[fc417fc802]

Well if we're being rational about it - how confident are we in the accuracy of that assessment, how likely is our attack to succeed, and how likely is our attack to have a positive impact? Worse, what is the probability that our attack instead has a negative impact?

[somenameforme]

Is it even rational to assume one is rational? Of course I think I am, but I also think basically nobody else is. Yet I'm sure they think the are, and similarly doubt I am. So is the issue that I'm a snowflake and everybody else is wrong, or is the issue that rationality does not really exist (though that does not mean it's not worth striving towards)?

It seems only rational to doubt ones rationality.

[balamatom]

Well put. That realization alone makes you wiser than strictly required.

[fc417fc802]

> Is it even rational to assume one is rational?

Depending on your definition. But taken literally, no, obviously not.

Regardless of your skill level, would you ever assume that you were playing a perfect (in the information theoretic sense) game of chess?

Whether chess or real life, all of us merely make the best choices we can given our skill and the information available to us. That includes imperfectly modeling the other agents in the world around us. In that sense, "being rational" means something like "deliberately analyzing the situation" and "more rational" means something like "a superior approach to analysis".