A new ππππππ ππ πΆπππππ‘ππ£π ππππππππ article challenges characterizing people as irrational and argues behavioral science aimed at policy should start by assuming people are reasonable.
Traditional models often label deviations from 'perfect rationality' as a seemingly never ending list of biases. Maybe this is less useful lately? The article gives examples that what may seem irrational can be appropriate responses to specific contexts.
From climate change to COVID-19, they show how assuming people are reasonable shifts the focus. For instance, trust in health authorities correlated with higher vaccine uptake, which makes the behavior appear reasonable.
This reframing encourages participatory methods, turning targets of interventions into partners. Methods like citizens' assemblies and 'nudge plus' highlight the value of engaging those affected by policies.
By recognizing reasonableness, maybe behavioral science can craft more effective, context-aware interventions. What do you think of this argument?
PDF: https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661324001050
I think both approaches are flawed because they start from an assumption that human behaviour is either rational or irrational. The truth of the matter is, as the article points out, that we're all a mixture of both. That being the case and with the the concept of normative itself being a variable, differing by influences of society, culture, education etc. then starting from either binary positions is going to have flawed modelling.
With typical behaviour modeled on repeatable conditions, they both have value, but for predicting behaviour in completely new situations, such as a global pandemic, they are simply too fixed, too simplistic. It's not 'either, or' it's 'either, or, if, else, and when' and starting from a position which balances the rational and irrational, rather than the idea of perfectly being one or the other.
"We take reasonable to mean that people with knowledge of the situation (including social pressures) would be able to see the behavior as a satisfactory way to achieve a particular goal."
This is an incredibly vague and uninformative characterization of 'reasonableness'. Based on this definition,
1. I want money.
2. Robbing a convenience store will satisfy that particular goal.
C. Therefore, I've behaved reasonably.
Furthermore, who chooses to act on the assumption one's actions will NOT satisfy their goal? Doesn't everybody act under the assumption their action will satisfactorily achieve their goal? In sum, I find the argument of this article very unconvincing. The authors would do well to audit a few philosophy classes.