14 Apr 05
Originally posted by PalynkaNo problem. From a contradiction, anything follows. By stating that I had never heard of the prisoners dilemma when in fact I am quite familiar with it, I opened up the possibilty for any and all consequences, so I accept any that befall me as being nobody's fault but mine.
Sorry about that. I misread your reply and didn't waste my time in making a fool of myself. Tried to delete it before you saw it, but I guess it was too late...
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Scribbles: How do you define rational behaviour?
I think that's what this discussion is all about. All forms of deviant behaviour can be rational, depending on consequences, risk and risk preferences of each individual.
The need for adicional deterrents to prevent crime is a good indication that the decisions are indeed taken rationally, at least in a significant proportion.
14 Apr 05
8 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaA decision is rational if and only if the chosen course of action is such that no other available course of action can be logically deduced from all available information to better satisfy the agent's utility, where utility is best described as that which compels the agent to attempt to make the correct decision in the first place.
Scribbles: How do you define rational behaviour?
For example, if I lay a $10 bill and a $20 dollar bill on the table and tell you to choose one to keep as yours, if you attempt to choose the "correct" one based on a desire for more money, then amassing money is your standard of utility in the scenario. Based on that standard, choosing the $20 is a rational choice, for it cannot be logically deduced from the available information that the $10 gives you more money.
If, however, when presented with the same scenario, you feel no compulsion to pick the "correct" one, then amassing money is not your utility function. If you discern no difference in value between the two options, then niether choice is rational or irrational.
Or, perhaps you are an avid fan of Hamilton and like to accummulate his pictures. Then choosing the $10 would be the rational choice, because it cannot be logically deduced that the $20 will give you more pictures of Hamilton. You might say, Yes it could, for the $20 could be exchanged for two $10s, but that cannot be deduced from the information at hand; it's possible the bills on the table are the last two of their kind in existence, maybe due to a redesign of the printed currency.
14 Apr 05
I was expecting some form of definition that includes risk, as most decisions are of uncertain result.
Correct my if I'm wrong, but your denial that criminal behaviour can be rational implies that the individuals care enough about the long-term not to jeopardize society.
Then again, even if they did (election cycles are evidence that they do not), there's still the problem of free riders and expect others to pay the price for maintaining society. And free riding is rational (albeit undesirable) behaviour.
14 Apr 05
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaRisk is implicitly included in the definition, specifically in deducing whether a course of action better satisfies utility. It doesn't need to be made explicit.
I was expecting some form of definition that includes risk, as most decisions are of uncertain result.
For example, suppose I modify the toy problem and tell you that if you choose the $20, there is a 10% chance that it will spontaneously combust before you are able to claim it.
First, we have to ask, what is the utility? What is the overriding concern behind your decision making? There is no right answer here, but once an answer is provided, then the lines between rational and irrational are drawn with respect to analyzing the options.
Do you want to maximize the possible monetary gain because you need $20 today to pay your rent or be evicted, and getting $10 won't help? If so, then it can be deduced that choosing the $20 best satisfies utility.
Do you want to maximize the average monetary gain? If so, then it can be deduced using expected value that choosing the $20 best satisfies utility.
Do you want to accumulate any possible money with certainty because you're completely broke and will starve this afternoon if you don't eat? If so, then it can be deduced that choosing the $10 is the rational choice.
14 Apr 05
Ok, it's the second option.
I was expecting an answer on my questions about free riding and election cycles. Evidence that reality proves you wrong or you believe that most individuals are irrational.
I could debate this further, but I see my previous apology was a waste of time. I'm done with your veiled insults.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt sounds like you are basing rational on doing what one feels good about or desires - by your examples. But does not rational thinking lead to actions that go against our desires?
A decision is rational if and only if the chosen course of action is such that no other available course of action can be logically deduced from all available information to better satisfy the agent's utility, where utility is best described as that which compels the agent to attempt to make the correct decision in the first place.
For example, ...[text shortened]... le are the last two of their kind in existence, maybe due to a redesign of the printed currency.
I think of rational as the effort to be logical. So a rational choice is one based on the attempt to use correct reasoning.
14 Apr 05
3 edits
Originally posted by ColettiYou'll note that applying logic correctly is a crucial component of the definition I gave. It says "logically deduced." An attempt at a correct deduction does not suffice.
It sounds like you are basing rational on doing what one feels good about or desires - by your examples. But does not rational thinking lead to actions that go against our desires?
I think of rational as the effort to be logical. So ...[text shortened]... ional choice is one based on the attempt to use correct reasoning.
For example, if a person really thinks that 10 is greater than 20 and chooses the 10 in order to maximize his monetary accummulation, he has acted irrationally, for it can be logically deduced that choosing the 20 serves to better satisfy his utility, even if his attempt at determining that was in error.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOK. I just found your examples confusing because it sounded like you were saying the rational decision is always the one the agrees with your wants.
You'll note that applying logic correctly is a crucial component of the definition I gave. It says "logically deduced."
For example, if a person really thinks that 10 is greater than 20 and chooses the 10 in order to maximize his monetary accummulation, he has acted irrationally, for it can be logically deduced that choosing the 20 serves to better satisfy his utility, even if his attempt at determining that was in error.
Would you agree that sometimes the rational choice conflicts with our desires or feelings?
You want the $20, but know you have earned only $10 and your ethical system says you don't take what you have not earned. So the rational choice is the $10.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by telerionOk allow me to explain myself more clearly.
Gonna go with the safe economic answer:
Maybe. It depends. 🙂
Assume:
1) The marginal cost of printing fake money is lower than the marginal cost of obtaining real money,
2) The agent knows that (s)he won't be caught
3) The agent does not print enough money to have a significant impact on the aggregate money supply
It is consistent with rationality that the agent will print counterfeit money and use it to purchase consumption goods.
14 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiIn the scenario you present, you have two competing components of the utility function: amassing money and adhering to ethics concerning earnings. Before one can answer the question of whether choosing hte $10 is rational, you first have to describe how those components balance.
OK. I just found your examples confusing because it sounded like you were saying the rational decision is always the one the agrees with your wants.
Would you agree that sometimes the rational choice conflicts with our desires or feel ...[text shortened]... take what you have not earned. So the rational choice is the $10.
If you tell me that adherence to ethics overrides any other concerns, then choosing the $10 is rational. If you tell me that the marginal benefit of an extra $10 makes up for the value you lose from violating your ethics, then the $20 is the rational choice.
I would not agree that a rational course of action can conflict with your fully formulated desires. In the example you gave, adherance to ethics is also part of your desires.