Jump to content

Talk:Rational choice model

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.195.10.169 (talk) at 21:48, 19 February 2014 (→Suggested sources for lead rewrite). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Clean up Suggestions

Could whoever posted the cleanup message suggest how this article can be cleaned up? It seems to me that parts of the article should be rewritten in a more concise way.-Sometimesthinking 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I didn't post, and don't know the area well, but think it could use a critiques section.131.238.201.12 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I formalized a lot of the material and added some simple formal math of rational choice theory. I made new sections in the article and tagged some facts as unreferenced. I hope to remove the cleanup tag - does anyone agree?--Vince 07:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult subject and the one thing that comes out clearly is that the article has not been written by those who have a good knowledge of the subject. Even though there are references, if one goes to the actual references, they don't support what is being said. example: citation 4 from milton friedman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishdemel (talk • contribs) 07:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete?

The article Superseded scientific theories states that this model is obsolete. Based on this article, I'm guessing that is incorrect. --Cowlinator (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborations

Could someone who is familiar with this topic elaborate on the following line: Over the last decades it has also become increasingly employed in other social sciences. In what other social sciences has rational choice theory been employed? In what way? -Sometimesthinking 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I cannot tell you when Rational Choice Theory was first used in other social sciences. The other social sciences referred to could include criminology. Rational Choice Theory has been used to explain why a person would commit a crime, when another would not. The criminal would act based on the utility, or amount to be gained from the act. The person that chooses not to commit the crime does so based on a different set of criteria. To a starving person, the consequences of stealing bread are reasonable, yet a wealthy individual would find this act irrational. It is often mistaken to inerpret the word "rational" as meaning "logical" or "common sense". The sense cannott be seen as common, but specific to the actor.

"A pioneering figure in establishing rational choice theory in sociology was George Homans (1961), who set out a basic framework of exchange theory, which he grounded in assumptions drawn from behaviourist psychology. While these psychological assumptions have been rejected by many later writers, Homans's formulation of exchange theory remains the basis of all subsequent discussion. During the 1960s and 1970s, Blau (1964), Coleman (1973), and Cook (1977) extended and enlarged his framework, and they helped to develop more formal, mathematical models of rational action (see also Coleman 1990). Rational choice theorists have become increasingly mathematical in orientation, converging more closely with trends in micro-economics. Indeed, some economists have attempted to colonise areas occupied by other social scientists. This trend towards formal, mathematical models of rational action was apparent in such diverse areas as theories of voting and coalition formation in political science (Downs 1957; Buchanan and Tullock 1962; Riker 1962) and explanations of ethnic minority relations (Hechter 1987) and, in a less rigorously mathematical form, social mobility and class reproduction (Goldthorpe 1996, Breen and Rottman 1995). Economists such as Becker (1976, 1981) set out theories of crime and marriage. A particularly striking trend of recent years has been the work of those Marxists who have seen rational choice theory as the basis of a Marxist theory of class and exploitation (Elster 1983, 1986; Roemer 1988. See also Wright 1985; 1989)." -- Palthrow 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain the relation between Game Theory and Rational Choice Theory -Sometimesthinking 15:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Theory is essentially a methodology, an approach, a set of techniques. Rational Choice Theory is a statement about how human beings make decisions and behave. Most Game Theoretic models assume Rationality on part of the players (i.e. consistency and desire to maximize payoffs) but strictly speaking this is not necessary. In a way this is asking like what is the relation between Calculus and Rational Choice Theory. More generally speaking if the decision facing an agent is independent of other's choices (i.e. non-strategic) then one would use the tools of straight forward constrained optimzation, if there are strategic considerations, one would use the tools of Game Theory. In either case it is possible to assume that RTC holds or that it doesn't, although by far most models assume that it does.radek 01:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Choice Theory is the atmospheric ether of the 21st century social sciences.... It is amazing that it carries an encyclopedic article.... Stevenmitchell 03:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Picoeconomics and George Ainslie?

I suggest referencing George Ainslie, picoeconomics, and hyperbolic devaluation curves (as opposed to exponential ones). See Picoeconomics. Joe Wiki (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successor of game theory?

I removed this sentence:

"Rational choice theory is a successor of older descriptions of rational behavior such as game theory."

I don't get it. In at least one version, game theory is a special case of rational choice theory (that is, rational choices in strategic situations). I think this sentence is misleading at best and false at worst. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--I remember that bugging me, and should have gotten rid of it earlier. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro etc

The intro section is too long - needs headings or dispersal elsewhere in the article. See Also is too long too. Also the relation between choice theory and the closely-related decision theory should be stated. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationality!=infinite want

I'm pretty sure that rationality does not mean that our wants are insatiable. I believe that that is a seperate assumption in the traditional economic paradigm. In fact, if I recall correctly, it is not strictly necessary; it's just that if a good can be maximised at a certain quantity, then you don't really need a model to tell you that. Um the Muse (is too lazy to sign in)174.24.113.183 (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested sources for lead rewrite

[1] and subsequent pages are probably what the lead should say... a normative theory, at the heart of microeconomics (today) etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_19 (GB preview) is probably even better, though not substantively different from the aforementioned source. (It's a good general intro to the topic, despite its title.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nice article

one of the better wiki articles, congrats to editors and writers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rational_choice_model&oldid=596244784"