4 ms·
It's a fact many people believe themselves rational and use models expecting rational actors. Proof lacks that it actually works that way. The opposite is often
by loopz 5y ago
It's a fact many people believe themselves rational and use models expecting rational actors. Proof lacks that it actually works that way. The opposite is often most probable since you rarely have perfect knowledge in practice. Exceptions can be games like tic-tac-toe and chess.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago> Proof lacks that it actually works that way I mean everyone know it doesn't really work that way. The actual question is: does viewing the average actor as trying to perfectly optimise their utility function using all the information available constitute a good estimation of how actors work in aggregate and does it yield accurate and interesting predictions? The real insight of Simon in Models of Man is not that actors are not in fact perfectly rational. It's that you can actually model the limits of actors while keeping a fairly rigorous and manageable formalization.
- loopz 5y agoSure, but such models are hackable / breakable, just by breaking the rules or reinventing the game.
- techbio 5y agoI'll have to read Simon, but I'll be looking for some stable types of responses to uncertainty, not rational but adaptive: reversion to past/training, confusion, overreaction, etc. ie something prevalent enough that it can be reasoned about.