Never assume rationality in an irrational world. We don’t live in econ 101 class where the assumption of rational actors is used to simplify equations for freshmen.
If rationality is overrated and DEI is rational, isn’t this an argument to discard it? Conversely, if it isn’t, isn’t this an argument that DEI is irrational?
Well, if it’s evidence-based, then it’s rational. Only irrational people would do things that have never been proven to work.
HOWEVER, if it’s rational, it shouldn’t need legislative support in order to work, because rationality speaks for itself. I don’t need a law to tell me to tie my shoelaces because I know I’ll end up tripping over them if I don’t.
I don’t entirely disagree with you, here. My concern is that, when engaging with the world in a nuanced (non-dualistic) way, there is rarely a solidly defined “yes or no”, “good or bad” answer.
Evidence can point to positive and negative points of nearly any given thing. Agreeing on the weight of each point is going to dramatically color a given person’s idea of whether something is a net positive or a net negative. This is why I asked you, earlier, about what sort of evidence you’d need to see to sway your opinion.
Boiling it all down to rational or irrational is a fool’s errand in the absence of objective truth.
The assumption of rational actors is standard practice in economics, basically every single theorem depends on that. When I pointed out that racism isn’t rational, the argument changed to “well, you can’t assume that everyone is rational”.
Yes. I know. I have a fucking degree in this field. Believe it or not, people have figured out how to deal with that problem a long time ago. Look up the Efficient Market Paradox, and you’ll see why rationality is still a sensible assumption to make.
Never assume rationality in an irrational world. We don’t live in econ 101 class where the assumption of rational actors is used to simplify equations for freshmen.
Putting Rational Actors in Their Place: Economics and Phenomenology
Law and Behavioral Science: Removing the Rationality Assumption from Law and Economics
If rationality is overrated and DEI is rational, isn’t this an argument to discard it? Conversely, if it isn’t, isn’t this an argument that DEI is irrational?
Where did I claim that DEI is rational or irrational? DEI is an evidence-based practice.
Ed: Be sure to look at who you’re engaging with. I have not “changed my argument” as I have only just begun discussing this here.
Well, if it’s evidence-based, then it’s rational. Only irrational people would do things that have never been proven to work.
HOWEVER, if it’s rational, it shouldn’t need legislative support in order to work, because rationality speaks for itself. I don’t need a law to tell me to tie my shoelaces because I know I’ll end up tripping over them if I don’t.
I don’t entirely disagree with you, here. My concern is that, when engaging with the world in a nuanced (non-dualistic) way, there is rarely a solidly defined “yes or no”, “good or bad” answer.
Evidence can point to positive and negative points of nearly any given thing. Agreeing on the weight of each point is going to dramatically color a given person’s idea of whether something is a net positive or a net negative. This is why I asked you, earlier, about what sort of evidence you’d need to see to sway your opinion.
Boiling it all down to rational or irrational is a fool’s errand in the absence of objective truth.
It was not claimed that rationality is overrated.
Yeah, no, that is exactly what was claimed.
The assumption of rational actors is standard practice in economics, basically every single theorem depends on that. When I pointed out that racism isn’t rational, the argument changed to “well, you can’t assume that everyone is rational”.
Yes. I know. I have a fucking degree in this field. Believe it or not, people have figured out how to deal with that problem a long time ago. Look up the Efficient Market Paradox, and you’ll see why rationality is still a sensible assumption to make.