One simplification I think you're making that raises some problems is money. Why Oprah? Why not Charles Wuorinen, who makes excellent musical decisions and has many learned skills? Who has access to tight feedback loops as soon as someone else listens to what he writes? Who is really good at what he does? Because Oprah's skills are better for collecting slips of green paper.

Now, one can collect quite a few slips of green paper and still, say, suffer from depression, or just generally be unhappy. Perhaps we could even claim that Wuorinen is happier than Oprah - I wouldn't know, but it doesn't sound outlandish. But you, you are someone trying to save the world, and you have excellent uses for slips of green paper. So maybe you were just focused on the skills related to slips of green paper because of what you (or other world-savers) could do with those skills.

And so I propose a definition of tacit rationality that takes this into account: The skills that to you would be highly valuable.