5 ms·
Similarly, the most general form of rational decision theory or rational choice theory is based on lattices. That makes intuitive sense, since preference relati
by zwaps 6y ago
Similarly, the most general form of rational decision theory or rational choice theory is based on lattices. That makes intuitive sense, since preference relations ~are~ partially ordered sets.
Then, analyzing rational (vs. for example boundedly rational choice behavior) is equivalent to analyzing lattice optimization problems (monotonicity).
Then, parameterizing the choice situation and / or introducing strategic dependecies between actors leads to analyzing sub/supermodular correspondences on these sets. In fact, the most general version would make use of quasi-supermodularity. I think Milgrom&Roberts 94 show that this is the most general way, one can think of coherent (rational) decision theory.
- Sharlin 6y ago> That makes intuitive sense, since preference relations ~are~ partially ordered sets Preference relations of rational agents are, anyway. When it comes to us mere mortals, well, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intransitivity#Occurrences_in_preferences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intransitivity#Occurrences_in_....
- zwaps 6y agoyes of course, but even then we are left to describe such intransitivities in a useful manner rather than conclude the actors is simply non-rational. If it were so, then human behavior would be impossible to analyze. Instead, if we focus on causes and consequences of non transitive preferences - like in behavioral economics - we may regain the ability to do analyzes.