Is Gambling Rational Or Irrational

• Is 7.11 Rational Or Irrational
• Is -2 Rational Or Irrational
• Rational And Irrational Numbers
• Real Rational Irrational
• Is Gambling Rational Or Irrational Numbers

The concept known as rational irrationality was popularized by economist Bryan Caplan in 2001 to reconcile the widespread existence of irrational behavior (particularly in the realms of religion and politics) with the assumption of rationality made by mainstream economics and game theory.^[1][2] The theory, along with its implications for democracy, was expanded upon by Caplan in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter.

In the article Classification of Numbers we have already defined Rational Numbers and Irrational Numbers. We also touched upon a few fundamental properties of Rational and Irrational numbers. In this article we shall extend our discussion of the same and explain in detail some more properties of Rational and Irrational Numbers.

The original purpose of the concept was to explain how (allegedly) detrimental policies could be implemented in a democracy, and, unlike conventional public choice theory, Caplan posited that bad policies were selected by voters themselves. The theory has also been embraced by the ethical intuitionist philosopher Michael Huemer as an explanation for irrationality in politics.^[3][4] The theory has also been applied to explain religious belief.^[5]

• 1Theory
• 3Politics
• 4Competing and opposing theories of democracy and politics

Theory[edit]

Two types of rationality, and preferences over beliefs[edit]

Caplan posits that there are two types of rationality:

• Epistemic rationality, which roughly consists of forming beliefs in truth-conducive ways, making reasonable efforts to avoid fallacious reasoning, and keeping an open mind for new evidence.
• Instrumental rationality, which involves choosing the most comprehensively effective means to attain one’s actual goals, given one’s actual beliefs.

Rational irrationality describes a situation in which it is instrumentally rational for an actor to be epistemically irrational.

Caplan argues that rational irrationality is more likely in situations in which:

Is 7.11 Rational Or Irrational

• people have preferences over beliefs, i.e., some kinds of beliefs are more appealing than others and
• the marginal cost to an individual of holding an erroneous (or irrational) belief is low.

In the framework of neoclassical economics, Caplan posits that there is a demand for irrationality. A person's demand curve describes the amount of irrationality that the person is willing to tolerate at any given cost of irrationality. By the law of demand, the lower the cost of irrationality, the higher the demand for it. When the cost of error is effectively zero, a person's demand for irrationality is high.

Rational irrationality versus doublethink[edit]

Rational irrationality is not doublethink and does not state that the individual deliberately chooses to believe something he or she knows to be false. Rather, the theory is that when the costs of having erroneous beliefs are low, people relax their intellectual standards and allow themselves to be more easily influenced by fallacious reasoning, cognitive biases, and emotional appeals. In other words, people do not deliberately seek to believe false things but stop putting in the intellectual effort to be open to evidence that may contradict their beliefs.

Sources of preferences over beliefs[edit]

For rational irrationality to exist, people must have preferences over beliefs: certain beliefs must be appealing to people for reasons other than their truth value. In an essay on irrationality in politics Michael Huemer^[3] identifies some possible sources of preferences over beliefs:

• Self-interested bias: People tend to hold beliefs that, if generally accepted, would benefit themselves or the group with whom they identify. Self-interested bias is complicated by the fact that people may identify with groups to which they do not belong, but feel good about assuming that identity.
• Beliefs as self-image constructors: People prefer to hold beliefs that best fit with the images of themselves that they want to adopt and to project.
• Beliefs as tools of social bonding: People prefer to hold the political beliefs of other people they like and with whom they want to associate.
• Coherence bias: People are biased towards beliefs that fit well with or reinforce their existing beliefs, regardless of those beliefs' degree of coherence with reality.

Religion[edit]

Many of the claims of religions are not easily verifiable in the day-to-day world. There are many competing religious theories about the origins of life, reincarnation, and paradise, but mistaken beliefs about these rarely impose real world costs upon the believers themselves. Thus, it may be instrumentally rational to be epistemically irrational about these matters. In other words, when forming or updating their religious beliefs, people may tend to relax their intellectual standards for the sake of driving popular support towards their beliefs.^[5]

Politics[edit]

Rational irrationality in individual political beliefs[edit]

Politics is a situation where rational irrationality is expected to be common, according to Caplan's theory. In typical large democracies, each individual voter has a very low probability of influencing the outcome of an election or determining whether a particular policy will be implemented. Thus, the expected cost of supporting an erroneous policy (obtained by multiplying the cost of the policy by the probability that the individual voter will have a decisive role in influencing the policy) is very low. The psychological benefits of supporting policies that feel good but are in fact harmful may be greater than these small expected costs. This creates a situation where voters may be rationally irrational for practical morale reasons.

