• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
All of those maybes are irrelevant because we are talking about the hypothetical situation which I described and the only factors in it are the ones which I described.

If you want another example, if you look at something like stock trading then a rational stockbroker would look at the information and buy and sell shares based on his best estimate as to what will make the most money. However, in practise, stockbrokers tend to follow the herd in terms of their buying and selling even when it objectively does not make sense to do so.

That's the point. Just because you have a rationale behind your actions does not mean that your actions are objectively rational. Hence why the free market is a bad idea - all the arguments in favour of a completely free market is that markets are rational and efficient and will produce optimum outcomes. In reality, however, it's well established that markets are not rational because the people who comprise the market frequently act irrationally (such as buying products above market price just because they're used to assuming that one particular supplier has the cheapest, same quality product without checking to see whether that is still the case).

What is rational and irrational is an objective evaluation of decisions based on examining all the variables involved and deciding what would logically be the optimum outcome and then comparing that to the decision actually made.

I don't want to continue this argument as I know it will get nowhere but you'll just have to accept that the standard definition of 'rational' is very different from "a decision having a rationale behind it".

Rational (adjective) based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Irrelevant, lol was?
Humans base their actions upon a priori knowledge; if there is none, they have 50/50 chances of choosing between two unknown choices.

Because stockbrokers have apriori knowledge that by following the market trend you can minimize your losses. If against all expectations firm A's stock is rising in price, others keep buying, then heck yeah you join and buy a share now, assuming according to all your currently known facts that the prise will keep rising for now, and that is all that matters. Stockbrokers operate on the short run; good investors on the long run. ;)
That is why for example Warren Buffet has had maybe the same stocks in his holdings for half a century, compared to modern investment banks trading billions of shares every second.
Therefore, following the herd is very rational, if you have had past experience that it works well financially. We humans learn everything by starting to mimic those people that are around us from the moment we are born, collecting experience; so that we later can base our choices upon the experience gained.

Objective rationality? But there is no such thing. We are humans, all our opinions are subjective. There is no 'objective' opinion, whether someone's action is rational or not. I once again restate that the concept of irrationality is a mere OPINION.
When talking about humans, their actions and preferences, please throw objectivity out of the window. ;)

The market is based upon voluntarily participation, you produce good/service A, and trade it for service/good B with someone else. No one forces you to join the market; it just happens to be very beneficial upon everyone participating in the said free exchange of goods and services. People make rational decisions in producing their products and act rationally according to the best apriori experience they have; making rational choices that fit their needs and wishes best.

Buying products above market prices can be rational. Maybe you have imperfect information, such as you don't know the next kiosk sells the good A 10 cents cheaper? Maybe you are very thirsty and want to buy water 10 cents above market price? Maybe the seller is your friend and you decide to subsidize your friends or family? Maybe the cashier smiled at you, better than at the other cheaper store. You value the smile to be worth giving up 10 cents that could be otherwise spent. :)
All those above mentioned decisions have a good subjective rationale behind them. Human mind does not operate objectively; it is simply impossible.

The EGO, your mind, cannot make objective decisions. The optimum outcome, the one that maximizes your utility most at the cheapest cost, is always the rational choice.

I'm not sure if I can put this any clearer. Sorry that English is not my first language. ;)
 
According to what he is talking about it is 100% correct.

Yep. This is why is rational for someone to smoke while others may find it very irrational. We all value different things.

I agree with Enewald's definition of rationality.

So we apperantly have 4 agreeing with him? Oh snap. And I do find it weird that you all are bullying hin for using correct definition of rationality.

Good to know someone can at least understand the English I'm writing here. :D
Any ideas how I enlighten the others to accept the facts I once again have restated in defence of rationality? :p
They are very stubborn, maybe just because they despise me. (obnoxious foreigner here...)
 
With just under three hours to go until polls close - 2 more votes (neither for Labour) would push Labour below 25% and greatly increase the Consevative majority at Labour's expense.
 
Tory

The only right way, friends, is, of course, right.

The Conservative Party

Conservative party

Good show, good show indeed gentlemen! Here is Tory top hat for each of you!

56177-large.jpg
 
Good show, good show indeed gentlemen! Here is Tory top hat for each of you!

Looks like it will be an overwhelming Tory victory. Are you happy now? :p
 
((Too soon to be happy, there is still some time left. Must... continue... to... campaign...))

At least we currently have ca. 39% while Labour got 25%. Let us pray for one or two more votes for Tories or Liberals, and Labour will fall under 25% :p The red hydra may finally be quelled!
 
Last edited:
You mean the communists? They're not a problem anyway. :p

The Labour Party and CPGB :)

One more hour until the election close. This will be exciting! :D
 
Last edited:
Two more, actually – if I'm not mistaken, that is.

Yes, that is correct. Let us hope it won't be a sudden surge of voters, unless it won't bring down tories under 35% and will bring Labour under 25% of course. And could be nice to see Liberals gain some more votes.
 
Yes, that is correct. Let us hope it won't be a sudden surge of voters, unless it won't bring down tories under 35% and will bring Labour under 25% of course. And could be nice to see Liberals gain some more votes.

You speak as if the Labour Party are the scum of the earth.
 
You speak as if the Labour Party are the scum of the earth.

Maybe they are? No, they are just someone I do not like to be in government. Like you wouldn't like the Tories to be in government - I assume. I voted for Tories mainly to keep Labour out of government, like the last time I voted for Tories. Other than that I might have voted for Lberals again. But they are hving a naiive foreign policy, and don't have much of a program at the moment.
 
I'm enjoying your Westminsterball cartoons, I'd like to include a link to one in your contents - shall I wait until this next version is complete and use that one?

We currently have 58 votes, 2 less than I would like. Time to get to the polls and push us to 60 and beyond!

Yes please - I should have finished this version today so it would be great to link to that one.

Of course, given that at least five more people have demanded to be included this could wind up being time consuming :p
 
Special offer: anyone who votes Liberal in the hour and a half until the polls close will get a Westminsterball of their very own.
 
Special offer: anyone who votes Liberal in the hour and a half until the polls close will get a Westminsterball of their very own.

Liberals are corrupting the voters and having shrewd electoral policies? Isn't this the opposite of democratic liberalism? :p

Yes please - I should have finished this version today so it would be great to link to that one.

Of course, given that at least five more people have demanded to be included this could wind up being time consuming :p

Wonder how I will look like in the end :p
 
Liberals are corrupting the voters and having shrewd electoral policies? Isn't this the opposite of democratic liberalism? :p

To be fair, the Hon. Gentleman from Rutland and Stamford is only one liberal. He may well be working outside of the party lines.
 
Liberals are corrupting the voters and having shrewd electoral policies? Isn't this the opposite of democratic liberalism? :p

Nope, it's a campaign promise - totally above board. And if it's not above board then neither is your distribution of top hats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.