>>10
This is a non-standard definition of rationality. Typically it is divided between instrumental rationality, maximizing one's ends, and epistemic rationality, thinking inline with reality. Regarding >>15 I think the matter of perspective would be part of epistemic rationality and what >>10 is speaking of is a means and not the end (not even a necessary condition as mentioned in >>1 Type 1 can be rational).
I still don't really understand why >>9 is the case, although I still agree as mentioned in >>11. My guess/hope is that so called rationalists tend to just upload a lot of california ideology (sciencism, western economics, and political "science") into their brain and that some of the mechanisms are salvageable. For example despite the paradoxes in logic and probability having an exceptional intuitive understanding of these seems valuable.