notice actually impressive improvements people have made; that's possible, too.)
[Edit: CFAR seems to have a better reputation for teaching instrumental rationality than LessWrong, which seems to make sense. Too bad it's a geographically bound organization with a price tag.]
It would be very useful to somehow measure rationality and winning, so we could say something about the correlation. Or at least to measure winning, so we could say whether CFAR lessons contribute to winning.
Sometimes income is used as a proxy for winning. It has some problems. For our purposes I would guess a big problem is that the changes of income within a year or two (since when CFAR provides workshops) are mostly noise. (Also, for employees this metric could be more easily optimized by preparing them for job interviews, helping them to optimize their CVs, and pressuring them into doing as many interviews as possible.)
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.