Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
I feel as if at least a couple of you here partially subscribe to this theory. I have some questions.
First, do you or other rational action subscribers generally adhere to either of these definitions:
1) that people usually act rational in the philosophical sense (reasoned through with science, economics, ethics, etc) 2) that people usually act rational in the personal sense (maximizing subjective personal advantage)
Or do you believe it is both: that acting in your personal interest is rational/rationality requires acting in your personal interest.
Second: even if it is found empirically that people usually act to maximize personal advantage, why should that be the case?
Rational choice theory, also known as choice theory or rational action theory is a framework for understanding and often formally modeling social and economic behavior. It is the main theoretical paradigm in the currently-dominant school of microeconomics. Rationality (here equated with "wanting more rather than less of a good") is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analysis and appears in almost all economics textbook treatments of human decision-making. It is also central to some of modern political science and is used by some scholars in other disciplines such as sociology and philosophy. It is the same as instrumental rationality, which involves seeking the most cost-effective means to achieve a specific goal without reflecting on the worthiness of that goal. Gary Becker was an early proponent of applying rational actor models more widely. He won the 1992 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his studies of discrimination, crime, and human capital.
The "rationality" described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical use of the word. For most people, "rationality" means "sane," "in a thoughtful clear-headed manner," or knowing and doing what's healthy in the long term. Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage. For example, this may involve kissing someone, cheating on a test, buying a new dress, or committing murder. In rational choice theory, all decisions, crazy or sane, are postulated as mimicking such a "rational" process. Thus rationality is seen as a property of patterns of choices, rather than of individual choices: there is nothing irrational in preferring fish to meat, but there is something irrational in preferring fish to meat and preferring meat to fish.
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
I wrote this in a previous thread, and it seems relevant to this one.
thodoks wrote:
Leaving aside what motivates one to act (whether it's an altruistic inclination or an inclination that serves narrow self-interest), action is the result of choice. My mom chooses to adopt greyhounds. Big brothers choose to "adopt" little brothers. Peace Corps volunteers choose to give their time, blood, sweat, and tears to the less fortunate in africa. My Mom, Nate, and Peace Corps volunteers could have just as easily chosen to not avail themselves of these selfless endeavors. Implicit in that choice is the notion that, for each individual, the selfless course is preferable to a more selfish one. Action, which is a function of choice, reveals preferences. By rejecting what they view as the less attractive course of action - selfish pursuits - in favor of what they view as the more attractive course of action - selfless pursuits - they are revealing their preferences. And by pursuing the action they prefer, they are practicing self-interested behavior.
Employing means and pursuing some end - that is, action, the sum of which is behavior - is an act of self-interest. Given the information one possesses and the incentives one faces, it's my position that everyone acts rationally to pursue what is at any given moment in their (perceived) self-interest. So yes, I think people usually act rationally in the personal sense. Where I depart from most standard economic definitions is in the assumption of objective rationality. That is, what I may view as a rational act may be viewed by someone else as irrational because they lack either (or both) the information or incentives I face at the time of said act. I would argue that rationality is inherently subjective, and that it's often useless to try and model, predict, or project one's standard of what a "rational" act is onto another.
2) that people usually act rational in the personal sense (maximizing subjective personal advantage)
But I also think people are pretty fucked up and irrational. That's where I think a lot of classical theory breaks down. It doesn't account near enough for how fucked up everyone is.
_________________ There's just no mercy in your eyes There ain't no time to set things right And I'm afraid I've lost the fight I'm just a painful reminder Another day you leave behind
...there is something irrational in preferring fish to meat and preferring meat to fish.
Yeah, I think this is bullshit. It's the product of one imposing objective and static standards of rationality onto a subjective and dynamic context in which another makes a decision. If I prefer fish to meat at a restaurant on a Tuesday night, I might very well prefer meat to fish at that same restaurant on Thursday night if I value variety in my diet, or simply don't want to eat the same thing twice in three nights. Both decisions - given the information and incentives I face in each circumstance - are entirely rational. But to an onlooker looking to systematize my behavior, it might appear irrational.
Basically, the world is dynamic. It exists in shades of grey. Contexts and circumstances are in a constant state of flux. Failing to take that into account is the source of confusion and imprecision over what constitutes "rationality."
