Gigerenzer’s Evolutionary Arguments against Rational Choice Theory: An Assessment
I critically discuss a recent innovation in the debate surrounding the plausibility of rational choice theory (RCT): the appeal to evolutionary theory. Specifically, I assess Gigerenzer and colleagues’ claim that considerations based on natural selection show that, instead of making decisions in a R...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Philosophy of science 2011-12, Vol.78 (5), p.1272-1282 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1282 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 1272 |
| container_title | Philosophy of science |
| container_volume | 78 |
| creator | Schulz, Armin W. |
| description | I critically discuss a recent innovation in the debate surrounding the plausibility of rational choice theory (RCT): the appeal to evolutionary theory. Specifically, I assess Gigerenzer and colleagues’ claim that considerations based on natural selection show that, instead of making decisions in a RCT-like way, we rely on ‘simple heuristics’. As I try to make clearer here, though, Gigerenzer and colleagues’ arguments are unconvincing: we lack the needed information about our past to determine whether the premises on which they are built are true—and, hence, we cannot tell whether they, in fact, speak against RCT. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1086/662264 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1086_662264</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>10.1086/662264</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>10.1086/662264</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-bc84455354c785b80a69bc12d7b071c0ad75243ad1cd3bbb90a708210f94d2ea3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0MtKxDAUBuAgCo63ZyjecFM9SdMmdTcM4wUEwQu4K2maznToNGNOK-jK1_D1fBKjHRQEwVUW5-M_Jz8hOxSOKcjkJEkYS_gKGdA4SkORiIdVMgCIaCgZl-tkA3EGQKkEOSC359XEONO8GPf--obB-MnWXVvZRrnnYOgm3dw0LQZqoqoG2-BGfc3qYDS1lTbB3dRY93waDJtgiGgQP_kWWStVjWZ7-W6S-7Px3egivLo-vxwNr0LNIWrDXEvO4ziKuRYyziWoJM01ZYXIQVANqhAx45EqqC6iPM9TUAIko1CmvGBGRZvkqM9dOPvYGWyzeYXa1LVqjO0wowApZQJE5OnuLzqznfMfwSylUshEAvXosEfaWURnymzhqrkvwidln9VmfbUeHizTFGpVl041usJvzWLOpEzAu_3edXpaaTWxC-cr-ln9HXf0D5YtitLTvZ7OsLXur_s-AHGoniQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>918786801</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gigerenzer’s Evolutionary Arguments against Rational Choice Theory: An Assessment</title><source>Cambridge Journals</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Schulz, Armin W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schulz, Armin W.</creatorcontrib><description>I critically discuss a recent innovation in the debate surrounding the plausibility of rational choice theory (RCT): the appeal to evolutionary theory. Specifically, I assess Gigerenzer and colleagues’ claim that considerations based on natural selection show that, instead of making decisions in a RCT-like way, we rely on ‘simple heuristics’. As I try to make clearer here, though, Gigerenzer and colleagues’ arguments are unconvincing: we lack the needed information about our past to determine whether the premises on which they are built are true—and, hence, we cannot tell whether they, in fact, speak against RCT.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-8248</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1539-767X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1086/662264</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PHSCA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press</publisher><subject>Debate ; Decision making ; Epistemology. Philosophy of science. Theory of knowledge ; Evolution ; Evolutionary theories ; Evolutionary theory ; Frugality ; Gigerenzer, Gerd ; Heuristics ; Mind ; Natural selection ; Phenotypic traits ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of science ; Problem solving ; Rational choice ; Rational choice theory ; Rationality ; Social evolution ; Theory</subject><ispartof>Philosophy of science, 2011-12, Vol.78 (5), p.1272-1282</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2011 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright University of Chicago, acting through its Press Dec 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-bc84455354c785b80a69bc12d7b071c0ad75243ad1cd3bbb90a708210f94d2ea3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-bc84455354c785b80a69bc12d7b071c0ad75243ad1cd3bbb90a708210f94d2ea3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,777,781,786,787,800,23911,23912,25121,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=25428860$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schulz, Armin W.</creatorcontrib><title>Gigerenzer’s Evolutionary Arguments against Rational Choice Theory: An Assessment</title><title>Philosophy of science</title><description>I critically discuss a recent innovation in the debate surrounding the plausibility of rational choice theory (RCT): the appeal to evolutionary theory. Specifically, I assess Gigerenzer and colleagues’ claim that considerations based on natural selection show that, instead of making decisions in a RCT-like way, we rely on ‘simple heuristics’. As I try to make clearer here, though, Gigerenzer and colleagues’ arguments are unconvincing: we lack the needed information about our past to determine whether the premises on which they are built are true—and, hence, we cannot tell whether they, in fact, speak against RCT.