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.

--

--

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

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

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
Koen Smets

Koen Smets

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