Rationalists Are Less Credulous But Better At Taking Ideas Seriously

Rebuts the 'rationalists sign up for cryonics, so they must be gullible' argument using two years of LW survey data. Experienced rationalists (2+ years, >1000 karma) actually assign a LOWER probability to cryonics working than proto-rationalists (15% vs 21%, replicated across surveys) — so training makes you less credulous — yet they're far more likely to actually sign up (13% vs 0%). The difference isn't credulity but the meta-skill of 'taking ideas seriously': the Goofus/Gallant lottery where both compute the same positive expected value but only Gallant acts on it. Proto-rationalists form a belief, find it an 'interesting curiosity,' then do what everyone else does; experienced rationalists examine consequences and act strategically. Notes taking ideas seriously isn't always wise (1=2 proofs) but progress depends on someone doing it.

Quality 74 · Strong. Strong. A sharp, genuinely data-backed argument (rare) that cleanly separates credulity from the instrumental meta-skill of acting on beliefs, with the memorable Goofus/Gallant framing. Held at 74 by brevity. 74.

Claude’s paradigm shift 48 · Moderate. Moderate. 'Taking ideas seriously' is a moderately novel rationalist framing and the survey analysis is original, though the underlying instrumental/epistemic distinction is familiar. 48.

Real-world impact 3 · Moderate. A rare data-backed argument (two years of LW survey data) cleanly separating credulity from the instrumental meta-skill of acting on beliefs (experienced rationalists rate cryonics lower yet sign up more), with the memorable Goofus/Gallant framing. Conceptual influence within rationalist discourse, no material change — modest RWI.