Being rational and rationalist are not the same thing. Funnily this sort of false equivalence that relies on being "technically correct" is at the core of what makes them...difficult.
There's more to the group identity than just applying logic and rationality, yes. But surely 'rationalists' of all people wouldn't want to take the position that some of their key ideas don't result primarily from applying rational thought processes. Any part of their worldview that doesn't follow immediately from foundational principles of logic and reason is presumably subject to revision based on evidence and argument.
Right but their version of rationality is very much lacking in emotional and even social intelligence. In fact it seems those traits are discouraged in discussions. Instead things are viewed from a purely Bayesian/Spock/Sherlocke/Data style perspective. These arguments can only make sense by assuming far more predictive power (or far less accounting for chaos and hidden variables) and by developing blind spots not found in softer arguments which have their own problems but at least try to consider ethics and economics from more nuanced perspectives.
Their core principle seems to be that many or even most answers to humanity's problems can be well defined in the first place and then solved by invoking Bayesian logic. This is only true in a frictionless vacuum.
