Forstater, Mathew wrote:
> this is also a problem with "revealed preference theory." by the way, might not
> Rumsfeld expect to gain in many other ways--new and strengthened contacts,
> memoirs, etc.?
>
> jeff wrote:
>
> Note, however, the circularity of the argument as I've stated it. Mr. Rumsfeld
> behaved as he did because of his utility function and we know what his utility
> function is because of his behavior. Such circularity is a potential pitfall in
> many rational choice arguments, including those from the Austrian economics camp
> that hold that the only way we know what people's preferences are is to observe
> their behavior in a market setting. Generally, I and other social scientists
> would argue that it is fallacious to infer preferences from observed behavior.
>
FWIW:
this is probably well known to the members of this list, but just in case:
amartya sen has a paper titled "rational fools", published in "beyond self-
-interest" (editor: jane mansbridge), that discusses exactly these ideas.
(i have read similar thoughts from earlier writers, but this particular
article came to mind upon reading the above messages).
--ravi
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
man is said to be a rational animal. i do not know why he has not been defined
as an affective or feeling animal. more often i have seen a cat reason than
laugh or weep. perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly - but then perhaps, also
inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the 2nd degree. -- alasdair macintyre.
