I can not believe I am engaged in the debate on the use of rational choice theory again --this time with my three fellow students here.
Starting with a small conversation on the use of Beckerian approach on economics of religion, it went into question on how many percent of human behavior can be explained by rational choice theory. Make no mistake though, it is not whether rational choice theory works or not at all, but rather how confident you are to assign the tool in analyzing human behavior (0-100 percent).
I go for around 97 percent, the other two 100 percent, and one 80 percent. Our 80 percent friend gives us an interesting thought, nevertheless. She asked what about if we are dreaming, drunk, or delusional.
The standard reply was that we most of the time are not committing into such behavior. But how sure we actually are on how much of one's mind is neither delusional nor resembling a non-rational animal instinct (assuming that animals do not apply our human rationality).
I am asked why leaving 3 percent off the equation. I said that I am trying to keep a healthy dose of skepticism. But maybe I have to revise my reply. It reflects my willingness to admit that we human maybe not that completely sober, not delusional, and free from animal instinct.
how many percent of human behavior can be explained by rational choice theory?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure, it is an appropriate question. Since the nice short posting has yet to explain "rational choice theory" - not to mention "human behavior" - it is discussing.
"Rather how confident you are to assign the tool in analyzing human behavior (0-100 percent)". It is a good question. Ask it to, say, Beckerian economists and behavioral economists, and we may come up with interesting percentage figures. Sure, as always, we know the answer of the former; they're listed in the most self-confident layer of human population :-)
The latter will perhaps proceed by asking: in what setting are we talking about?
In one-shot public goods game using a variant of the strategy-method, Fischbacher/Gaechter/Fehr (2001) have an interesting story on how heterogenous our preferences are.