3 ms·
Yeah, but I think the point is, whatever meaning of "rational" do you pick, then you seemingly always encounter a similar problem, i.e. some clearly innovative
by js8 7y ago
Yeah, but I think the point is, whatever meaning of "rational" do you pick, then you seemingly always encounter a similar problem, i.e. some clearly innovative behavior will not fit the bill of being rational.
Money and free market (and economic rationality) is our current best shot at defining rationality (what makes sense to do) through a mechanism (algorithm).
We can talk about utilons instead of money. But then any theory of decision making is worthless, because we cannot apply it to groups of people, they have different units! It pushes the problem one level away.
- raleighm 7y agoWe all have powerful non-pecuniary motives: friendship, honor, adventure, etc., and we view ourselves as applying rationality to these pursuits. For example: "If I'm really a friend to Billy, then what I should do here is ...". On your view, that would not constitute rational deliberation.
- js8 7y agoIn a way yes, I think we never apply the rationality to it rigorously, we for example might not question that relationship. So it is a matter of where do you draw the line, and that seems to be a personal choice, which defies an explanation. (And in fact people who try to be rational rigorously seem to behave like psychopaths.) Don't take this thread the wrong way, I like rationality, and I like Julia's writing on the topic. But it seems to have a fundamental limit, so there is a bit of irrationality always required.