Prior to discussing rationality in
class this week, I assumed that Professor De Young would be highlighting the
fact that, as humans, we inherently act in a rational way. I typically think of
myself as a rational person and am used to the positive perception of being
rational. So when Professor De Young emphasized the fact that rationality is
not necessarily a positive thing in human behavior, but being non-rational
actually is because of its adaptive characteristics, I was truly shocked. I
feel that people who act in irrational ways are constantly criticized and those
who are rational are praised, so initially trying to grasp this concept was
difficult for me. However, as I continued to absorb the information and connect
it to other course concepts that we have already learned, rationality began to
make more sense to me.
Rationality involves three
assumptions. The first is that we evaluate everything using a single metric,
the second being that we possess perfect knowledge and can know all values and
expectancies of an outcome, and the third that we will always maximize our
decisions and choose the outcomes that have the best expected value. However,
these assumptions of rationality fail to address the fact that we are immersed
within an uncertain and rich environment, therefore we cannot make decisions
based on perfect knowledge. As well, it is more adaptive for us to behave with
cognitive speed and act quickly instead of spending time to seek out all of the
information and contemplate for a long time. Finally, we have evolved to have limited
information processing capabilities - this means that there are limits to the
amount of information we can process because of directed attention fatigue,
channel capacity, and the simplification of our mental models. This idea of
mental models relates to the concept of heuristics, which are mental patterns
that aid decision making based off our past experiences. These unique
heuristics that we individually possess often lead to choices that are highly
adaptive because they allow us to make speedy decisions, but they often result
in non-rational behavior.
As I processed this information about
rationality and decision-making, I began to think about all of the big
decisions in my life that I have made and am currently making, and whether I am
rational or not. Scrolling through these decisions, what immediately came to my
mind was my decision to vote, probably the most prevalent situation within my
life at the moment. This is the first time I am eligible to vote in a presidential
election, so it is something I consider myself to be putting a lot of thought
into. However, as the presidential campaign and election takes place during one
of the busiest times of the year as a college student, it is often difficult to
keep up with all of the policies and events relating to the candidates on a
daily basis. As I registered to vote, I hoped to develop the best-informed
knowledge over the course of the campaign about the candidates, their stances
on every issue, and their plans of actions once they are elected. However, both
time and my attention are limited, inhibiting the amount of insight I can truly
possess about the candidates.
In Lee Drutman’s online article Ballot Pox, he explains, “Perhaps it is finally time to stop pretending there
is such a thing as a rational voter who seeks information to vote based on the
issues alone, as decades of political-science research has assumed.” As I read
this statement, I came to realize that despite all of the information I
actively seek out in terms of the election and the candidates, I will be
influenced by my adaptive behaviors to make a decision that is quick and
influenced by my past experiences. In Democracy
for Realists, Achen & Bartels further address: "Can ordinary
people, busy with their lives and with no firsthand experience of policy making
or public administration, do what the theory expects them to do?" Of
course not. "Mostly they identify with ethnic, racial, occupation,
religious or other sorts of groups, and often — whether through group ties or
hereditary loyalties — with a political party."
The
whole purpose of our voting system is to allow us, as citizens, to make the
most rational and best-informed decisions when giving such drastic power to an
individual to lead our country. However, considering what we have learned in
class this past week, as well as the information presented in the highlighted
article, it is evident that we are innately wired to vote in quite the opposite
way. As we mark our ballots, each decision made is influenced by the fact that
we inhabit an uncertain environment, our cognitive mechanisms limit how we
process information, and we would rather act quickly then weigh all of the
options. Our heuristics (or should I say our biases?) will sway our voting decision,
no matter how much we try to inhibit our personal experiences and emotions.
As
I conclude, I want to emphasize that I am not trying to convey that voting is
not important - in fact, I feel quite the opposite. I strongly believe that
everyone should go out to vote and play a role in this electoral process.
However, what I do want to say is that although we often find ourselves
stressed to learn about the entire political system and what the candidates are
saying throughout the campaign, we are wired to make decisions without complete
knowledge of all of this information anyway. So as you go out to vote and
considering this information, do you believe it will be useful for yourself to
keep up with the rest of the campaign before you make your decision? Or do you
now think that your human tendencies to make a voting decision in a
non-rational way will lead you to stop contemplating the facts?
References:
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Ballot-Pox/238131
No comments:
Post a Comment