Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>     It may not benefit you, but don't assume it's irrational (by your
>> definition) for others.
> 
> I think there's two different definitions of "rational" at play here.
> You seem to use the one relating to logical consistency, where as
> somebody seems to use it more in the economic sense:
	
	I was merely using somebody's definition of rational. He said:

'I used "irrational" to mean "not benefiting (or even damagaing towards)
the self".'

	And so I'm saying that there are people for whom working towards
changing the future for those hundreds of years down the road may
actually be beneficial to themselves (in this life). Therefore, that
person is acting rationally - contrary to somebody's assertion.

	My *own* usage of the word is simply "based on reasoning/logic" -
consistency need not apply.

	I never cared for the usage of the term in economics. It's often
inconsistent with what most people consider rational.


-- 
(Ice rocks hit the hull)  "Captain, we are being hailed."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message