Examples of Rationality Techniques adopted by the Masses

Small rationality-inducing cognitive algorithms that manifest in everyday speech:

1. " You're missing the forest for the trees." Given what you want to achieve, spending time on these details may not matter.
2. "For example?"
3. "What's the chance that that'll actually happen?" Think about the probability of the hypothetical. The notion that randomness and chance is something that can be measured is a rather recent phenomenon in human history.
4. "What's done is done." or "No use crying over spilt milk." Don't fall prey to the sunk-cost fallacy.
5. "I'm going to play the devil's advocate here." Steelmanning your argument.
6. "What difference does it make?" Does what we're arguing about actually have any consequences?
7. "You've got to take the long-term view." Don't think of the action you're considering as a single-shot thing, but more of as part of a strategy.
8. "They did this study..." What does the literature say? I agree that this move is often used to just support the argument you want supported; but hey, it's a step in the right direction.
9. "I don't get it." I notice that I'm confused.
10. "So let's be clear here." OR "Just to make sure that we're on the same page here." You and I may have different models, so let's ensure that we have the same model.
11. "This is win-win." Basically, a Pareto improvement.
12. "You do your job. I'll do mine." Benefits of specialization.

I agree that these phrases aren't very nuanced or advanced rationality techniques, but they're steps in the right direction. And to better is why we have things like Less Wrong.

Making lists.

A/B testing and data-driven corporate decision-making in general. Cost-benefit analysis. Discounted cash flow analysis. Arithmetic. Expected value (it tells you not to play slot machines).

what are good examples of rationality techniques that have already become commonly used in the general population?

Language. Arithmetic. Learning stuff. Modelling other people's minds.

Rationality techniques commonly used will not look like anything special, simply because they are common. Unless one looks through the lens of this exercise.

Does the internet count as "the general population"? If so: identifying and shaming logical fallacies. Sure, people do it imperfectly, and a lot more readily for the opposing side than for themselves, arguments are soldiers etc. But it's still harder to get away with them, for an overall positive result on truth-seeking.

One example that many people have adopted is googling things. It used to be that if people disagreed about some random fact (like if Norway or Iceland had more people) they would argue about it. Now someone will google it pretty quickly. This is widespread enough that it might not even feel like a rationality technique, but it is, and a powerful one at that.

This shows that people will adopt them, and do it in big enough numbers that it seems normal as long as it is made sufficiently easy.

"Making a list of Pros and Cons" is a very basic step toward rational decision making. Implicit in the method is the idea of assigning weight or utility to each thing on the list, since the idea is to "weigh the outcomes and make a decision". Throw in probability assignments and quantify the utility estimates instead of doing the weighing in your head and you get an expected utility calculation.

I think we should make an important distinction here: why do people adopt en masse new beliefs and behaviors, rational or not?

Do they adopt them because they become convinced of their truth, or by considering the evidence for and against them? Or do they adopt them for the same reasons they adopted the irrational ideas they are replacing - through cultural effects, following prestigious leaders and popular opinion?

I am not, by the way, trying to denigrate consensus-following. It's quite a good heuristic. But it's not what we usually mean by "rational behavior"; it is more nearly instinctive than conscious.

Inquiring after the falsifiability of a theory?

Not perfect but very good, and pretty popular.

Any claim made in an advertisement is automatically suspect.

Paper. Calendars. Smartphones. Asking other people for advice.

Perhaps Nigerian scammers? Nowadays everyone knows that Nigerian scammers are likely going to take you for a ride, and what tactics they use. And how much it hurts to get stung by one.

You could use the idea of benevolent Nigerian Princes as the 'known false' idea that everyone can agree on, and segue into the features of it that ring alarm bells (high payoff for sending personal info, undeserved wealth triggering our 'greed' buttons, etc) and the idea that being primed on rationality helps you to not fall for whatever the next version of Nigerian scamming turns out to be.

Every time a parent has to eat something a child left on the plate, saying s/he has 'eaten everything', the concept of actively seeking disconfirming evidence taps on the door...

Epistemic or instrumental rationality?