One difference that I notice in myself and other people who broadly identify as being part of rationality community is that I'm more likely to approach any questions/area in life systematically.
This mainly comes up when I'm faced with a non-trivial problem, or a problem that repeats over time.
In such situations I tend to wonder - has anyone came up with an established "best" way of solving problems of this type. If not - are there structural reasons for this or was it just because no-one tried to systematize things?
Some recent examples for me include:
figuring out how to get better at West Coast Swing
ongoing effort in food systematization
I'd contrast this approach with a default that I'd describe as
going with the flow
doing what other people are doing
doing the first thing that comes to mind
doing what you were always doing because you parents were doing the same thing
agency feels like a related skill - required to take action in a first place. Though "being systematic" points to a specific way of approaching action.
It's a meta-cognitive habit to always ask, given that I want to achieve goal X
is it worth to spend time optimizing it
it is not always the case - often the overhead of doing meta-cognitive processing is not justified based on the improvements in time or quality of the outcomes you can achieve
{{TODO}} example
any given decision of where to eat is likely better guided by in the moment intuitions
but plausibly worth having a once in a while consideration on what's your nutrition strategy should be food systematization
or how to get most of an avg culinary experience food
Not always worth it
limits to knowledge
if yes - what is the most effective way to get there
but valuable on the margin