> Pretty much, yes. That's the only way you get any useful information. Nah I don't agree. Sometimes people act irrationally. A otherwise friendly person might

> Pretty much, yes. That's the only way you get any useful information. Nah I don't agree. Sometimes people act irrationally. A otherwise friendly person might seem unfriendly because they've had too little to eat. Or because they had a bad day at work. Typically they would agree that their temporary unfriendlyness is not in accordance with their eithical principles, nor generally in theirs or anyone else's best interest. They (we) are just limited as beings. Unable to do what they know to be best. Another way to look at it could be to say that people are not a single actor. What is the self? What we perceive as a unified I could very well be a much more shattered / distributed fenomena. Relying on the "rational actor model" limits the perspectives we can take on what a conscious being really is. And I do think logic is a *requirement* for rationality (agree knowledge is not though). Maybe perfect logic is not necessary, behavior of sufficiently rational actors is perhaps well approximated by the rational actor model. But maybe not! Question is - will increasingly rational actors eventually converge to the same behavior? If not - then rational actor theory cannot even approximate human behavior, it intrinsically has to be a theory about "human logic".