Problem solving with rational and emotional choice theories.
The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of. - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) French mathematician, physicist and religious philosopher
We all need to solve problems, daily and constantly. There are the more-or-less clinical methods of applying beliefs, programs, instinct, intuition, emotion, analysis, and just plain random choice. (See, Allen, 2013.) However, it is not as though one can simply turn on or off any of these methods. We want to believe we use appropriate methods at appropriate times. However, there must be some underlying guidance a person uses to select the methods used to construct solutions.
Naturally, we are not discussing simple problems that demand a particular method. Math and science problems are among them. Note, it is not that such problems are simple to solve, but rather are simple to state with unambiguous clarity. Use accepted methods or you lose marks. Yet, man made climate change is. Why is that? The "science" of climate change depends substantially upon models well beyond the understanding of most of us. We rely on these models which apply current and past weather data, mathematics, and statistics. The arguments are compelling and dovetail neatly with innate feelings that we have been damaging our planet. This gives a compelling emotional/rational argument concatenated with genuine scientific evidence. Powerful stuff. Other more complex problems are those of business, politics, and love.
So we take up those threads of guidance we apply in selecting our methods of problem solving, explanation, and understanding. With some matters, there is a natural inviolable course of action. for example, in a school math problem, we had better use analytic skills at the peril of losing marks. In affairs of the heart, the use of emotion seems to be of great importance. Love by analysis seems dissonant in some way. In very low information settings, we might rely on intuition, having no other tool to apply. These are the simple cases.
But getting back to man made climate change or to selecting the "right" political candidate, or to choosing the "best" career option. The options are manifold. Our friends in economics and sociology have considered these types of choices, wherein we must select from multiple solutions derived by multiple methods.
Rational choice theory is a model for economic and social behavior. In economics it posits "wanting more rather than less of a good." There is the utility functionality type reasoning that measures this "more" in comparison with other outcomes. It diminishes the qualitative aspects of the "more." In this context, "rationality" means that an individual acts to balance costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage. It is me, me, me. In modern terms, it does not necessarily mean maximizing happiness, but rather it mandates just a consistent ranking of choice alternatives. there is no thought given to origins, motivation, or values of the of the selected solution. Within rational choice theory, it may not be possible to empirically test or falsify the rationality assumption aside from some personal internal measure of satisfaction.
Rational choice theory has been dressed up with many mathematical attributes and an axiomatic structure. For instance, if a is preferred to b and b to c. Then a must be preferred to c. It is not allowed that c is preferred to a. We do not pursue this structure here, but do note that if a, b, and c are political candidates, this a-transitivity is quite possible.
The second decision making scheme might be call emotional choice theory. Here the justification is that an evolutionary science of human nature shows that human beings are not just rational egoists, but also social animals moved by moral emotions [Arhnart, 2011]. this means humans are moved not just by rational choice but by moral value to their decisions. For example, if suddenly there were among us a large group of infected subjects, the rational choice might be to remove them where the emotional choice may be to care for them. In a society with slavery, the rational choice might be to exploit their economic benefit, whereas the emotional choice might be to offer them freedom from ownership. These examples were taken specifically to illustrate how emotional and rational choice theories overlap.
David Brooks[Brooks, 2011] argues that "Reason and emotion are not separate and opposed. Reason is nestled upon emotion and dependent upon it. Emotion assigns value to things, and reason can only make choices on the basis of those valuations."
Decision making algorithms, philosophies, schemes, and methods are important topics in both the economic and social theaters of problem solving.
1. Allen, Donald, Problem Solving, Your Marvelous Brain, http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2013/02/problem-solving-your-marvelous-brain.html
2. Arnhart, Larry (2011),http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2011/04/david-brooks-and-evolutionary.html)
3. Brooks, David, (2011), The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement, Random House,
The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of. - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) French mathematician, physicist and religious philosopher
We all need to solve problems, daily and constantly. There are the more-or-less clinical methods of applying beliefs, programs, instinct, intuition, emotion, analysis, and just plain random choice. (See, Allen, 2013.) However, it is not as though one can simply turn on or off any of these methods. We want to believe we use appropriate methods at appropriate times. However, there must be some underlying guidance a person uses to select the methods used to construct solutions.