Rational irrationality and systemic biases[edit]

For rational irrationality at an individual level to have an effect on political outcomes, it is necessary that there be systemic ways in which people are irrational. In other words, people need to have systemic biases: there needs to be a systemic difference between people's preferences over beliefs and true beliefs. In the absence of systemic biases, different forms of irrationality would cancel out when aggregated using the voting process.

Caplan attempts to demonstrate empirically the existence of systemic biases in beliefs about economics in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter.

Is -2 Rational Or Irrational

Implications for the outcomes of democracy[edit]

When a large number of individuals hold systematically biased beliefs, the total cost to the democracy of all these irrational beliefs could be significant. Thus, even though every individual voter may be behaving rationally, the voters as a whole are not acting in their collective self-interest. This is analogous to the tragedy of the commons. Another way of thinking about it is that each voter, by being rationally irrational, creates a small negative externality for other voters.

Caplan believes that the rational irrationality of voters is one of the reasons why democracies choose suboptimal economic policies, particularly in the area of free trade versus protectionism. Philosopher Michael Huemer, in a TEDx talk on rational irrationality in politics, cited the war on terror and protectionism as two examples of rational irrationality in politics.^[4]

Competing and opposing theories of democracy and politics[edit]

Any theory of democracy must take into account the empirical fact that most voters in a democracy have very little idea about the details of politics, including the names of their elected representatives, the terms of office, and the platforms of candidates of major political parties.

Like rational irrationality, some theories of democracy claim that democracies tend to choose bad policies. Other theories claim that despite the empirical observations about voter ignorance, democracies do in fact do fairly well. Below are listed some of these theories and their relation to rational irrationality.

Rational ignorance and public choice theory[edit]

The most famous theory of democratic failure is public choice theory. The theory, developed by James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, and others, relies on rational ignorance. Voters have a very small probability of influencing policy outcomes, so they do not put much effort to stay up-to-date on politics. This allows special interests to manipulate the political process and engage in rent seeking. A key idea of public choice theory is that many harmful policies have concentrated benefits (experienced by special interests) and diffuse costs. The special interests experiencing the benefits are willing to lobby for the policies, while the costs are spread out very diffusely among a much larger group of people. Because these costs are diffuse, the people bearing the costs do not have enough at stake to lobby against the policies.

Rational irrationality and rational ignorance share some key similarities but are also different in a number of ways. The similarities are that both theories reject the claim that voters are rational and well-informed, and both theories claim that democracy does not function well. However, the theories differ in a number of ways:

• Rational ignorance does not predict any systemic biases in voter beliefs. Rather, it is consistent with voters having beliefs that are wrong in random ways with no overall direction of bias. Rational irrationality, on the other hand, predicts that systemic biases are apt to occur in areas where the policies that feel good are systemically different from the policies that are, in fact, good.
• Public choice theory explains the failure of democracy in terms of special interests frustrating the will of the people, who are rationally ignorant. With rational irrationality, on the other hand, it is possible for democracies to choose bad policies even if the will of the people is implemented. This does not rule out the possibility of special interest manipulation but gives it a secondary role.

There are two main objections to public choice theory and rational ignorance that do not apply to rational irrationality:

• Miracle of aggregation: If voter errors are purely random and a result of ignorance, then the random errors of the ignorant voters should cancel out and even a small proportion of well-informed voters should suffice for democracy to function well. The objection, at least in this form, does not apply to rational irrationality, because rational irrationality supports systemic biases in the voting population.
• Mechanisms that may be devised to keep politicians in check: There are a number of strategies for rationally ignorant voters to keep politicians in check without needing to keep themselves informed about all the details of politics. For instance, if special interest capture is a problem, and voters are rational, voters should tend to be skeptical of any proposed government program by default and demand strong evidence that it is not a sell-out to special interests. By an adverse selection-type phenomenon, this should cause government to shrink. Empirically, this does not seem to happen, as voting publics are often enthusiastic about government programs whose details they do not understand very well. This suggests either that special interest capture is not a significant problem or that voters are not behaving rationally. This is less of a problem for rational irrationality because voter support for a policy may be an example of rational irrationality.

Expressive voting[edit]

Brennan and Lomasky have an alternative theory of democratic failure that is quite similar to Caplan's theory of rational irrationality. Their theory, called expressive voting, states that people vote to express certain beliefs. The key difference between expressive voting and rational irrationality is that the former does not require people to actually hold systematically biased beliefs, while the latter does.

