Your concluding paragraph does not make any sense, and let me show you why.

I limit myself to this paragraph, because rational argument requires work, whilst irrational arguments can be made by a 4 year-old. Because the energy required to make rational arguments is exponential to that required to make irrational arguments, it wouldn't be rational to demonstrate all the fallacies and inconsistencies in you article. Your last, concluding(?) paragraph will have to do.

First a note about 'rational people'. Rational people do not exist. People think and act more or less rationally. People who are able to control their emotions and focus on evidence, logic, points of view, probability, and, importantly, who question their own reasoning, are more rational than those who go with their gut-feeling, who do not change their point of view in face of better arguments and never question themselves. If we qualify the former as rational people then these rational people are more aware of logical fallacies and the impact that emotions have on their argument than the less rational person. It doesn't make them infallible. It's simply part of the definition of being 'more rational'. By consequence, if Harris would have been "eating his words", as you claim, that would be a sign of a rational person who is learning from new evidence (based on the evidence that you provide however, I doubt the veracity of this claim, but that is not the point here). This is not to negate that the people who are more adapt at using reason cannot be taken over by emotions or fall for fallacious thinking. They are people after all.

Secondly, what are "supposedly rational people"? This means nothing. 'Supposedly' according to whom? 'Supposedly' as opposed to 'factually' rational people? And who would those 'supposedly factual'' rational people be? The fallacy you appear to fall for is that you seem to think that 'rational people' must be infallible in their rationality. As soon as they make a mistake (which you claim mr. Harris made), then they fall into the category of "so-called rational people", and thus he is not rational. Not only do you make Harris fall from the category of 'real rational people' into 'so-called rational people', but you efface the whole concept of there being such as a thing as 'rationality', because you fail to define and differentiate the two categories. Who are the people left in the 'real rational people' category? None. Rational has become 'so-called rational'. It is not that different from the 'radical left'. There is no Left, only the 'radical left'.

It is just word-salad. Words that have the effect on people with severely limited critical thinking skills, to go "yeah, right! them intellectuals and supposedly rational people, whattah they no! They don't undahstand sh*$". Is this the audience you are targeting? Or do you believe that word-salads are what cogent, rational arguments are made of?

Thirdly, they "fall for the same bias when letting their emotions get to them". When people reason from emotion, they are not reasoning rationally. I may be pesky here, but I like to use the meaning of words, because else we end up with... well the article you wrote. In fact they are not reasoning full stop. The point is not 'intellectual' nor 'supposedly rational', but 'people': when people use emotional arguments or fallacious thinking, they are not making a rational argument. That would be a cogent statement. But we knew that already. It's what 'rational' means. Intellectuals, supposedly rational people, non-supposedly rational people, intellectually challenged people, emotional people, in short: all people, can use biased reasoning, all can use emotional reasoning, and when they do, they are not making a rational argument. But, oh dear me, dare I say it, there are only some people who are able to consistently use rational arguments that satisfy the basic criteria of reasoning, including evidence, analysis, logic, probabilities, points of view, hypothesis testing etc. Many people cannot. I must be elitist. Then again, so is Trump when he says that he is "very intelligent" (and demonstrates this with "person, woman, man camera, tv"), a "stable genius" and being "very rich". But I digress.

Lastly, you claim: "sometimes, our-so-called rationality leads us to say or do very irrational things". That we do or say very irrational things is true, but that we do this because of "so-called rationality" (or any other undefined flavour of rationality) was certainly not demonstrated in your article.