I hope I'm not the only one who sees the irony in you refusing to answer my question about your reasoning, given where this thread started.

I guess the best option now is to sum this disagreement up in condensations. For simplicity's sake, I'm only going to do comments on the branch that leads directly here. I'm starting with this comment.

• JamesCole: Quoted hypothetical social-norm suggestion, disagreed, offered altenate suggestion suggestion, offered supporting logic.
• JamesCole: Restated supporting logic.
• Me: Agreed, offered more support.
• Annoyance: counterargument: "Most people are not interested enough in being rational for that suggestion to work; they'll find a way around it, instead"
• Me: disagreement with Annoyance - I was wrong
• Annoyance: Pointed out my mistake
• Me: "Oh, right"
• Annoyance: "That is a common mistake, and one that I haven't fully overcome yet, which means I still have trouble communicating with people who are not practicing rationality" (probably intended to make me feel better)
• You: "I object to the above exchange; you're just masking your prejudice against irrational people by refusing to communicate clearly with them"
• Me: "Actually, it's not a refusal, it's just hard."
• You: "No, it's not hard, and refusal to do it means that you don't value social cohesion." with a personal example of it not being hard.
• Me: "Okay, you got me. It's only hard for some people."
• You: "Okay, it is hard for some people, but it's still learnable, and harmful to the cause of rationality if you present yourself as a rationalist without having those skills."
• Me: "They're good to learn, but I think you're over-valuing them, and judging people for not sharing your values."
• You: "Why are you complaining about me being judgmental when you didn't complain about Annoyance being judgmental?", plus what appears to be some social-signaling stuff intended to indicate that I'm a bad person because I don't care about social cohesion. I don't know enough about what you mean by "social cohesion" to make sense of that part of the thread, but I suspect that your assertion that I don't value it is correct.
• Me: "Where was Annoyance judgmental? I didn't see him being judgmental anywhere."

This brings us to your comment directly above, which doesn't condense well. You didn't answer my question (and I don't take this as proof that there is no instance of Annoyance being judgmental - I may have missed something somewhere - but I consider it pretty unlikely that you'd refuse to defend your assertion if there was a clear one, so it's at least strong evidence that there isn't), accused Annoyance of being irrational, and claimed that I should be accepting your claim even though you refuse to actually defend it.

I do agree with you that the skills involved in dealing with irrational people are useful to learn. But we obviously disagree in many, many ways on what kinds of support should be necessary for an argument to be taken seriously here.