scholarly journals Models of rational decision making in contemporary economic theory

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-86
Author(s):  
Bojan Krstić ◽  
Miloš Krstić
Author(s):  
Tom Boylan ◽  
Paschal O'Gorman

The role of conventions has been an area of increasing interest to writers in the post-Keynesian tradition, particularly over the last thirty years. This has arisen from the reexamination of John Maynard Keynes’s notion of convention in the context of radical uncertainty along with the status of rationality in the face of uncertainty. This chapter discusses some of the principal tenets of Henri Poincaré’s analysis of conventions and relates them to the post-Keynesian methodological agenda, more specifically to provide a Poincaréan defense of the role of conventions in rational decision-making. It argues that this provides an innovative and more adequate philosophical defense of nonergodicity in economic theory, which has become a central axiom of post-Keynesian economics. The chapter first provides an overview of the post-Keynesian literature on uncertainty and conventions arising from Keynes’s employment of the concept. It then outlines the emergence of conventions and conventionalism in philosophy, examines Poincaré’s conventionalism and its relationship with rationality, and considers the implications of Poincaré’s conventionalism for post-Keynesian economics.


2021 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. 15-21
Author(s):  
Rahul Bhui ◽  
Lucy Lai ◽  
Samuel J Gershman

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fritz Breithaupt

This article examines the relation of empathy and rational judgment. When people observe a conflict most are quick to side with one of the parties. Once a side has been taken, empathy with that party further solidifies this choice. Hence, it will be suggested that empathy is not neutral to judgment and rational decision-making. This does not mean, however, that the one who empathizes will necessarily have made the best choice.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arif Ahmed

Evidential Decision Theory is a radical theory of rational decision-making. It recommends that instead of thinking about what your decisions *cause*, you should think about what they *reveal*. This Element explains in simple terms why thinking in this way makes a big difference, and argues that doing so makes for *better* decisions. An appendix gives an intuitive explanation of the measure-theoretic foundations of Evidential Decision Theory.


Author(s):  
Michael R. Gottfredson ◽  
Don M. Gottfredson

Elements ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Moretti

Policy and intelligence are intimately intertwined. Policymakers need intelligence to make decisions, while the intelligence community derives significance from its ability to provide policy makers with reliable information. In this symbiotic relationship, it is healthy for intelligence consumers to at times check and direct the work of intelligence producers. However, if undertaken maliciously, this checking mechanism manifests as top-down politicization. Here, leaders use intelligence post facto to legitimize their policies instead of using it to guide them, reversing the rational decision-making process. Certain factors may compel leaders to manipulate intelligence to reflect their policy preferences. This essay demonstrates how three distinct processes of top-down politicization can arise from ambiguous evidence, the psychology of intelligence consumers, and the nature of the leaders’ political positions and responsibilities. It then proceeds to argue that political leaders’ psychology is the most potent source of top-down politicization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document