6/30/2014 Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality 1/6
Rationality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason.
[1]
Rationality implies the
conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action.
"Rationality" has different specialized meanings in economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology and
political science. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or
solving a problem.
Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and making several
key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information
is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are
the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which
benefitting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being
selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is
deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model
assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.
Contents
1 Theories of rationality
1.1 Max Weber
1.2 Psychology of reasoning
1.3 Richard Brandt
2 Quality of rationality
3 Theoretical and practical rationality
4 Examples in different fields
4.1 Economics
4.2 Artificial intelligence
5 See also
6 References
7 External links and references
Theories of rationality
Max Weber
6/30/2014 Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality 2/6
The German sociologist Max Weber proposed an interpretation of social action that distinguished between four
different idealized types of rationality. The first, which he called Zweckrational or purposive/instrumental
rationality, is related to the expectations about the behavior of other human beings or objects in the environment.
These expectations serve as means for a particular actor to attain ends, ends which Weber noted were "rationally
pursued and calculated." The second type, Weber called Wertrational or value/belief-oriented. Here the action is
undertaken for what one might call reasons intrinsic to the actor: some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other motive,
independent of whether it will lead to success. The third type was affectual, determined by an actor's specific affect,
feeling, or emotionto which Weber himself said that this was a kind of rationality that was on the borderline of
what he considered "meaningfully oriented." The fourth was traditional or conventional, determined by ingrained
habituation. Weber emphasized that it was very unusual to find only one of these orientations: combinations were
the norm. His usage also makes clear that he considered the first two as more significant than the others, and it is
arguable that the third and fourth are subtypes of the first two.
The advantage in Weber's interpretation of rationality is that it avoids a value-laden assessment, say, that certain
kinds of beliefs are irrational. Instead, Weber suggests that a ground or motive can be givenfor religious or affect
reasons, for examplethat may meet the criterion of explanation or justification even if it is not an explanation that
fits the Zweckrational orientation of means and ends. The opposite is therefore also true: some means-ends
explanations will not satisfy those whose grounds for action are Wertrational.
Weber's constructions of rationality have been critiqued both from a Habermasian (1984) perspective (as devoid of
social context and under-theorised in terms of social power)
[2]
and also from a feminist perspective (Eagleton,
2003) whereby Weber's rationality constructs are viewed as imbued with masculine values and oriented toward the
maintenance of male power.
[3]
An alternative position on rationality (which includes both bounded rationality,
[4]
can
be found in the critique of Etzioni (1988),
[5]
who reframes thought on decision-making to argue for a reversal of the
position put forward by Weber. Etzioni illustrates how purposive/instrumental reasoning is subordinated by
normative considerations (ideas on how people 'ought' to behave) and affective considerations (as a support system
for the development of human relationships).
Psychology of reasoning
In the psychology of reasoning, psychologists and cognitive scientists have defended different positions on human
rationality. One prominent view, due to Philip Johnson-Laird and Ruth M. J. Byrne among others is that humans are
rational in principle but they err in practice, that is, humans have the competence to be rational but their
performance is limited by various factors.
[6]
However, it has been argued that many standard tests of reasoning,
such as those on the conjunction fallacy, on the Wason selection task, or the base rate fallacy suffer from
methodological and conceptual problems. This has led to disputes in psychology over whether researchers should
(only) use standard rules of logic, probability theory and statistics, or rational choice theory as norms of good
reasoning. Opponents of this view, such as Gerd Gigerenzer, favor a conception of bounded rationality, especially
for tasks under high uncertainty.
[7]
Richard Brandt
Richard Brandt proposed a "reforming definition" of rationality, arguing someone is rational if their notions survive a
form of cognitive-psychotherapy.
[8]
Quality of rationality
6/30/2014 Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality 3/6
It is believed by some philosophers (notably A. C. Grayling) that a good rationale must be independent of
emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called
rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied
i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific,
moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.
Modern cognitive science and neuroscience show that studying the role of emotion in mental function (including
topics ranging from flashes of scientific insight to making future plans), that no human has ever satisfied this criterion,
except perhaps a person with no affective feelings, for example an individual with a massively damaged amygdala or
severe psychopathy. Thus, such an idealized form of rationality is best exemplified by computers, and not people.
However, scholars may productively appeal to the idealization as a point of reference.
Theoretical and practical rationality
Kant had distinguished theoretical from practical reason. Rationality theorist Jess Mostern makes a parallel
distinction between theoretical and practical rationality, although, according to him, reason and rationality are not
the same: reason would be a psychological faculty, whereas rationality is an optimizing strategy.
[9]
Humans are not
rational by definition, but they can think and behave rationally or not, depending on whether they apply, explicitly or
implicitly, the strategy of theoretical and practical rationality to the thoughts they accept and to the actions they
perform.
Theoretical rationality has a formal component that reduces to logical consistency and a material component that
reduces to empirical support, relying on our inborn mechanisms of signal detection and interpretation. Mostern
distinguishes between involuntary and implicit belief, on the one hand, and voluntary and explicit acceptance, on the
other.
[10]
Theoretical rationality can more properly be said to regulate our acceptances than our beliefs. Practical
rationality is the strategy for living ones best possible life, achieving your most important goals and your own
preferences in as far as possible.
