Continuing on the rationality-as-survival point…

Continuing on the rationality-as-survival point, there is a confusion when it comes to “rationality” of a decision between the *reduced* and the *structural* form, and the *static* and *dynamic* form:
+ a single decision vs. a RULE generating a sequence of decisions. One decision can be rational while the rule is not. It would be rational for me to eat tuna today but under repetition it would harm the planet so it is OK to keep switching preferences. We saw that intransitive preferences or random preferences can be very rational.
+ it may seem irrational to not take the direct route between 2 points, but under convexity of payoffs/nonlinear transformation it becomes so. You may discover a new direction.
+ local vs. global rationality. Mental accounting: say husband would not buy a tie by himself but his wife –with a joint checking account –gives it to him as a gift and he is excited. It could be irrational for a given instance but as a method it prevents people from splurging.
+ ludic vs. ecological environments. Some actions show biases in a casino and are irrational but real life is not a casino and these can be really rational. Life is ambiguous, laboratory settings are not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *