Dear Steve,

I haven't seen other responses to your missive of May 31, so this ground may already be covered. But is important to note that few rational choice theorists believe that people are fully rational in the way posited. Rather, the point is that 1) psychologists have yet to offer a SYSTEMATIC alternative explanation for human behavior. We have a Kuhnian paradigm in rational choice, and until another theory proves systematically more useful, the best way to advance science (producing and testing hypotheses about political behavior) is to use the existing paradigm. 2) in realms where there is competition (elections, for example), people who behave irrationally (inappropriately in response to incentives) will lose; 3) your notion of structured learning, as I've mentioned in the past, actually is a rational choice model. Rational choice is most useful in understanding human behavior in situations when the incentives are clear and powerful (your "structure", which includes the contours of competition which I noted in 2) above), and when people have the opportunity to learn through repeated play. Not surprisingly, Chalmers Johnson considers you a rational choice theorist on the basis of your book MAKING COMMON SENSE OF JAPAN, even though you see yourself charting another course! 4) I see the frontier of social science as coming up with a more accurate model of human behavior; unfortunately, we don't have anything systematic yet.