Examples in different fields
Economics
Individuals or organizations are called rational if they make optimal decisions in pursuit of their goals. It is in these
terms that one speaks, for example, of a rational allocation of resources, or of a rational corporate strategy. For
such "rationality", the decision maker's goals are taken as part of the model, and not made subject to criticism,
ethical or otherwise.
Debates arise in these four fields about whether or not people or organizations are "really" rational, as well as
whether it makes sense to model them as such in formal models. Some have argued that a kind of bounded
rationality makes more sense for such models.
Others think that any kind of rationality along the lines of rational choice theory is a useless concept for
understanding human behavior; the term homo economicus (economic man: the imaginary man being assumed in
economic models who is logically consistent but amoral) was coined largely in honor of this view.
Artificial intelligence
6/30/2014 Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality 4/6
Within artificial intelligence, a rational agent is one that maximizes its expected utility, given its current knowledge.
Utility is the usefulness of the consequences of its actions. The utility function is arbitrarily defined by the designer,
but should be a function of "performance", which is the directly measurable consequences, such as winning or losing
money. In order to make a safe agent that plays defensively, a nonlinear function of performance is often desired, so
that the reward for winning is lower than the punishment for losing. An agent might be rational within its own
problem area, but finding the rational decision for arbitrarily complex problems is not practically possible. The
rationality of human thought is a key problem in the psychology of reasoning.
[11]
See also
Bounded rationality
Coherence (linguistics)
Counterintuitive
Flipism
Imputation (game theory) (individual
rationality)
Intelligence
Irrationality
Law of thought
Perfect rationality
Principle of rationality
Rational choice theory
Rational emotive behavior
therapy
Rational pricing
Rationalism
Rationalization (making
excuses)
Reason
Satisficing
Superrationality
References
1. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationality
2. ^ Jrgen Habermas (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1; Reason and the Rationalization of
Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
3. ^ Eagleton, M. (ed) (2003) A Concise Companion to Feminist Theory, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
4. ^ Simons, H. and Hawkins, D. (1949), "Some Conditions in Macro-Economic Stability", Econometrica, 1949. as
well as the affective and value-based arguments of Weber)
5. ^ Etzioni, A. (1988), "Normative-Affective Factors: Towards a New Decision-Making Model", Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 125150.
6. ^ Byrne, R.M.J. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2009). 'If' and the problems of conditional reasoning. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 13, 282287
7. ^ Sturm, Thomas (2012). The rationality wars in psychology: Where they are and where they could go. Inquiry,
55, 66-81.
8. ^ Richard B. Brandt (1959). Ethical Theory: The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics. Prentice-Hall.
9. ^ Mostern, Jess (2008). Lo mejor posible: Racionalidad y accin humana. Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2008. 318
pp. ISBN 978-84-206-8206-8.
10. ^ Mostern, Jess (2002). Acceptance Without Belief. Manuscrito, vol. XXV , pp. 313335.
11. ^ Johnson-Laird, P.N. & Byrne, R.M.J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
External links and references
6/30/2014 Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality 5/6
Reason and Rationality
(http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ArchiveFolder/Research%20Group/Publications/Reason/ReasonRationality.htm), by
Richard Samuels, Stephen Stich, Luc Faucher on the broad field of reason and rationality from descriptive,
normative, and evaluative points of view
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Historicist Theories of Rationality
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationality-historicist/)
Legal Reasoning After Post-Modern Critiques of Reason
(http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/leglreas.htm), by Peter Suber
Spohn, W. (2002). The Many Facets of the Theory of Rationality (http://www.uni-
konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/Philosophie/philosophie/files/wspohn45.pdf). Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2:
247262.
Lucy Suchman (2007). Human-machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Action. Cambridge University
Press.
Cristina Bicchieri (1993). Rationality and Coordination, New York: Cambridge University Press
Cristina Bicchieri (2007). Rationality and Indeterminacy, in D. Ross and H. Kinkaid (eds.) The Handbook
of Philosophy of Economics, The Oxford Reference Library of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, vol. 6,
n.2.
Anand, P (1993). Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action Volume 1; Reason and the Rationalization
of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mostern, Jess (2008). Lo mejor posible: Racionalidad y accin humana. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. 318
pp. ISBN 978-84-206-8206-8.
Nozick, Robert (1993). The Nature of Rationality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Eagleton, M. (ed) (2003) A Concise Companion to Feminist Theory, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Simons, H. and Hawkins, D. (1949), Some Conditions in Macro-Economic Stability, Econometrica,
1949.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. & Byrne, R.M.J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Garcs M. (2009) Emotional Theory of Rationality, "Entertainment = Emotion" workshop, C.C
Benasque, Spain (http://www.daxnatur.com/Investigacion/Emotional_Theory_of_Rationality_2.pdf,) [1]
(http://www.benasque.org/2009emotion/papers/EmotionalTheoryofRationality_img.pdf)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rationality&oldid=612448854"
Categories: Autonomy Concepts in epistemology Philosophical logic Philosophy of mind Reasoning
Underlying principles of microeconomic behavior Philosophy of psychology
This page was last modified on 11 June 2014 at 03:52.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply.
6/30/2014 Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality 6/6
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark
of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.