Well, if what you're saying is that for a decision (say, to pursue a certain path which leads to innovation) you need to have both rationality and values, then

Well, if what you're saying is that for a decision (say, to pursue a certain path which leads to innovation) you need to have both rationality and values, then you're already admitting that rationality is not enough, and therefore you need (at least a little bit of) irrationality. But I think the paradox is deeper, and it ultimately means that we cannot really define "rationality", it is contradictory. And I think that's what economists are trying to do (and what they teach MBAs), to make a theory of how to make the best decision, regardless of values. The paradox seems to be that you cannot follow any theory like that blindly. Perhaps it is cliched, I don't know. I wish Yanis would write a popular book about the paradox (he is certainly fond of it, see his book Economic Indeterminacy).