Being above average at rationality, and trying more than most people, can actually, paradoxically, partly make things worse, because it can reduce how much people plan for rationality failures.
I think this is possible but will mostly come from arrogance and ignoring big rationality failures after getting small wins
I might be very biased but not find any loophole in the debate rules that lets my bias win.
For example, you can wear your more busy (and possibly more knowledgeable) interlocutors down with boredom.
We should develop as much rationality and integrity as we can. But I think we should also work to reduce the need for personal rationality and integrity by building some rationality and integrity into rules and policies
I agree that relying entirely on personal rationality/integrity is not sufficient. To make up for individual failings, I feel more optimistic about cultural and maybe technological shifts than rules and policies. Top-down rules and policies especially feel a bit suss to me, given the lack of a track record.
I think this is possible but will mostly come from arrogance and ignoring big rationality failures after getting small wins
For example, you can wear your more busy (and possibly more knowledgeable) interlocutors down with boredom.
I agree that relying entirely on personal rationality/integrity is not sufficient. To make up for individual failings, I feel more optimistic about cultural and maybe technological shifts than rules and policies. Top-down rules and policies especially feel a bit suss to me, given the lack of a track record.