Loren Lomasky, one of the proponents of expressive voting, explained some of the key differences between the theories in a critical review of Caplan's book.^[6]

Wittman's theory of democratic success[edit]

Donald Wittman has argued that democracy works well.^[7] Wittman's argument rests on raising a number of objections to public choice theory, such as those outlined above while contrasting public choice theory and rational irrationality. Caplan described his own work on rational irrationality as an attempt to rescue democratic failure from Wittman's attacks. After the publication of Caplan's book, Wittman and Caplan debated each other.^[8]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^'Caplan's original paper on rational irrationality'. Bryan Caplan. Archived from the original on 2009-07-15. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
2. ^'Caplan's paper on rational irrationality versus rational ignorance'. Bryan Caplan. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
3. ^ ^ab'Michael Huemer on irrationality in politics'. Michael Huemer. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
4. ^ ^ab'Michael Huemer's TEDX talk on irrationality in politics'. Michael Huemer.
5. ^ ^ab'Debate between Caplan and Iannaccone on rational irrationality in religion'. Bryan Caplan. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
6. ^Lomasky, Loren (June 2008). 'Loren Lomasky's review of Caplan's book'. Public Choice. 135 (3–4): 469–484. doi:10.1007/s11127-007-9273-7.
7. ^Wittman, Donald A. (1995). The myth of democratic failure : why political institutions are efficient. University of Chicago Press. ISBN0226904229. OCLC31710344.
8. ^'Debate between Bryan Caplan and Donald Wittman on democracy'.

Irrational Games (known as 2K Boston between 2007 and 2009) was an American video game developer founded in 1997 by three former employees of Looking Glass Studios: Ken Levine, Jonathan Chey, and Robert Fermier. The studio was acquired by Take-Two Interactive in 2006. The studio was known for its games System Shock 2, Freedom Force, SWAT 4, and most notably two of the games in the BioShock series. In 2014, following the release of BioShock Infinite, Levine opted to significantly restructure the studio from around 90 to 15 employees and focus more on narrative games. In February 2017, the studio announced that it had been rebranded as Ghost Story Games and considered a fresh start from the original Irrational name, though still operating at the same business subsidiary under Take-Two.

• 1History
• 2Games developed

History[edit]

• 1997 – Irrational Games studio formed by former Looking Glass Studios employees Ken Levine, Jonathan Chey, and Robert Fermier.^[1]
• 1999 – System Shock 2 released to critical acclaim.
• 2000 – 'Irrational Games Australia' studio is opened in Canberra, with Jonathan Chey taking the helm. Deep Cover is cancelled.
• 2002 – Legal issues with publisher Crave Entertainment result in the development of The Lost being halted.
• 2004 – Irrational designers Ed Orman and Dean Tate awarded 'Best Design' in the Australian Game Developer Awards, as well as the studio receiving 'Best Game of 2004' and 'Best PC Game'.^[2]
• 2005 – Irrational's Boston studio moves to larger office space in Quincy, Massachusetts. The studio retains the 'Irrational Games Boston' title.
• 2006 – Irrational is acquired by Take-Two Interactive, under the 2K publishing arm.^[3]
• 2007 – Irrational Games is renamed to 2K Boston and 2K Australia on August 10.^[4]BioShock released August 21 to wide critical acclaim and strong sales.
• 2010 – 2K Boston announces its return to its original name, 'Irrational Games' on January 8.^[5]
• 2013 - Irrational Games releases BioShock Infinite on 26 March to critical acclaim, selling 11 million copies as of May 2015.
• 2017 - Irrational Games is renamed 'Ghost Story Games' on 24 February.

Shortly after BioShock was released, rumors arose that many of the staff who had worked on the game were leaving 2K Boston/Australia. In 2007, five members of the 2K Boston team moved to a new 2K studio in Novato, California.^[6] Soon after, 2K announced the formation of 2K Marin in Novato.^[7]

In late July 2010, several media outlets reported that a recently created website, whatisicarus.com, was a promotion relating to Irrational Games' unannounced project. The following week, information about the game was again teased, with the trailer confirmed for release on August 12, 2010.^[8] This was eventually revealed to be BioShock Infinite.

Rational And Irrational Numbers

Before Irrational started development on BioShock Infinite, the studio did preliminary work for the XCOM project that later became The Bureau: XCOM Declassified.^[9]

Restructuring and rebranding[edit]

On February 18, 2014, Levine announced that the vast majority of the Irrational Games studio staff would be laid off, with all but fifteen members of the staff losing their positions. Levine said that he wanted to start 'a smaller, more entrepreneurial endeavor at Take-Two', speaking to how much stress completing a large game like BioShock: Infinite had caused him.^[10] Levine said 'I need to refocus my energy on a smaller team with a flatter structure and a more direct relationship with gamers. In many ways, it will be a return to how we started: a small team making games for the core gaming audience.'^[10] Levine had considered starting a new development studio for this, knowing that building the ideas would take several years before any game product would be made, but Take-Two offered to let him keep the division within Take-Two, with Levine saying that they told him 'there was no better place to pursue this new chapter than within their walls'.^[10] The studio helped to find positions for the displaced employees, and 2K hosted a career day for the remaining 75 employees to help seek employment at 57 other studios.^[10][11]

