As I said elsewhere:

you imply that cost can outweigh utility over time — and if the cost outweighs the utility then it is not a rational decision, I would posit.

I entirely agree with that. Where is the contradiction?

If anything, the issue really boils down to the definition of what is meant by ‘rational.’

As I said before: rational = serving one’s long term interest = over the long term providing utility > cost.

If what is meant is that a decision is consciously calculated by a sentient being then, yes, even a net negative outcome is rational.

No. It is possible to calculate (I’d call it reason) and still end up with an irrational choice.

which is a patently fallacious leap of logic — the two dimensions are unalike and we cannot compare apples with aircraft.

So you no longer mean that I am contradicting myself, but that I am making a fallacious leap of logic… because you say that you cannot compare cost and utility? Or what? Sorry to be dense, but I really don’t understand what you’re driving at.

Written by

Accidental behavioural economist in search of wisdom. Uses insights from (behavioural) economics in organization development. On Twitter as @koenfucius

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store