Professor Reed fails to mention another reason why supposedly intelligent people embrace rat choice as a social scientific bible: it reflects what Western imperialism has propagated as dominant, progressive, and masculinist. Therefore, to become dominant, progressive, and masculine, s/he (social constructions of masculinity and femininity transcend biology) must take on rat choice, replete with its methods based on "culture-gender-class neutral" mathematics.

I am not suggesting, contrary to how some may read the above, that the world is Feyerabendly anarchic. Individuals and collectives of individuals do respond to incentives. But where rat choice fails is in its presumption that *the same incentives* -- regardless of differences in time and space -- always hold true. In order to take into account these differences in time and space, rat choice modelers must include in their analyses some consideration of meaning and representation especially through the mediating role of language. Once this is done, though, rat choice would no longer be rat choice -- it could no longer adhere to its current standard of "scientific universality."

In short, I don't think the problem is rat choice per se. Rather, we need to revise our current understandings of what constitutes "science" and how we may better devise methods that are both rigorous and humane (in its broadest sense).
------------