Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
you could use similar kinds of models to demonstrate that crowds moving through open corridors will tend to break left when confronted by an obstacle.
because that tendency is consistent, so predictable, it's also rational, isn't it?
|
of course it's rational. In a country where people tend to walk on the right side, it stands to reason that they'll pass an obstacle in their path by going left, where there will usually be more space open, than on the right, where there will by definition be less space (because the obstacle is in their path, and theyr'e on the right). How is that not rational?
More to the point, though, unless you are positing that people are generally random, which strikes me as an absurd position, the default assumption has to be that people are
generally acting rationally - defined as acting in pursuit of what they value. Seen that way, the obese person acts rationally because s/he values the nice feeling from having the cheeseburger and fries right now more than possibly being thinner after four or five more months of discipline. You can dispute that judgment (I know I do) but it's not irrational. It totally is a function of what people value. People's true preferences and values get revealed through their actions. This happens all the time. And it accounts for charitable instincts as well. People can value good things or bad things.
In this context, irrationality would be, say, choosing to pay more for an item without also getting some other benefit such as convenience. There's a difference between matters of judgment, as to which people can disagree, and matters of rationality.