Core Rationality
A simple introduction to the difference between being good at reasoning tools and being honest with the evidence one already sees.
Source Paper
This page is a simplified guide to the paper. The source document is linked below; the guide here keeps the main idea accessible and tied back to the site’s model.
Open on Academia.eduLow-Register Abstract
This paper says that rationality has two parts that are often mixed together. One part is technical skill: knowing probability, logic, statistics, and formal argument. The other part is evidence-responsiveness: keeping your confidence close to what the evidence seems to support.
The main claim is simple: a person can be highly trained and still dodge evidence, while a less trained person can still be admirably responsive to what they honestly see. That is why the site separates Deep Rationality from Core Rationality.
How It Fits Credencing
This is the conceptual bridge for the entire model. Deep Rationality (SD) tracks skill at reading evidence. Core Rationality tracks whether assigned credence follows perceived evidence.
The interactive archetypes make this distinction visible: the honest novice may have low technical reach but little internal override, while the biased expert may have high technical reach and a serious integrity gap.
How to Read It
Read this before the formal framework if you want the basic distinction first. Keep asking: is the problem lack of skill, lack of evidence, or resistance to evidence already perceived?