Suchergebnisse

AbstractAxiomatic rationality is defined in terms of conformity to abstract axioms. Savage (The foundations of statistics, Wiley, New York, 1954) limited axiomatic rationality to small worlds (S, C), that is, situations in which the exhaustive and mutually exclusive set of future states S and their consequences C are known. Others have interpreted axiomatic rationality as a categorical norm for how human beings should reason, arguing in addition that violations would lead to real costs such as money pumps. Yet a review of the literature shows little evidence that violations are actually associated with any measurable costs. Limiting axiomatic rationality to small worlds, I propose a naturalized version of rationality for situations of intractability and uncertainty (as opposed to risk), all of which are not in (S, C). In these situations, humans can achieve their goals by relying on heuristics that may violate axiomatic rationality. The study of ecological rationality requires formal models of heuristics and an analysis of the structures of environments these can exploit. It lays the foundation of a moderate naturalism in epistemology, providing statements about heuristics we should use in a given situation. Unlike axiomatic rationality, ecological rationality can explain less-is-more effects (when using less information can be expected to generate more accurate predictions), formalize when one should move from 'is' to 'ought,' and be evaluated by goals beyond coherence, such as predictive accuracy, frugality, and efficiency. Ecological rationality can be seen as a formalization of means–end instrumentalist rationality, based on Herbert Simon's insight that rational behavior is a function of the mind and its environment.

In this article, I readdress the issue of rationality, which has been so far considered in western liberal democracies and in planning theory as procedural, and more recently as post-political in the post-foundational approach, aiming to show how it can gain a substantive and politicising character. I first discuss the problems and limits of the treatment of rational thinking as well as rational consensus-seeking as merely procedural and post-political. Secondly, utilising the notion of Realrationalität of Flyvbjerg, I discuss how rationality attains a politicising role due to its strong relationship with power. Using the concept of planning rationality aiming at public interest, I present the general position and actions of professional organisations in Turkey, focusing on the Chamber of City Planners, as an example illustrative of my argument. I finally argue that rationality becomes a substantive issue that politicizes planning, when it is put forward as an alternative to authoritarian market logic. In doing so, I adopt the Rancièrian definition of the political, defined as disclosure of a wrong and staging of equality. In conclusion, I first emphasize the importance of avoiding quick rejections of the concepts of rationality and consensus in the framework of planning activity and planning theory and secondly, call for a broader definition of the political; the political that is not confined to conflict but is open to rational thinking and rational consensus.

An analysis of the psychol'al meaning of `rationality' to provide 'a framework within which the bases of internat'l att's can be more meaningfully interpreted than by recourse to superficial labels.' Rational act's are those that develop as logical consequences of the perceived relation of the event to one's values. Rationality implies both cognitive consistency & empirical validity. Non-rational att's, on the other hand, result from influences outside the individual's cognitive system. Thus, rather than 2 distinct types of people, two ideal types of thought process are seen. 2 pressures operate in the direction of the rationality of att structures: (1) those arising from the person's intimate contact with the event system to which the attitude structure refers, & (2) soc pressures toward cognitive consistency within Western culture. Influences toward nonrationality stem from: (a) the unconscious personality structure, & (b) soc systems in which the individual interacts. Thus, 'it would appear quite plausible that att's toward internat'l events maintained by the average citizen carry a strong flavor of non-rationality' because: (i) it is virtually impossible for the average individual to test empirically the applicability of his att's to the events themselves, & (ii) the realm of foreign affairs is generally remote from the most pressing concerns of individuals. I. Taviss.

ABSTRACT.If in a game with multiple proper coordination equilibria there is a single one that is best for all participants, it isrationalfor each participant to choose the strategy that has the best equilibrium as one of its possible outcomes. This seems so obvious that any plausible theory of rationality should be expected to be applicable to such situations. However, this is not true for the "orthodox" theory of rational choice, as Robert Sugden has convincingly shown. In this paper, I shall argue that this failure is due to an implicit individualistic understanding ofintentionality. John R. Searle's concept ofcollective intentionality(as put forth in hisConstruction of Social Reality) and his more recent theory ofRationality in Actionprovides important conceptual tools pertaining to a more comprehensive theory of rationality. The account I shall develop differs from Searle's own, as for reasons to be found in his overall project, Searle's departure from the orthodox view of rationality gets stuck half‐way.

