[freyr]

> postulating a clear and unambiguous definition of a utility function. But the concept of "rationality" is richer than that

The word "rationality" may be ambiguous, as most words describing anything complex are, but the authors attempted to provide a clear model and work within those bounds. When we begin discussing the ideas informally, and using terms in a broader and more colloquial sense, then we're at fault if the results have become muddied.

The authors demonstrated a reasonable utility function, one which most people upon reflection would agree is logical, and demonstrated that people do not consistently act in a way that maximizes that function.

We can always move the goal post, and claim that if people appear to be acting irrationally it's because we simply don't understand their concept of rationality (or the more complex function they're maximizing). But that seems rather circular; it would be nice hear examples of a richer concept of rationality, in the context of the author's experiments, that might explain seemingly inconsistent behavior.