I don’t know whether you know this or not, but I attend the University of Pennsylvania. Ivy League, I know – don’t worry about it, I got in on some random clerical error. And at the University of Pennsylvania, I specifically attend the Wharton School of Business – what some call the preeminent business education institute in the world. It is a place governed by RATIONALITY. A school of ECONOMICS, where HIGHER EDUCATION is dictated by notion of WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and what is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
At this place, the argument for the idea of life is that RATIONALITY rules the day, and it is the only thing that matters. RATIONALITY is the backbone of economics – most basic theories (which are often difficult enough to grasp anyways) are based on the foundation that the world is full of free-thinking, rational human beings, their purpose to maximize their ends (which we call utility, which, for some reason, is synonymous with wealth – hey, no one’s really explained it to me either). And to maximize (or optimize, depends on the book and the author) said utility, one must think and act ABSOLUTELY RATIONAL – it is the nature of the personified “market.” And since people are so RATIONAL, certain decisions and moral idlings are easy to figure out.
Take, for example, the Ultimatum Game (which some of you may have played at one point) for example. In the experiment, one person is told that he will be given a dollar if he can get a partner to agree that the dollar should be split. If there is no agreement, the dollar is not bequeathed to either: the only thing is, there can be no communication between the partners. Rather, the first partner must simply write the amount that he will split on a sheet of paper, hand it to the partner, and sit back for the decision. If the partner chooses, he or she checks yes and the dollar is awarded.
So what would the Wharton student do here, being ruled by RATIONALITY? He of course offers the least amount of money possible ($0.01) as his partner should accept, owing to the fact that they will, indeed, be one cent richer than they were a moment ago. This is RATIONAL. This is ECONOMICALLY SOUND. This should be ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, as the laws of economics dictate that a person must be RATIONAL and maximize his or her utility.
But the results of the game? Unfailingly, the vast majority of participants choose to divide the dollar in half – hey, either we get the dollar or we don’t; it’s free money, what’s the harm in splitting it? This decision directly spits in the face of LOGIC, yet it’s what occurs. And each time the Ultimatum Game is conducted, at least one person will argue that anybody that offered $0.50 is an idiot, and that under no circumstances should anything above a cent be offered – after all, it’s IRRATIONAL not to attempt to maximize our own standings in life. And to those partners that deny an offer of one cent? Well, our SUPER RATIONAL friend’s face may just explode – “you arbitrarily gave up the opportunity to improve your utility (wealth)!” he screams. “You IRRATIONAL prigs!.”
Are they really irrational though? Isn’t someone that argues so strongly for rationality, even in the face of certain irrationality, irrational himself? I’d argue yes. Because the one thing that Wharton forgets is that people, regardless of your economic theories or the logic behind absolute rationality, are simply not rational. We are not wired that way. Think about your day – I guarantee that at some point today, you did something that made absolutely no sense. I bet whatever this thing was (for me, it was walking on the opposite side of the street that I needed to be on, even though there were multiple instances that I could have crossed, which would have shortened my trip – oh yeah, it was raining, too. No umbrella, even though I knew it was raining well before I left) didn’t further your goals in any way imaginable, utility or otherwise. But you did it, right? And when it was over, is whatever incremental increase you may have received if you would have done things so ABSOLUTELY RATIONALLY make much of a difference to you? Nope.
See, the thing is, in the end, when everything else is irrelevant and turns into dust, the thing that makes us human is that irrationality that is so frowned upon by Wharton. That irrationality leads to spontaneity, it leads to emotions (don’t act like it was rational to cry at the end of Titanic or Marley & Me), and most importantly, it leads to love – after all, rationality agrees with our biology under the notion that we should not be attached to one another, but rather procreate and move on. But that isn’t what we do. And I don’t care what that dude arguing about the Ultimatum Game says, those things that stem from being lovestruck, lovelorn, illogical, flippant, impatient, spontaneous, egregious, quick to laugh, quick to anger, and romantic are more than worth forgoing some utility.
And that, my readers, is as rational as you can get.
No comments:
Post a Comment