For a one-off decision that will save money over time I tend to be better. When it's a constant series of decisions to make, then I'm happy to drip-feed money to prevent them.
That is the very essence of bounded rationality and at that point it is "rational" in the human if not the economic sense (which in classical economics does not account for the cost of actually making the calculations required to make an economically efficient decision).
Any theory of economics that doesn't take into account that decision-making takes time, and that "time is money" isn't worth the paper it's published on :->
You may have heard the story about the mathematician looking for his car keys under a street light. A passer by asks him if he could point out more precisely where he dropped them. The mathematician points to a place tens of metres away and says "but I can't look over there, it's too dark."
The theories we have may not be worth the paper they are published on but they are quite definitely those theories which are most accessible.
[To be fair there are non-equilibrium theories of decision making accounting for bounded rationality -- they're just MUCH MUCH more difficult.]
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re:
no subject
no subject
no subject
The theories we have may not be worth the paper they are published on but they are quite definitely those theories which are most accessible.
[To be fair there are non-equilibrium theories of decision making accounting for bounded rationality -- they're just MUCH MUCH more difficult.]