No, it's functionally identical to the original analogy. Rationalists make it easy to change their bottom line as new evidence comes in, so their bottom line isn't fixed forever at the start.

For example, I recently scrapped a post because I found out that the anecdote I was going to start with wasn't what I thought it was at all, which raised my estimate that I was oversimplifying the rest of it. Yeah, I started with an idea of what I wanted to write, but when I learned new things I changed my confidence in that idea.