I have a sense that being versed in the predictable biases of human cognition is useful only as a soft or secondary skill. By itself, the knowledge is pretty useless and can even be paralyzing. There's no primary benefit, except to those who have managed to market and bill themselves as some sort of biases spotter.

But it's not useless. I think my exposure to some of this literature has imparted humility in how I conduct myself, both in text and in person. No one wins an argument by pointing and shouting, "You're committing the base rate fallacy, a typical form of extension neglect." But just like I've grown to trust those who are aware of their own limitations -- something I recall you value, i.e. the acoustical engineer lecturer who admitted his ignorance during a conference you attended -- I think humility is security, and can be dead sexy. I can't point to it and say that's why I get laid, but it I think it plays a role.

I'm not saying that anyone who's opposed to Yudkowsky et al is bashing rationality as an ideal good. But I'm at a loss as to who then you all read or aspire to emulate (if anyone is even still in that part of their lives). Furthermore, it's a bit unsettling. Apparently Yudkowsky and SSC are quite literally something close to evil, and I'm here unawares and asking if anyone else likes their bible. I'm in denial that I can be this far off the trail.