I have given some more thought to the earlier question about whether rat choice is particularly "Western." Basically, I do not find the categories "Western" and "Eastern" very useful. I dont even think that Americans are particularly individualistic, to the dismay of my Japanese colleagues. In any case, however, one should be careful not adopt the Japanese habit as defining any difference between the US and Japan as a difference between the "West" and the "East."

My zemi is reading on political corruption. They were interested to find an Italian author arguing that the Italian political system could not be considered "Western" because of all the corruption. They were confused to find a German author claiming that Germany did not fit the "Western" pattern until the 1980s because before that time they did not have much corruption. The "West" is an undefined term in the West and is even vaguer in Japan.

It is true that the deductive-logical mode of thinking was developed by the ancient Greeks and uniquely by them. On the other hand, geometry tests now indicate that "Easterners" are better at math than "Westerners." The lesson to be learned is not that deductive thinking is either "Western" or "Eastern" but that it is unnatural. It developed in only one human culture and is hard to teach to all but a very few. Deductive-rational thinking does not come naturally. It is hard to teach. To use the jargon of cognitiv science, it does not fit easily onto the architecture of the human brain. Thus, one could hardly pick a less likely candidate for modeling human thought than rational choice.

I am not familiar with the development of rat choice in economics. Obviously, the Brits had a good deal to do with it, but what about the French and the Germans? I dont know.

The current wave of rat choice in political science is very much an American phenomenon, and not a European one. Rat choice may even be more popular in Japan than in Europe because of several recent American imports. America still dominates graduate education and I expect it to influence European political science in the future as it has in the past. Nevertheless, there is no grounds for thinking that rat choice in political science is a "Western" phenomenon. ------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 01:09:18 -0500
To: ssj-forum[atx]iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp
From: ryamamot[atx]students.wisc.edu (Ryuji Yamamoto) Subject: Re: SSJ-FORUM: On Debating Rational Choice

I think that the truth is middle of the both sides. Yet, let me state examples how people sometime act irrationally.

1) Many sociological and psychological studies suggest that good looking people tend to have more favors than ugly people. Beautiful students tend to get more A's in classes than ordinary students. Tall men earn more money than short men. Good looking women get less (or lighter) punishment than ugly women, when they are convicted (If I recall correctly, this study is done by simulation using university students as judges, instead of real court cases). In all of these cases, people who make decision(boss, teachers, and student judges) do not receive any incentives by favoring good looking poeple.

2) Presidential candidates tend to jog during campaings to show that they are "healthy" and voters seem to be influenced by that. While health is important to surve as a president of the United States, it is not rational to evalutate health by jogging.

While it is not correct to say that people are always irrational, it is clear that people sometimes act irrationally.