tl;dr: within the LW community, there are many clusters of strategies to achieve rationality: doing basic exercices, using jargon, reading, partaking workshops, privileging object-level activities, and several other opinions like putting an accent on feedback loops, difficult conversations or altered states of consciousness. 

Epistemic status: This is a vague model to help me understand other rationalists and why some of them keep doing things I think are wrong, or suggest me to do things I think are wrong. This is not based on real data. I will update according to possible discussions in the comments. Please be critical. 

[Update : The term "Theory" is replaced with the term "Attitude" in the following paragraphs]

Spending time in the rationalist community made me realize that there were several endeavors at reaching rationality that seemed to exist, some of which conflicted with others. This made me quite frustrated as I thought that my interpretation was the only one.

The following list is an attempt at distinguishing the several approaches I've noticed, which I will call Attitudes (in lack of a better name). Of course, any rationalist will probably have elements of all attitudes at the same time. See each attitude as the claim that a particular set of elements prevails above others. Referring to one attitude usually goes on par with being fairly suspicious of others.

Finally, remember that these categories are an attempt to distinguish what people are doing, not a guide about what side you should pick (if the sides exist at all). I suspect that most people end up settling on one attitude for practical reasons, more than because they have deeply thought about it at all.

Basics Attitude

Proponents of the Basics Attitude put a high emphasis on activities such as calibration, forecasting, lifehacks, and other fairly standard practices of epistemic and instrumental rationality. They don't see any real value in reading extensively LessWrong or going to workshops. They first and foremost believe in real-life, readily available practice.

For them, spending too much time in the rationalist community, as opposed to doing simple exercises, is the main failure mode to avoid.

Speaking Attitude

Proponents of the Speaking Attitude, although often relying on basics, usually put a high emphasis on using concepts met on LessWrong in daily parlance, although they generally do not necessarily insist on reading content on LessWrong. They may also insist on the importance of talking and discussing disagreements in a fairly regular way, while heavily relying on LessWrong terms and references in order to shape their thinking more rationally. They disagree with the statement that jargon should be avoided.

For them, keeping your language, thinking, writing and discussion style the same way that it was before encountering rationality is the main failure mode to avoid.

Reading Attitude

Proponents of the Reading attitude put a high emphasis on reading LessWrong, more usually than not the « Canon », but some might go to a further extent and insist on reading other materials as well, such as the books recommended on the CFAR website, rationalist blogs, or listening to a particular set of podcasts. They can be sympathetic or opposed to relying on LessWrong Speak, but don't consider it important. They can also be fairly familiar with the basics.

For them, relying on LW Speak or engaging with the community while not mastering the relevant corpus is the main failure mode to avoid.

Maths Attitude
A specific sub-type of this attitude is the Maths attitude -basically the same but with a heavy focus on learning relevant advanced mathematical concepts deemed foundational to rationality, more usually than not bayesian probabilities and rational choice-related theories. Partakers of it are usually suspicious about the claim that grasping the concept "in layman's terms" can be done.

Workshop Attitude

Proponents of the Workshop Attitude consider most efforts of the Reading and Speaking Attitude to be somehow misleading. Since rationality is to be learned, it has to be deliberately practiced, if not ultralearned, and workshops such as CFAR are an important piece of this endeavor. Importantly, they do not really insist on reading the Sequences. Faced with the question « Do I need to read X ? » a partaker of the Workshop Attitude will quite intuitively answer « No ». They also usually give a higher importance to emotional and social intelligence. They may even think that jargon should be avoided, even among people sharing it, so as not to fall into an illusion of rationality.

For them, reading LW or extensively using its jargon (mistaking the words for the techniques) without engaging in regular practice is the main failure mode to avoid.

Object-Level Attitude

Proponents of this attitude insist much more than the rest of the community on spending time on object-level pursuits, up to the point of maybe simply not reading more than a few dozen posts of the Sequences or never attending rationality workshops. They mainly care about being very productive, doing things in the world, and will microdose the time they dedicate to applied rationality, even if they discuss their particular object-level concerns with rationalists.

For them, spending too much time thinking about rationality is the main failure mode to avoid.

Idiosyncratic Attitude

Proponents of the idiosyncratic attitude take down to the letter the passage where Eliezer Yudkowsky suggests to create one's « own rationality ». They ditch away LessWrong and the Sequences for a time being and attempt to create their version of rationality -not in view of making « a better version », but because it is the only way to achieve rationality per se, believing that following other role models is irrational in its own way.

For them, absorbing and repeating LW culture without significant contribution or alterations is the main failure mode to avoid.

There are minor attitudes that I've met quite rarely :

Conversations Attitude

Proponents of the conversations attitude believe that major flaws of other attitudes can be completed or remedied by studying and practicing methods for handling difficult conversations. They believe that not relying on these procedures, even whilst being individually rational, can be quite net negative, and that their lack in standard applied rationality is problematic. They are typically quite critical of the standard way rationalists have of arguing with non-rationalists.

For them, keeping one’s arguing style confrontative and ineffective at converging towards truth with non-rationalists is the main failure mode to avoid.

Altered Consciousness Attitude

Proponents of the altered consciousness attitude believe that major flaws of other attitudes can be completed or remedied by practicing meditation, or consuming (usually hallucinogenic) drugs in specific procedures. They view these activities as an integral part of the path towards rationality, and are aware of the effects that such activities can have on one's epistemics. They usually give it a considerable importance, and can dedicate entire weeks of meditations every year in this prospect.

For them, staying in a “thinking” or “doing” only level, (as opposed to a “being” and “perceiving” one) while pretending to engage in rationality is the main failure mode to avoid.

Feedback-loop Attitude

I have not properly met anyone who seemed to defend this idea yet, but I know it exists thanks to this post. In short, Feedback-loop proponents insist on relying on feedback loops and deliberate practice, in order to measure as soon as possible if something does really work.

For them, forgetting to set up feedback loops (or setting up poor ones) while engaging in other practices is the main failure mode to avoid.