This essay is useful and thought provoking (at least to me) in explaining what rationality is not — namely, it is not, and should not be, reducing the scope of possible explanations to what one understands (e.g., “econ” who only cares about monetary benefits), and then proclaiming anything that does not fit into the framework “irrational”.
It also makes perfect sense that a useful action for wrong reasons is better than a ruinous action for [better thought through and seemingly right, but actually still] wrong reasons.
However, what about the useful action done based on better thought through and more likely right reasons? I.e., it is clearly better to not sleep under dead trees in PNG than to sleep under them, but would it not be even better to not sleep under them because you know of the safety hazard of the dead tree falling down rather than because of a superstition? If you understand the scientific reason, you can then arrive at even better decisions — e.g., perhaps for the same reason you should not sleep under a tree which is still alive but you see it is rotting at the root and hence it might not be stable.
This goes back to what a better, or “rational” decision is. And this is where the definition limited to survival seems quite incomplete. Let’s say two reasonably well off people have found a pot of gold each. For each it is a significant amount of money, even life changing, but none depends on it for survival. Both find being rich desirable. One takes it to a precious metals vault in Switzerland to be held in his name. The other throws it into the sea (or, if we want to keep actions in the same direction as beliefs, in a wild speculation get-rich-quick scheme in which the money is promptly lost). Twenty years later, both are still surviving, but the former is significantly richer. Does it mean both were equally rational in their choice of what to do with their pot of gold? I would argue the first made a more rational choice, as his decision gave him more of what he valued.
I would argue therefore that definition of rationality should be expanded to something like “actions in line with one’s values and goals”. Survival, individual and/or collective, is likely an important part of values and goals for most people, but not the only one. Skin in the game then might very well be the most effective tool to incentivize rational behavior.