Some further thoughts on the problematic assumption of rationality.
I think Dr. Ubel's post, "Heroin and Happiness" was a refreshing perspective on the promise and peril of some basic assumptions that have come to predominate the modeling of many behaviors. The assumption of rationality has dramatic consequences in all spheres of life, including the political as he wrote, but also in terms of understanding some of our mundane day-to-day behavior.
Even the title his book, Free Market Madness: Why Human Nature is at Odds with Economics and Why it Matters, speaks to a key issue for me, because I too ". . . believe that human nature is a mixture of rational and irrational forces" as Dr. Ubel summarized in his blog posting.
In fact, what brings me to write this brief follow-up in my own blog, is that I argue that the assumption of rationality leads to the misunderstanding of procrastination.
Dr. Ubel wrote that those who follow the ". . . tradition of the University of Chicago Economics believe that much - if not most - of human behavior can best be understood by assuming that people are behaving rationally, to maximize their best interests." This is also known as "utility." I have colleagues who follow this tradition and adopt this assumption in their study of procrastination. Unfortunately, the assumption leads to theories and conclusions that fall far short of a comprehensive understanding of procrastination (and doesn't even do that good of a job explaining more general delay). I argue that the whole notion of a procrastination "formula" or "equation" is folly, based on an assumption of "utility" that is too limited to address a complex issue in human motivation and action.
I was struck by this sentence in particular in Dr. Ubel's blog:
"As a physician trained in behavioral economics, I cannot reconcile either my clinical experience or my research findings with a view of addiction as being completely rational."
I think his perspective is very important given the "front row seat" a physician has in the lives of individuals. And, I couldn't agree more with his conclusion. Based on my own experience and research findings, I cannot reconcile a view of the many behaviors that we might class as self-regulation failure - addiction, overeating, compulsive shopping or even procrastination - as being completely rationale.
It is precisely the irrational aspects of human behavior that we need to understand more completely in order to understand these complex human problems. For example, irrational beliefs initiate and maintain maladaptive behaviors like procrastination.
Concluding thoughts on assumptions and economic models
I have had this discussion many times with many people. I think the issue was summarized best for me by an eminent scientist, researcher and dear friend of mine. When I lamented the oversimplification of the world in some economic models, he reminded me that this is what some economists do. For example, he said, if a farmer were to ask them for an analysis of the farm's milk production, they might start by saying, "Assuming that a cow is a sphere. . ." and from there lay out their theory. Of course, a cow is not a sphere, and therein lies the problem of some mistaken foundational assumptions that, as Dr. Ubel notes, may explain why human nature is at odds with economics and why it matters.
