Robin Hanson would probably argue that people have extreme ideas about the future, and that it goes both ways and you're just reversing the stupidity. (I would disagree.)

I don't understand?

Different epistemic origins. I imagine that a lot of LW users come to rationalism through Traditional Rationality as students or professionals. I'm young and I cut my teeth on Robert Freitas's work. I've had the transhumanist inside view for a long time and don't remember what it's like to think about transhumanism or the future solely in terms of imprecise, surface-level generalizations.

Just like most people, I got introduced to LW through Traditional Rationality myself. But, to me, "LWian 'rationality'" doesn't actually have a large "usefulness delta" over "account for cognitive biases and use statistical reasoning" without the parts about extremely strong naturalism, Fun Theory, and at least enough transhumanism to make the Fun Theory actually go.

Discussing x-risks is more important/higher impact than discussing fun maximization.

I didn't even mean existential risks. I meant stuff like, "Which people in government or business are conspiring against me this week?" and "Is everyone a piece of shit?", to which there are actually trivial answers like "Most people aren't conspiring against you" and "No".

Discussing x-risks pattern matches to appearing responsible, and discussing very long-term fun maximization pattern matches to fantasizing, and appearing responsible is higher status than appearing to fantasize.

That would be typical Very Serious Person stuff.