Rationality as a Characteristic of Decision-Making Process: Comparative Analysis of Various Paradigm Approaches

Irina Shavkunova
{"title":"Rationality as a Characteristic of Decision-Making Process: Comparative Analysis of Various Paradigm Approaches","authors":"Irina Shavkunova","doi":"10.17150/2500-2759.2019.29(2).289-296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Classical economic theory traditionally considers the economic behavior of economic entities as rational, but modern studies convincingly prove the predominance of rather irrational motives in the process of making economic decisions. Within the framework of traditional economic analysis, which is based on the rationality postulate, it is difficult and often impossible to explain the behavior of subjects that demonstrate a clear departure from the principles of rational behavior. A detailed study of the problems of economic choice (economic decision-making), rational behavior of economic subjects, as well as the conditions and nature of deviations from the criteria of rationality is difficult within the framework of the methodology of a single social science. However, in modern scientific discourse there is no single interpretation of the category «rationality»; various social sciences consider the concept of rationality in different ways. Rationality as a scientific category is quite a multi-valued concept. All this actualizes a comparative analysis of different paradigm approaches to the definition of rationality as a characteristic of the selection process (decision-making).","PeriodicalId":9341,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Baikal State University","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Baikal State University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17150/2500-2759.2019.29(2).289-296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Classical economic theory traditionally considers the economic behavior of economic entities as rational, but modern studies convincingly prove the predominance of rather irrational motives in the process of making economic decisions. Within the framework of traditional economic analysis, which is based on the rationality postulate, it is difficult and often impossible to explain the behavior of subjects that demonstrate a clear departure from the principles of rational behavior. A detailed study of the problems of economic choice (economic decision-making), rational behavior of economic subjects, as well as the conditions and nature of deviations from the criteria of rationality is difficult within the framework of the methodology of a single social science. However, in modern scientific discourse there is no single interpretation of the category «rationality»; various social sciences consider the concept of rationality in different ways. Rationality as a scientific category is quite a multi-valued concept. All this actualizes a comparative analysis of different paradigm approaches to the definition of rationality as a characteristic of the selection process (decision-making).
作为决策过程特征的理性:各种范式方法的比较分析
古典经济理论传统上认为经济实体的经济行为是理性的,但现代研究令人信服地证明,在经济决策过程中,相当非理性的动机占主导地位。在基于理性假设的传统经济分析框架内,很难而且往往不可能解释那些明显偏离理性行为原则的主体的行为。在单一社会科学的方法论框架内,很难对经济选择(经济决策)、经济主体的理性行为以及偏离理性标准的条件和性质等问题进行详细的研究。然而,在现代科学话语中,对“理性”这一范畴没有单一的解释;各种社会科学以不同的方式考虑理性的概念。理性作为一个科学范畴,是一个具有多重价值的概念。所有这些都实现了对将理性定义为选择过程(决策)特征的不同范式方法的比较分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信