"Economics used to be called political economy, and the loss of the "political" tracks the ascendance of the idea of rational choice within the discipline. Where does this idea of economic rationality - choosing to maximize benefits and minimize costs - come from? What are the consequences of its rise? In this new book, Stephen Engelmann assesses these questions through a consideration of the often-hidden links between choice and government, ranging from the Benthamic utilitarianism that inspired modern economics to the contemporary economic psychologists trying to nudge everyone to choose more rationally. Multiple global crises are exposing how deficient economic rationality is as a political theory, since a focus on choice turns actors away from relations in the common. Political economy once targeted aristocratic rule - heralding a politics and ethics of egalitarian self-command and spurring democratic reform - but economics allows domination and forecloses alternatives to it. This accessible volume will be of interest to students and scholars of politics and economics, and to general readers concerned about the various ways that psychology and management have infiltrated our politics"--Amazon.com

In this work, they attempted to deconstruct the syncretic concept that was set in Russian social science — normative-value consciousness. Basic concepts - norms and values, are included in another context of analysis - the idea of social activity rationality, including management. The necessity of distinguishing between value and normative rationalities is substantiated to understand the mechanisms of building different types of communications in management. They showed that value rationality is formed as the way of consciousness individualization, simultaneously as the way of building the universal in culture, however, its absolutization creates the condition for building an authoritarian, vertical hierarchy both in the internal spiritual life, and in the external social, ideological, and administrative. Ideological regulators ultimately form double moral standards that minimize the effects of social modernization. Normative rationality mediates the contractual relationships that underlie democratic, horizontal communications in governance. The following concepts are relevant: instrumental rationality, purposeful activity, institutional reality. However, the substitution of one for the other in both cases leads to the irrationalization of management processes.

"Economics used to be called political economy, and the loss of the "political" tracks the ascendance of the idea of rational choice within the discipline. Where does this idea of economic rationality - choosing to maximize benefits and minimize costs - come from? What are the consequences of its rise? In this new book, Stephen Engelmann assesses these questions through a consideration of the often-hidden links between choice and government, ranging from the Benthamic utilitarianism that inspired modern economics to the contemporary economic psychologists trying to nudge everyone to choose more rationally. Multiple global crises are exposing how deficient economic rationality is as a political theory, since a focus on choice turns actors away from relations in the common. Political economy once targeted aristocratic rule - heralding a politics and ethics of egalitarian self-command and spurring democratic reform - but economics allows domination and forecloses alternatives to it. This accessible volume will be of interest to students and scholars of politics and economics, and to general readers concerned about the various ways that psychology and management have infiltrated our politics"--Amazon.com.

Rationality is an enduring topic of interest across the disciplines and has become even more so, given the current crises that are unfolding in our society. The four books reviewed here, which are written by academics working in economics, political science, political theory and philosophy, provide an interdisciplinary engagement with the idea of rationality and the way it has shaped the institutional frameworks and global political economy of our time. Rational choice theory has certainly proved to be a useful analytic tool in certain contexts, and instrumental reason has been a key tenet of human progress in several periods of history, including the industrial revolution and the modernity that emerged in the nineteenth century. Given the complexity of our current challenges, however, is it time to ask whether this paradigm might be better complemented by more holistic and heterodox approaches? Hindmoor A and Taylor TY (2015) Rational Choice (Political Analysis), 2nd edn. London; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Massumi (2015) The Power at the End of the Economy. Durham: Duke University Press. Brown (2015) Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution. New York: Zone Books. Ludovisi SG (ed.) (2015) Critical Theory and the Challenge of Praxis: Beyond Reification. Farnham; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

▪ Abstract  Findings from behavioral organization theory, behavioral decision theory, survey research, and experimental economics leave no doubt about the failure of rational choice as a descriptive model of human behavior. But this does not mean that people and their politics are irrational. Bounded rationality asserts that decision makers are intendedly rational; that is, they are goal-oriented and adaptive, but because of human cognitive and emotional architecture, they sometimes fail, occasionally in important decisions. Limits on rational adaptation are of two types: procedural limits, which limit how we go about making decisions, and substantive limits, which affect particular choices directly. Rational analysis in institutional contexts can serve as a standard for adaptive, goal-oriented human behavior. In relatively fixed task environments, such as asset markets or elections, we should be able to divide behavior into adaptive, goal-oriented behavior (that is, rational action) and behavior that is a consequence of processing limits, and we should then be able to measure the deviation. The extent of deviation is an empirical issue. These classes are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, and they may be examined empirically in situations in which actors make repeated similar choices.