</description><subject>Debate</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Epistemology. Philosophy of science. Theory of knowledge</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Evolutionary theories</subject><subject>Evolutionary theory</subject><subject>Frugality</subject><subject>Gigerenzer, Gerd</subject><subject>Heuristics</subject><subject>Mind</subject><subject>Natural selection</subject><subject>Phenotypic traits</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of science</subject><subject>Problem solving</subject><subject>Rational choice</subject><subject>Rational choice theory</subject><subject>Rationality</subject><subject>Social evolution</subject><subject>Theory</subject><issn>0031-8248</issn><issn>1539-767X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqN0MtKxDAUBuAgCo63ZyjecFM9SdMmdTcM4wUEwQu4K2maznToNGNOK-jK1_D1fBKjHRQEwVUW5-M_Jz8hOxSOKcjkJEkYS_gKGdA4SkORiIdVMgCIaCgZl-tkA3EGQKkEOSC359XEONO8GPf--obB-MnWXVvZRrnnYOgm3dw0LQZqoqoG2-BGfc3qYDS1lTbB3dRY93waDJtgiGgQP_kWWStVjWZ7-W6S-7Px3egivLo-vxwNr0LNIWrDXEvO4ziKuRYyziWoJM01ZYXIQVANqhAx45EqqC6iPM9TUAIko1CmvGBGRZvkqM9dOPvYGWyzeYXa1LVqjO0wowApZQJE5OnuLzqznfMfwSylUshEAvXosEfaWURnymzhqrkvwidln9VmfbUeHizTFGpVl041usJvzWLOpEzAu_3edXpaaTWxC-cr-ln9HXf0D5YtitLTvZ7OsLXur_s-AHGoniQ</recordid><startdate>20111201</startdate><enddate>20111201</enddate><creator>Schulz, Armin W.</creator><general>University of Chicago Press</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20111201</creationdate><title>Gigerenzer’s Evolutionary Arguments against Rational Choice Theory: An Assessment</title><author>Schulz, Armin W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c403t-bc84455354c785b80a69bc12d7b071c0ad75243ad1cd3bbb90a708210f94d2ea3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Debate</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Epistemology. Philosophy of science. Theory of knowledge</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Evolutionary theories</topic><topic>Evolutionary theory</topic><topic>Frugality</topic><topic>Gigerenzer, Gerd</topic><topic>Heuristics</topic><topic>Mind</topic><topic>Natural selection</topic><topic>Phenotypic traits</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of science</topic><topic>Problem solving</topic><topic>Rational choice</topic><topic>Rational choice theory</topic><topic>Rationality</topic><topic>Social evolution</topic><topic>Theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schulz, Armin W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Philosophy of science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schulz, Armin W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Gigerenzer’s Evolutionary Arguments against Rational Choice Theory: An Assessment</atitle><jtitle>Philosophy of science</jtitle><date>2011-12-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1272</spage><epage>1282</epage><pages>1272-1282</pages><issn>0031-8248</issn><eissn>1539-767X</eissn><coden>PHSCA6</coden><abstract>I critically discuss a recent innovation in the debate surrounding the plausibility of rational choice theory (RCT): the appeal to evolutionary theory. Specifically, I assess Gigerenzer and colleagues’ claim that considerations based on natural selection show that, instead of making decisions in a RCT-like way, we rely on ‘simple heuristics’. As I try to make clearer here, though, Gigerenzer and colleagues’ arguments are unconvincing: we lack the needed information about our past to determine whether the premises on which they are built are true—and, hence, we cannot tell whether they, in fact, speak against RCT.</abstract><cop>Chicago, IL</cop><pub>University of Chicago Press</pub><doi>10.1086/662264</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0031-8248 |
| ispartof | Philosophy of science, 2011-12, Vol.78 (5), p.1272-1282 |
| issn | 0031-8248 1539-767X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1086_662264 |
| source | Cambridge Journals; Jstor Complete Legacy |
| subjects | Debate Decision making Epistemology. Philosophy of science. Theory of knowledge Evolution Evolutionary theories Evolutionary theory Frugality Gigerenzer, Gerd Heuristics Mind Natural selection Phenotypic traits Philosophy Philosophy of science Problem solving Rational choice Rational choice theory Rationality Social evolution Theory |
| title | Gigerenzer’s Evolutionary Arguments against Rational Choice Theory: An Assessment |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T14%3A52%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Gigerenzer%E2%80%99s%20Evolutionary%20Arguments%20against%20Rational%20Choice%20Theory:%20An%20Assessment&rft.jtitle=Philosophy%20of%20science&rft.au=Schulz,%20Armin%20W.&rft.date=2011-12-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1272&rft.epage=1282&rft.pages=1272-1282&rft.issn=0031-8248&rft.eissn=1539-767X&rft.coden=PHSCA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1086/662264&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E10.1086/662264%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=918786801&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=10.1086/662264&rfr_iscdi=true |