The Rationality Community has a far lower focus on morality, and has members which are amoral or completely selfish. I'll go out on a limb and claim that they also have a broader set of interests, since there is less of a restriction on what attention can be focused on (EA wants to do good, the rationality community is interested in truth, and truth can be found basically about anything).
Purely from online observation (and I'll admit I'm biased towards the EA side of things here):
I'm interested to hear why you're asking this question. How would this affect your confidence in certain beliefs and they way you defer?
I've become much more familiar with EA, historically I've consider the two communities to be similarly rational and I thought the two were generally a lot more similar in their beliefs than I do now.
So when I learn of a difference of opinion, I update my outside view and the extent to which I consider people the relevant experts. E.g., when I learn that Eliezer thinks pigs aren't morally relevant because they're not self-aware, I lose a bit of confidence in my belief that pigs are morally relevant and I become a bit less trustful that any alignment 'solutions' coming from the rationalist community would capture the bulk of what I care about.
Any rationalists around who could answer this question? Crosspost to lesswrong?
I'm curious[1] if people observe any differences of opinion that seem to come up a bit too often to be random. I think I've noticed at least three - my impression is that, compared to EAs, rationalists on the whole:
I'd love to hear if anyone disagrees or has other observations.[2]
Philosophically, I think rationalists relatively:
Sociologically, I think they:
These are excellent, cheers!
Although I would have said "less prestige-seeking; more prestige-conscious" (as in, they talk about it a lot, but tend to be quite scrupulous about not seeking it for themselves and are sceptical of its usefulness)