Levine and the 15 remaining members of the team began the process of creating new, smaller games focusing on a replayable narrative for the core gamers. It was said that Levine's studio will continue to keep the Irrational name, although Take-Two later stated that it was not true.^[12] Through 2014 to 2015, Irrational Games continued to post several openings for jobs at the studio.^[13][14][15] In January 2015, Levine and the remaining staff are currently developing their first game which will be a 'first-person sci-fi' game.^[16]

On February 23, 2017, the studio announced it had rebranded itself as Ghost Story Games, founded by 12 of the former Irrational members with Levine continuing as president and creative director.^[17] The studio's focus is 'to create immersive, story-driven games for people who love games that ask something of them';^[17] the name was chosen as ghost stories 'are immersive, exciting, and steeped in community', similar to the studio's design philosophies.^[18] As of this point, the studio had about 25 employees.^[19]

Games developed[edit]

As Irrational Games[edit]

As 2K Boston[edit]

Cancelled video games[edit]

• Deep Cover
• Division 9
• Monster Island
• Freedom Force 3
• Untitled BioShock game for PlayStation Vita

References[edit]

1. ^Keefer, John (March 31, 2006). 'GameSpy Retro: Developer Origins, Page 5 of 19'. GameSpy. Archived from the original on June 9, 2007.
2. ^'The Australian Game Developers Conference'. www.agdc.com.au. Archived from the original on March 9, 2018. Retrieved May 17, 2018.
3. ^Jenkins, David (January 9, 2006). 'Take-Two Acquires Irrational Games'. Gamasutra. Retrieved May 20, 2019.
4. ^'Irrational Games Renamed 2K Boston and 2K Australia'. Business Wire. August 10, 2007. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007. Retrieved September 16, 2010.
5. ^'The Return Of Irrational Games'. Archived from the original on January 11, 2010. Retrieved January 9, 2010.
6. ^'Q&A: Ken Levine talks BioShock, reminisces about X-Com'. GameSpot. March 20, 2009. Archived from the original on June 28, 2010. Retrieved April 9, 2009.
7. ^'Take-Two confirms 2K Marin'. GameSpot. December 17, 2007. Archived from the original on January 2, 2013. Retrieved April 9, 2009.
8. ^Totilo, Stephen. 'BioShock Creators' Next Game Debuts Next Week, Trailer On Aug. 12'. Kotaku. Archived from the original on August 5, 2010. Retrieved August 3, 2010.
9. ^Plante, Chris (March 6, 2014). 'The final years of Irrational Games, according to those who were there'. Polygon. Vox Media. Archived from the original on March 6, 2014. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
10. ^ ^abcdMakuch, Eddie (February 18, 2014). 'BioShock creator Irrational Games is shutting down'. GameSpot. Archived from the original on June 27, 2017. Retrieved February 23, 2017.
11. ^'Irrational Games closure led to 75 layoffs, job fair hosted 57 studios'. Polygon. February 28, 2014. Archived from the original on April 15, 2014. Retrieved April 15, 2014.
12. ^Morris, Chris (May 14, 2014). 'Take-Two CEO open to buying more studios'. GamesIndustry.biz. Archived from the original on May 14, 2014. Retrieved May 14, 2014.
13. ^Gera, Emily (November 24, 2014). 'BioShock developer Irrational Games is hiring again'. Polygon. Archived from the original on April 24, 2016. Retrieved April 20, 2016.
14. ^Tach, Dave (May 6, 2015). 'BioShock creator Irrational Games continues to hire for its mystery project'. Polygon. Archived from the original on April 24, 2016. Retrieved April 20, 2016.
15. ^Frank, Allegra (December 11, 2015). 'Irrational Games hiring for 'narrative first-person shooter' project'. Polygon. Archived from the original on April 19, 2016. Retrieved April 20, 2016.
16. ^Phillips, Tom (January 28, 2015). 'BioShock creator Ken Levine teases new first-person sci-fi project'. Eurogamer. Archived from the original on May 28, 2015. Retrieved May 28, 2015.
17. ^ ^abPereira, Chris (February 23, 2017). 'Former BioShock Studio Irrational Games Adopts A New Name'. GameSpot. Archived from the original on February 24, 2017. Retrieved February 23, 2017.
18. ^Hall, Charlie (February 23, 2017). 'Irrational is now called Ghost Story Games'. Polygon. Archived from the original on February 24, 2017. Retrieved February 23, 2017.
19. ^Chalk, Andy (February 23, 2017). 'Irrational Games is gone—say hello to Ghost Story'. PC Gamer. Archived from the original on February 24, 2017. Retrieved February 23, 2017.

Real Rational Irrational

External links[edit]

Is Gambling Rational Or Irrational Numbers