[analog31]

I have several problems with this. First, we seem to be assuming that we can figure out what someone's optimum choice should be. Second, the "biases" seem to come from studies of heavily contrived situations. Third, some people could be rationally inclined but just have weak reasoning ability.

In short, I'm still mildly skeptical that we've really disproven the rational actor model.

Maybe the rational actor model is the heliocentrism we're looking for. People want it to be false, in order to justify paternalism.

I once read that in the century after Newton, the French Academy offered a prize for evidence that disproved Newtonian mechanics, and they awarded it several times before finally giving up. The disproofs were all flawed.

[stkdump]

And nowadays Newtonian mechanics are disproven and we still apply it broadly, because it's still useful. It just doesn't paint the full picture. Same for the geocentric world view. We all know that the earth isn't the center of the solar system, but we still measure days, years, seasons, etc. as if it were. Why? Because for most uses, it is the simpler and more helpful model.

I think something similar could happen here. We come up with a more accurate model that requires fewer exceptions, but is harder to apply/work with day-to-day.