Ok, I get it. Humans suck at rationality. We're TERRIBLE at it.
We're so bad, in fact, that I would like to make an alternate suggestion. Maybe rationality is the wrong thing to measure. I mean, if you're trying to study Richard Sherman, you don't ask about his freethrow rate or his best 10k time. You ask about his football performance, because he's a football machine.
Human beings are terrible at being vulcans, but that's because evolution didn't design us to be. It designed us to be something else, to solve some different problems. And presumably we're very good at solving them, since the species has stayed alive this long. What are those problems? How do our minds go about solving them? Rationality is the wrong metric to use for understanding human behavior. And just maybe, rationality it the wrong thing to shoot for in the first place.
My favorite example of logic failing is in game theory. The "logical" strategy is to compute a nash equillibrium, but that's usually computationally intractable. If you try to play logically you'll get trounced by the guy who plays based on good heuristics. Maybe the meta-logical strategy is to recognize this fact, but you have to travel pretty far down the path of meta-logic before you stop sucking. Better to start the whole enterprise off based on good heuristics, and refine them is they suck.
So this blog post is sort of a rant, sort of a wanna-be call to action. I'd love to see a good description of what the mind does, how it does it, and why that works. Whether that's rational is the wrong question.