In a word: compartmentalization.
Since that's not helpful, I will say that it doesn't even seem to be possible for there to be people who don't rationalize. (Or enough that you're at all likely to find them.)
Some of these people show signs of being rather
"Some", "signs", "rather". These words all show signs of being rather belief in belief. I notice you don't say, "Some of these people are high-level rationalists," just that they show warning signs of being so. What does this really mean? Are you referring to the "visible aura of competence" Eliezer talked about in his 'the level above mine' sequence on people who are aspiring rationalists? If so, I'd wager this carries very little information, since you're sampling from aspiring rationalists!
Also, could you explain what you mean by "seem to have little clue what Tarski is for"?
I will say that it doesn't even seem to be possible for there to be people who don't rationalize. (Or enough that you're at all likely to find them.)
You'd think not. Yet even Eliezer seems to think that one of our case studies really, truly might not ever rationalize and possibly never has before. This seems to be a case of a beautiful, sane theory beaten to death by a small gang of brutal facts.
..."Some", "signs", "rather". These words all show signs of being rather belief in belief. I notice you don't say, "Some of th
Anna Salamon and I are confused. Both of us notice ourselves rationalizing on pretty much a daily basis and have to apply techniques like the Litany of Tarski pretty regularly. But in several of our test sessions for teaching rationality, a handful of people report never rationalizing and seem to have little clue what Tarski is for. They don't relate to any examples we give, whether fictitious or actual personal examples from our lives. Some of these people show signs of being rather high-level rationalists overall, although some don't.