5 ms·

I really dislike the concept of "rationality", or at the very least the way it gets used. I'm sure there are cases where everyone would agree that someone is be

by md224 4y ago

I really dislike the concept of "rationality", or at the very least the way it gets used. I'm sure there are cases where everyone would agree that someone is behaving irrationally, but a lot of the time the label of "irrational" hides assumptions about value and tolerance for risk. If an entrepreneur decides to prioritize certain factors over others, who's to say that's "irrational"? Is there an objectively correct way to run a business? I just find the whole idea so tiresome.

whatshisface 4y ago
There are objective standards for rationality, although we rarely have enough information to evaluate other people according to them. One example of an objective standard is whether or not all of the things you say have a fifty-fifty chance of happening, taken together, do indeed happen half the time. Another objective standard is whether or not you change your stated goals after the fact to make yourself feel more successful. There are no end of objectively irrational behaviors, although we rarely have enough insight into other people's lives to identify them, or the clarity of mind, accuracy of memory and commitment to reflection to see them in ourselves.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  I don't think it's as objective as you think. There are many circumstances where someone might make a completely rational decision while still being utterly wrong, because they didn't have the information available to them to make a better decision.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    It depends on the definition of "rational". A serviceable but vacuous definition is "the procedure by which a decision is reached." Note that it is vacuous in that it imposes no constraints (not even repeatability/consistency), so anything that results in a decision fits the definition. It is serviceable because if you want a better definition, you have to argue deviations/changes - eg consistency. You'll find it to be a choice, not a requirement. Eg: Batman's Joker behaves according to his rules. The end result may be unpredictable, but that doesn't mean the decision process doesn't follow his rules.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    I didn't list "always succeeds" as a standard for rationality. I said, "chances they say are fifty-fifty turn out like they expected fifty percent of the time." If someone ascribes an 80% chance to each of 1000 possible events, and 800 of them happen, they are almost certainly rational.
Zondartul 4y ago
"Rational" doesn't mean correct, it only means "logical". For example, a neural net for discriminating between cats and dogs is, in general irrational - and yet it does so better than anything based on pure symbolic logic. Humans are inherently irrational. We try to emulate rational behavior because a logic gives us certainity and lets us feel secure about the outcomes, but we are physically incapable of acting in a logical way for several reasons. We don't have enough data to make a fully justified decision in every situation, and if we did, it would still cost too much energy for our meat brains to actually compute those decisions. So we approximate rational behavior, making statistical guesses. With enough data (experience), those guesses are good. Other times, your guesses are bad. Sometimes you have barely any data at all and are forced to choose between several options that all carry risks, so you go with your instinct. Is it rational? No, but it might have been the least bad choice, as in real-world, real-time situations, failure to make any choice whatsoever is itself a choice, and usually a bad one. ps: I come from the AI field so I have no idea how any of this relates to economics.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  Rational actually seems to have several meanings. The two most common ones being "reasoned" (thought through logically), which seems to be the meaning you are thinking of and "correct" (making a good decision given the information available). Many bad arguments are made due to conflating these meanings. So much so that I inclined to agree with the grandparent that talking about things being "rational" or not isn't very helpful.
- Beldin 4y ago
  > For example, a neural net [...] is, in general irrational I'd argue the opposite. Rationality is using a reasoned approach to decision making. In a neural net, that reasoning is embedded in the net. You may disagree with its conclusion or its internal steps, but it does follow a clear line of reasoning.

by md224 4y ago

whatshisface 4y ago

There are objective standards for rationality, although we rarely have enough information to evaluate other people according to them. One example of an objective standard is whether or not all of the things you say have a fifty-fifty chance of happening, taken together, do indeed happen half the time. Another objective standard is whether or not you change your stated goals after the fact to make yourself feel more successful. There are no end of objectively irrational behaviors, although we rarely have enough insight into other people's lives to identify them, or the clarity of mind, accuracy of memory and commitment to reflection to see them in ourselves.

nicoburns 4y ago
I don't think it's as objective as you think. There are many circumstances where someone might make a completely rational decision while still being utterly wrong, because they didn't have the information available to them to make a better decision.
- Beldin 4y ago
  It depends on the definition of "rational". A serviceable but vacuous definition is "the procedure by which a decision is reached." Note that it is vacuous in that it imposes no constraints (not even repeatability/consistency), so anything that results in a decision fits the definition. It is serviceable because if you want a better definition, you have to argue deviations/changes - eg consistency. You'll find it to be a choice, not a requirement. Eg: Batman's Joker behaves according to his rules. The end result may be unpredictable, but that doesn't mean the decision process doesn't follow his rules.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  I didn't list "always succeeds" as a standard for rationality. I said, "chances they say are fifty-fifty turn out like they expected fifty percent of the time." If someone ascribes an 80% chance to each of 1000 possible events, and 800 of them happen, they are almost certainly rational.

Zondartul 4y ago

"Rational" doesn't mean correct, it only means "logical". For example, a neural net for discriminating between cats and dogs is, in general irrational - and yet it does so better than anything based on pure symbolic logic. Humans are inherently irrational. We try to emulate rational behavior because a logic gives us certainity and lets us feel secure about the outcomes, but we are physically incapable of acting in a logical way for several reasons. We don't have enough data to make a fully justified decision in every situation, and if we did, it would still cost too much energy for our meat brains to actually compute those decisions. So we approximate rational behavior, making statistical guesses. With enough data (experience), those guesses are good. Other times, your guesses are bad. Sometimes you have barely any data at all and are forced to choose between several options that all carry risks, so you go with your instinct. Is it rational? No, but it might have been the least bad choice, as in real-world, real-time situations, failure to make any choice whatsoever is itself a choice, and usually a bad one. ps: I come from the AI field so I have no idea how any of this relates to economics.

nicoburns 4y ago
Rational actually seems to have several meanings. The two most common ones being "reasoned" (thought through logically), which seems to be the meaning you are thinking of and "correct" (making a good decision given the information available). Many bad arguments are made due to conflating these meanings. So much so that I inclined to agree with the grandparent that talking about things being "rational" or not isn't very helpful.
Beldin 4y ago
> For example, a neural net [...] is, in general irrational I'd argue the opposite. Rationality is using a reasoned approach to decision making. In a neural net, that reasoning is embedded in the net. You may disagree with its conclusion or its internal steps, but it does follow a clear line of reasoning.