Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
As the study of argument is of clear importance to the reasons that we hold things to be true, logic is of essential importance to rationality. Arguments may be logical if they are "conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", [1] while they are rational according to the broader requirement that they are based on reason and knowledge.
Rational decision making is a multi-step process for making choices between alternatives. The process of rational decision making favors logic, objectivity, and analysis over subjectivity and insight. Irrational decision is more counter to logic. The decisions are made in haste and outcomes are not considered. [57]
The difference between the two is that actions are intentional behavior, i.e. they are performed for a purpose and guided by it. In this regard, intentional behavior like driving a car is either rational or irrational while non-intentional behavior like sneezing is outside the domain of rationality. [6] [63] [64]
The key difference between expressive voting and rational irrationality is that the former does not require people to actually hold systematically biased beliefs, while the latter does. Loren Lomasky, one of the proponents of expressive voting, explained some of the key differences between the theories in a critical review of Caplan's book. [6]
As decision-makers have to make decisions about how and when to decide, Ariel Rubinstein proposed to model bounded rationality by explicitly specifying decision-making procedures as decision-makers with the same information are also not able to analyse the situation equally thus reach the same rational decision. [16]
Traditional game theory is a primarily normative theory as it seeks to pinpoint the decision that rational players should choose, but does not attempt to explain why that decision was made. [14] Rationality is a primary assumption of game theory, so there are not explanations for different forms of rational decisions or irrational decisions. [14]
Tversky, Kahneman, and colleagues demonstrated several replicable ways in which human judgments and decisions differ from rational choice theory. Tversky and Kahneman explained human differences in judgment and decision-making in terms of heuristics.
Escalation of commitment, irrational escalation, or sunk cost fallacy, where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong. G. I. Joe fallacy, the tendency to think that knowing about cognitive bias is enough to overcome it. [66]