given human cognitive limitations, someone who applies sound epistemic rationality to full effect is not going to behave too differently from the highly successful person next to them who does not care about epistemic rationalisty at all
If it increases the probability of winning like that highly successful irrational person, it's still worth doing. I mean, if an irrational person has a 20% chance of becoming highly successful, and a rationality training could increase it to 40%, then I would prefer to take that rationality training, even if the rewards for the "winners" in both categories are the same.
But yes, we should remember that we use the human hardware, so we don't consistently overestimate the benefits of learning some rationality. Ideas which would work great for a self-improving AI may have less impressive impact on the sapient apes.
If it increases the probability of winning like that highly successful irrational person, it's still worth doing. I mean, if an irrational person has a 20% chance of becoming highly successful, and a rationality training could increase it to 40%, then I would prefer to take that rationality training, even if the rewards for the "winners" in both categories are the same.
The idea here is that even if "rationality training" (or even general intelligence) gives people an overall advantage, there is a possibility that there are systematic...
Related to: What Do We Mean By "Rationality?"
Rationality has many facets, both relatively simple and quite complex. As a result, it can often be hard to determine what aspects of rationality you should or shouldn't stress.
An extremely basic and abstract model of how rationality works might look a little something like this: