How much pleasure do you get from your car?
Misty Morning
Day of Mist
A Random Walk Down the Wall Street
The Fundamental Attribution Error
Advantage Asia?
Winter Evening
Winter Sunlight and shadow
Backyard Winter
I'm not a person
Speed
Kurt Godel's equation
Bath Tissue
Peripatetikos / Walking
Kick at the rock, Sam Johnson, break your bones: B…
End of a day
Memories
Colours of Nature
Dark Days of Autumn Rain
Downtown ~ Winter Day
Neurolinguistic Processing
Pups and their friends
A Cardinal
Cotton
Backyard Spring
Cape Cod Light House
The Night Migrations
Now take a look at the Cemetry
Manai, Wales UK
Downtown, East Lansing, Michigan
See also...
Keywords
Authorizations, license
-
Visible by: Everyone -
All rights reserved
-
214 visits
- Keyboard shortcuts:
Jump to top
RSS feed- Latest comments - Subscribe to the comment feeds of this photo
- ipernity © 2007-2025
- Help & Contact
|
Club news
|
About ipernity
|
History |
ipernity Club & Prices |
Guide of good conduct
Donate | Group guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use | Statutes | In memoria -
Facebook
Twitter
The definition of rationality as coherence is impossibly restrictive, it demands adherence to rules of logic that a finite mind is not able to implement. Reasonable people cannot be rational in that definition, but they should not be branded as irrational for that reason. Irrational is a strong word, which connotes impulsivity, emotionality, and stubborn resistance to reasonable argument. I often cringe when my work with Amos is credited with demonstrating that human choices are irrational, when in fact our research only showed that Humans are not well described by the rational-agent model.
Although Humans are not irrational, they often need help to make more accurate judgments and better decisions, and some cases policies and institutions can provide that help. These claims may seem innocuous, but they are in fact quite controversial. As interpreted by the important Chicago school of economics, faith in human rationality is closely linked to anideology in which it is unnecessary and even immoral to protect people against their choices. Rational people should be free, and they should be responsible for taking care of themselves. Milton Friedman, the leading figure in that school, expressed this view in the title of one of his popular books: “Free to Choose”
In the nation of Econs, government should keep out of the way, allowing the Econs to act as they choose, so long as they do not harm others. If a motorcycle rider chooses to ride without a hamlet, a libertarian will support his right to do so. Citizens know what they are doing, even when they choose not to save for their old age, or when they expose themselves to addictive substances. There is something hard edge to this position: elderly people who did not save enough for retirement get little more sympathy than someone who complains about the bill after consuming a large meal at a restaurant. Much is therefore at stake in the debate between the Chicago school and the behavioral economists, who reject the extreme form of rational-agent model. Freedom is not a contested value; all the participants in the debate are in favor of it. But life is more complex for behavioral economists than for true believers in human rationality. No behavioral economist favors a state that will force its citizens to eat a balanced diet and to watch only television programs that are good for the soul. For behavioral economists, however, freedom has a cost, which is borne by individuals who make bad choices, and by a society that feels obligated to help them. The decision of whether or not to protect individuals against their mistakes therefore presents a dilemma for behavioral economists. The economists of Chicago school do not face that problem, because rational agents do not make mistakes. For adherents of this school, freedom is free of charge. Pages 411/412 (Thinking Fast and Slow ~ Daniel Kahneman)
Sign-in to write a comment.