Musings on H1N1 Coffee Shop Conversation - The Myth of The Rational Person

The myth of the Rational Person is an issue that plagues game theory and economics. It is also clearly an issue across many analytical and decision making models in social theory. What is interesting about the issue is when people try to rationalize decisions using flawed inputs.

For example, the media is notorious for reporting inaccurate or irrational information on subjects such as H1N1 influenza immunization. And the coffee shop talk often revolves around this contemporary issue.

But what is clear from observation of those conversations is that their rationalization is based around flawed or irrational input from sources that don't provide individuals with enough information to correctly (or incorrectly) rationalize their decision trees.

An individual may attempt to develop heuristics to assist in their decision making process, but it's arguable that the heuristics they use are completely and utterly flawed due to their irrational bias.

In determining the outcome of H1N1 vaccine uptake in the general population, it seems clear that the actors or agencies advocating a particular decsion branch have a requirement to provide the rational bias or heuristics for individuals deduce that "correct" decision branch. But that is clearly not occuring. It bears repeating that most, if not all of the information presented to a person is purely emotional or irrational in nature and is designed to stimulate an irrational decision making process.

A clear case in point is the advertising model. The most successful ad campaigns are often those that appeal directly to a person's emotions rather than to their rational decision process. In the past, those advertisements have been the most hotly debated topics in ad circles, since using emotions to sell products sometimes belies the truth and smacks of manipulation. Emotional inputs into an individual's decision tree are often given a stronger "score" than their rational counterparts, even though they may not lead to the desired outcome.

However, in this case (H1N1 vaccination), what we need is a rationalized decision for what action the general population should take and perhaps the methods used to achieve that rational outcome are not rational. So the heuristics may be entirely irrational but the outcome rational. However, the control of the irrational heuristics need to come from a rational source.