Rationality is a lot like grammar: it's good to have for any job, everybody learns most of what they'll ever learn as kids, and you lose it when you drink. The main difference is that people don't think of it as something to be learned.
As money-making operations go, there are quite a few that teach rationality without calling it that. QA and troubleshooting are both huge IT sectors that are entirely about applied rationality, and if you can prove that your rationality program benefits those organizations, you will get work from IT managers.
Of course, it all gets into careful opponent analysis then, which makes the whole exercise quite fuzzy and into "well, Tom really hates the new guy, so he'll probably vote no because he's ornery" territory. All the directors are basing their decisions on the decisions of each other, since there is no reward for acting alone. Again, a second confederate in the beginning makes all the difference.
Even without a precommitment etc., there isn't direct incentive to be the first or second "yes" vote, only the third. If you had two shills on the board, it's a much stronger scenario.
Your lackey proposes as follows: “I move that we vote upon the following: that if this motion passes unanimously, all members of the of the Board resign immediately and are given a reasonable compensation; that if this motion passes 4-1 that the Director who voted against it must retire without compensation, and the four directors who voted in favor may stay on the Board; and that if the motion passes 3-2, then the two 'no' voters get no compensation and the three 'yes' voters may remain on the board and will also get a spectacular prize - to wit, our company's 51% share in your company divided up evenly among them.”
Considering the reasoning that ends in "everyone is kicked off the board," wouldn't they all talk about it for a few minutes and then reject the proposal 4-1 (or maybe 3-2)?
"Evolutionists say that if God makes sense to us, it is not because he is really there, it's only because that belief helped us survive and so we are hardwired for it. However, if we can't trust our belief-forming faculties to tell us the truth about God, why should we trust them to tell us the truth about anything, including evolutionary science? If our cognitive faculties only tell us what we need to survive, not what is true, why trust them about anything at all?" -Timothy Keller
This is so laden with assumptions that are not substantiated that it is an excellent piece to pick apart just for practice. How does the capacity for untruth imply the un-capacity for truth? When do the biologists say that senses only provide what helps propagate the species? My laptop may be designed as a computer, but it still works as a hammer in a pinch...
Really, it can go either way, since saying things without being forced increases your belief in them (I imaging donating to charity does, as well).
I don't buy that lying requires believing the lies even a little bit. Internalization may be important, but understanding religious thought and being able to speak about it convincingly doesn't require belief by any means.
It seems transparent that bad liars are exhibiting stress tics rather than trying to protect their internal narrative given the techniques for becoming a better liar (i.e. relax, practice, be confident) and the similarity to nervous people telling the truth when they're worried they'll get in trouble for it anyways (in the face of interrogation, for instance).
Or excellent skin-conductivity!
So far from Denver!
I woke up one time with both arms completely numb. I tried to turn the light on and instead fell out of bed. I felt certain that I was going to die right then.