Hacker News Reader

Comment by wslh | Hacker News Reader

> A rational actor never works for "free"

A rational actor with emotions can work for free is that work makes him/her feel well. Some people even call this a hobby.

View on HN

That would fall under "perceived benefit" and thus not free, according to the parent's definition.

The joy of a "rational actor" is that their utility function can be anything, and therefore their "rational" behavior can be anything - including things that an outside observer would consider irrational:)

Theory is good when it makes specific predictions, that can be shown to be true or false, like theory of gravity.

If a rational actor might do anything for any reason, then it's of limited use. I think that by changing the utility function to include personal feelings, you are putting the cart before the horse.

The parent's definition basically defines "free" as something that doesn't exist. It's not very useful.

Isn't a rational actor with emotions called an irrational actor? ;p

It's kinda hard to sit down and formulate a "rational actor" that has no emotions or drives or goals, and put that into any sort of useful theory of the world. You end up calling rocks rational actors when they, having no goals or negative stimuli, "rationally" sit there and do nothing. (Which may be "true" in some sense, but isn't a terribly useful definition.)

Rationality is more about how goals are obtained than what those goals are. The latter can still play a part (e.g., are the goals coherent? that's a proper question for rationality), but it's lesser.

Why did you define money as a goal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com