Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
However, is it irrational to count upon non 'official', non economic (monetary), non selfish,
and sometimes merely hidden and internal rewards of Y ? Is this equal to assuming and counting
on the trustee's irrationality? Our answer is: Not at all!
The identification of 'rationality' with 'economic rationality' is definitely arbitrary and
unacceptable. Rationality is a merely formal/procedural notion; has nothing to do with the
contents (Castelfranchi, 2006]. There are no rational 'motives'. No motive can be per se
irrational. It is up to the subject to have one motive or another. Economic theory cannot
prescribe to people what are the right motives to have and to pursue; it can just prescribe
how to choose among them, given their subjective value and probability. Unless Economics
admits not being the science of (optimal) resource allocation and rational decisions (given our
preferences or, better, motives) (Lionel Robins' view), but being the science of making money,
where money is the only or dominating valid 'motive' of a 'rational' agent.
When X decides to trust Y (where Y is a psychological agent), she is necessarily ascribing
to Y some objectives , and some motive , which predict Y 's expected behavior. These objectives
are very diverse, and some of them are non-visible and even violating the official 'game' and
the public rewards . Consider the following common sense example.
Subjective versus Objective Apples (Rewards)
X and Y are at a restaurant and receive two apples: one ( apple 1 ) is big, mature, nice; the other
one ( apple 2 ) is small and not so beautiful. Y chooses and takes the better one: apple 1 . X is
manifestly a bit disappointed by that. Y - realizing X 's reaction - says: 'Excuse me, but which
apple would have you chosen if you had chosen first?' X : 'I would have taken apple 2 , leaving
you apple 1 ' , Y : 'And I let you have apple 2 ! So why you are unhappy?'
Why is X unhappy if he would have taken apple 2 has in fact got apple 2 , when they are in
fact one and the same apple? Actually (from the subjective and interactional perspective, not
from the official, formal, and superficial one) they are two very different apples, with different
values and providing very different rewards.
apple 2 , when spontaneously chosen by X ,is apple 2 (that material apple with its eating value)
plus:
-a sacrifice , compared with the other possibility (a negative reward, but a voluntary
sacrifice that implies the following items),
-an internal gratification for being polite and kind (a positive reward), and
-an expectation for the recognition of this from Y , and some gratitude or approval (a
positive reward).
apple 2 , when left to X by Y ,is-for X - apple 2 (that material apple with its eating value)
plus:
-a sacrifice , compared with the other possibility (a negative reward, but an imposed
sacrifice , which is worse than a spontaneous one),
-an impolite act towards X , a lack of respect from Y 's side (a negative reward).
Thus, in the two cases, X is not eating the same apple ; their flavor is very different. Apple 2
'has a different value in the two cases', in the first case there are fewer negative rewards and
more positive rewards.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search