Robert Schultz's comments defending rational choice were interesting and perhaps
also revealing of the contradictions in that genre. Thus, while saying that rat
cho was never intended to predict or explain [which by the way?] the behavior of
individuals, but rather of groups, he then says its most powerful cases have
been committee chairs in Congress. Are these not individuals?

Further, groups don't literally make choices, individuals do. To deduce
rationality, a concept based on individuals, and apply it to groups is to reify
the group. Finally, if rat cho is truly trying to explain group behavior, as in
the case of organizations, then it would be nice if they read the organizational
sociology literature which has long known that organizations are not completely
"rational" but have "bounded rationality", i.e., there are some limits [usually
due to their necessity to adapt to their environment] on the pure rationality of
an organization's ability to pursue its ideal goals.

Best, Ellis Krauss