I think you miss the point entirely with justifying some of these actions as wrong based on your own set of values instead of based on the goals and values of the person doing them. For example:
The person doing this values social signalling of skepticism more than efficiency in this particular matter
The person doing this values truth more than social capital, or values the argument more than the lost social capital
The person doing this values the outcomes of being seen as consistenty charitable more than the effect of being exploited on occasion
The person doing this is not doing it for signalling purposes, but because the effort to comply with social norms or signalling would take away from the spoons they have to do other things that are more important to them.
It seems to be that the "pseudo-rational" trap one should actually avoid is to apply one's own goals/values/utility functions to other people by default.
Thanks, this is an excellent reply. Sometimes you will find that someone's goals truly are something different from what you might expect. But more often, I suspect that people aren't fully aware of the trade-off or haven't fully embraced it. I mean, so much of what we do is just because it feels right and not because we've consciously considered it and come to a decision. And, maybe I should have spent some time acknowledging this possibility in my post, because I definitely simplify the situation somewhat. I guess the point of this post is to be somewhat provocative, to point out ways someone might be acting that might not match their true values (here I mean values that hold up under reflection).
Pseudo-rationality is the social performance of rationality, as opposed to actual rationality. Here are some examples:
Why does this happen? Status and social norms distort the way we see the world. Even if it doesn't fool everyone, it will fool some people. Or if it fools no-one, you'll at least fool yourself. Here are some thought patterns:
Why did I write this post? Well, it seems the next thing you need after becoming a rationalist, is something to help you figure out if you're doing any of it wrong. I hope this helps, but let me know if I should add anything else to the list.
Reflection based on comments:
Where this gets complex is when you desire the successful social performance of rationality as a goal that holds up after reflection. Some people may value this to a level that seems excessive to most people and so may not be acting irrationally. More generally, it seems that every rationalist should value successfully performing rationality to some degree, even if only instrumentally. These considerations complicate discussions of what is or is not pseudo-rational, but do not invalidate the general concept as most often they are not in line with someone's considered values. Further, this concept has utility as identifying a pattern of behaviour that we might want to discourage as a community.
Footnotes:
This is very similar to Straw Vulcans except that Straw Vulcans are about how the media represents being logical/rational, while pseudo-rationality is broader and includes misconceptions that may not be prevalent in the media. Another difference is that Straw Vulcans are about defending rationality/logic from being straw-manned, while pseudo-rationality is encouraging rationalitists to consider whether they are really as rational as they think they are.
Also see: Mythic values vs. folk values. Pseudo-rationality is very similar to folk values, pseudo-rationality is not about impressing other people, but about fooling yourself.