The sheer volume of Alexander’s output can make it hard to say anything overly categorical (epistemic status: treading carefully), but there is some evidence to support the idea that he, like anyone, is wont to sacrifice rigor in moments of passion.
Exactly! Tied back to 'rationalists' being used as a sub-culture and pseudo-intellectualism. Additionally, many words do not make a coherent philosophy (if you want to call it that).
The rationalists regularly fail to reckon with power as it is practiced, or history as it has been experienced, and they indulge themselves in such contests with the freedom of those who have largely escaped discrimination.
This is a bit of an accusitory and vaporous statement. I cannot verify this is true at all.
But the rationalists, despite their fixation with cognitive bias, read into the contingencies a darkly meaningful pattern.
Interesting, because that's exactly the type of bias the so called "rathionalists" were trying to fight against.