Naturally, we are not discussing simple problems that demand a particular method. Math and science problems are among them. Note, it is not that such problems are simple to solve, but rather are simple to state with unambiguous clarity. Use accepted methods or you lose marks. Yet, man made climate change is. Why is that? The "science" of climate change depends substantially upon models well beyond the understanding of most of us. We rely on these models which apply current and past weather data, mathematics, and statistics. The arguments are compelling and dovetail neatly with innate feelings that we have been damaging our planet. This gives a compelling emotional/rational argument concatenated with genuine scientific evidence. Powerful stuff. Other more complex problems are those of business, politics, and love.
So we take up those threads of guidance we apply in selecting our methods of problem solving, explanation, and understanding. With some matters, there is a natural inviolable course of action. for example, in a school math problem, we had better use analytic skills at the peril of losing marks. In affairs of the heart, the use of emotion seems to be of great importance. Love by analysis seems dissonant in some way. In very low information settings, we might rely on intuition, having no other tool to apply. These are the simple cases.
But getting back to man made climate change or to selecting the "right" political candidate, or to choosing the "best" career option. The options are manifold. Our friends in economics and sociology have considered these types of choices, wherein we must select from multiple solutions derived by multiple methods.
Rational choice theory is a model for economic and social behavior. In economics it posits "wanting more rather than less of a good." There is the utility functionality type reasoning that measures this "more" in comparison with other outcomes. It diminishes the qualitative aspects of the "more." In this context, "rationality" means that an individual acts to balance costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage. It is me, me, me. In modern terms, it does not necessarily mean maximizing happiness, but rather it mandates just a consistent ranking of choice alternatives. there is no thought given to origins, motivation, or values of the of the selected solution. Within rational choice theory, it may not be possible to empirically test or falsify the rationality assumption aside from some personal internal measure of satisfaction.
Rational choice theory has been dressed up with many mathematical attributes and an axiomatic structure. For instance, if a is preferred to b and b to c. Then a must be preferred to c. It is not allowed that c is preferred to a. We do not pursue this structure here, but do note that if a, b, and c are political candidates, this a-transitivity is quite possible.
Therefore, we select to believe in man made climate change because we have a rational predilection toward doing so. It fits our ideas well, it has enough science in it to balance our need for facts, and hence we transfer the rationality of the solution over to our beliefs. Once deposited among one's beliefs, it has its own systemic existence, and most difficult to change. This example was chosen for its topical interest and the
emotional/rational commitment most of us have in its regard. It would have been just as simple to review
the controversy concerning the age of the earth which raged more than a century
ago. There was opinion, there were
models, there resulted in predictions, each with adherents. But to most of us, this is a battle long ago
fought and resolved. It would not have
connected with personal rational or emotional choices.
The second decision making scheme might be call emotional choice theory. Here the justification is that an evolutionary science of human nature shows that human beings are not just rational egoists, but also social animals moved by moral emotions [Arhnart, 2011]. this means humans are moved not just by rational choice but by moral value to their decisions. For example, if suddenly there were among us a large group of infected subjects, the rational choice might be to remove them where the emotional choice may be to care for them. In a society with slavery, the rational choice might be to exploit their economic benefit, whereas the emotional choice might be to offer them freedom from ownership. These examples were taken specifically to illustrate how emotional and rational choice theories overlap.
David Brooks[Brooks, 2011] argues that "Reason and emotion are not separate and opposed. Reason is nestled upon emotion and dependent upon it. Emotion assigns value to things, and reason can only make choices on the basis of those valuations."
Decision making algorithms, philosophies, schemes, and methods are important topics in both the economic and social theaters of problem solving.
1. Allen, Donald, Problem Solving, Your Marvelous Brain, http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2013/02/problem-solving-your-marvelous-brain.html
2. Arnhart, Larry (2011),http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2011/04/david-brooks-and-evolutionary.html)
3. Brooks, David, (2011), The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement, Random House,
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.