_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand
Last edited by thodoks on Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
But I also think people are pretty fucked up and irrational. That's where I think a lot of classical theory breaks down. It doesn't account near enough for how fucked up everyone is.
Their behavior is irrational according to your standards and definitions of rationality. But is their behavior irrational when viewed in the unique context of the information and incentives with which they are confronted?
Again, my argument is that everyone is rational. It's just that the definition of rationality is subjective, not objective.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm Posts: 12287 Location: Manguetown Gender: Male
How rational is the bullshit spilled by Ben during his lectures?
_________________ There's just no mercy in your eyes There ain't no time to set things right And I'm afraid I've lost the fight I'm just a painful reminder Another day you leave behind
That is, what I may view as a rational act may be viewed by someone else as irrational because they lack either (or both) the information or incentives I face at the time of said act. I would argue that rationality is inherently subjective, and that it's often useless to try and model, predict, or project one's standard of what a "rational" act is onto another.
How do you feel this applies to people with disabilities? I'm thinking (often) of my stepson, who was a very kind and intelligent young man until his car accident. Rational, you know? But really, my question could work for a lot of the more severe special education students (and many of their parents...) as well as many head trauma victims.
Cory rationalizes well in conversation, but is often incapable of analyzing events as they happen. This means he can often tell you before or after the fact what the best course of action is for him, but when a moment of action or reaction occurs he inevitably behaves with an almost horrifying illogic. He's been in jail on three different occasions during the last two years, he's been in repeated altercations that have placed him in danger (any and every strike to the head is dangerous to him now), he's gotten angry and tried hammering his own head into a brick wall, he's jumped onto a moving car in a fit of rage...when I strongarmed him into coming to stay with us for a while last year, he got upset about a conversation with his mother and decided to "walk for a while." I found him sauntering up the middle of one of the busiest stretches of interstate in the state, while cars dodged around him.
I guess what I see in all this is that the Cory that exists in the moment is ruled by emotion, and emotion is rarely rational. Cory before or after the moment can see it for what it is, but whatever keeps your emotions from overruling everything is just no longer functioning there.
I guess I'm wondering to what degree head injuries or disabilities play into a theory like that. You could argue that in the moment his anger leads him to walk down a busy street, his actions seem rational to him, but I'm not sure you wouldn't be stripping the term itself of any useful communicative properties.
That is, what I may view as a rational act may be viewed by someone else as irrational because they lack either (or both) the information or incentives I face at the time of said act. I would argue that rationality is inherently subjective, and that it's often useless to try and model, predict, or project one's standard of what a "rational" act is onto another.
How do you feel this applies to people with disabilities? I'm thinking (often) of my stepson, who was a very kind and intelligent young man until his car accident. Rational, you know? But really, my question could work for a lot of the more severe special education students (and many of their parents...) as well as many head trauma victims.
Cory rationalizes well in conversation, but is often incapable of analyzing events as they happen. This means he can often tell you before or after the fact what the best course of action is for him, but when a moment of action or reaction occurs he inevitably behaves with an almost horrifying illogic. He's been in jail on three different occasions during the last two years, he's been in repeated altercations that have placed him in danger (any and every strike to the head is dangerous to him now), he's gotten angry and tried hammering his own head into a brick wall, he's jumped onto a moving car in a fit of rage...when I strongarmed him into coming to stay with us for a while last year, he got upset about a conversation with his mother and decided to "walk for a while." I found him sauntering up the middle of one of the busiest stretches of interstate in the state, while cars dodged around him.
I guess what I see in all this is that the Cory that exists in the moment is ruled by emotion, and emotion is rarely rational. Cory before or after the moment can see it for what it is, but whatever keeps your emotions from overruling everything is just no longer functioning there.
I guess I'm wondering to what degree head injuries or disabilities play into a theory like that. You could argue that in the moment his anger leads him to walk down a busy street, his actions seem rational to him, but I'm not sure you wouldn't be stripping the term itself of any useful communicative properties.
Hmmm. I'll be honest: this isn't a variation to which I've given much thought. At first pass, I don't think the theory has much of anything to say about those with head traumas and mental disabilities.
It sounds like for whatever reason he isn't capable of behaving at time T in a way that's consistent with an understanding of his incentives and constraints at time T-1. It seems reasonable to condition the notion of rationality on the integrity of one's cognitive faculties.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 16 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum