Much research in the last two decades has demon- strated that human responses deviate from the performance deemed normative according to various models of decision mak- ing and rational judgment (e.g., the basic axioms of utility theory). This gap between the normative and the descriptive can be inter- preted as indicating systematic irrationalities in human cognition. However, four alternative interpretations preserve the assumption that human behavior and cognition is largely rational. These posit that the gap is due to (1) performance errors, (2) computational limitations, (3) the wrong norm being applied by the experi- menter, and (4) a different construal of the task by the subject. In the debates about the viability of these alternative explanations, attention has been focused too narrowly on the modal response. In a series of experiments involving most of the classic tasks in the heuristics and biases literature, we have examined the implica- tions of individual differences in performance for each of the four explanations of the normative/descriptive gap. Performance er- rors are a minor factor in the gap; computational limitations un- derlie non-normative responding on several tasks, particularly those that involve some type of cognitive decontextualization. Un- expected patterns of covariance can suggest when the wrong norm is being applied to a task or when an alternative construal of the task should be considered appropriate.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0140525X00003435

Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?

When seeking to influence firm decision making, what types of influence strategies do stakeholders have available, and what determines which type the stakeholders choose to use? In this article I use resource dependence theory to investigate these two questions. I propose that the resource relationship (who is dependent on whom) determines which of the four types of strategies identified in this article will be used: direct withholding, direct usage, indirect withholding, or indirect usage.

Stakeholder Influence Strategies

Amartya Sen has made a major contribution to the theory of social justice, and of gender justice, by arguing that capabilities are the relevant space of comparison when justice-related issues are considered. This article supports Sen's idea, arguing that capabilities supply guidance superior to that of utility and resources (the view's familiar opponents), but also to that of the social contract tradition, and at least some accounts of human rights. But I argue that capabilities can help us to construct a normative conception of social justice, with critical potential for gender issues, only if we specify a definite set of capabilities as the most important ones to protect. Sen's "perspective of freedom" is too vague. Some freedoms limit others; some freedoms are important, some trivial, some good, and some positively bad. Before the approach can offer a valuable normative gender perspective, we must make commitments about substance.

/pdf/capabilities-as-fundamental-entitlements-sen-and-social-2w9ktmtmzr.pdf

Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice

This book provides an incisive new look at the inner workings of the House of Representatives in the post-World War II era. Reevaluating the role of parties and committees, Gary Cox and Mathew McCubbins view parties in the House - especially majority parties - as a species of 'legislative cartel.' These cartels usurp the power, theoretically resident in the House, to make rules governing the structure and process of legislation. Possession of this rule-making power leads to two main consequences. First, the legislative process in general, and the committee system in particular, is stacked in favor of majority party interests. Second, because the majority party has all the structural advantages, the key players in most legislative deals are members of that party and the majority party's central agreements are facilitated by cartel rules and policed by the cartel's leadership. Debunking prevailing arguments about the weakening of congressional parties, Cox and McCubbins powerfully illuminate the ways in which parties exercise considerable discretion in organizing the House to carry out its work. This work will have an important impact on the study of American politics, and will greatly interest students of Congress, the presidency, and the political party system.

Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House

Overview: The Dynamics of Complex Systems-Examples, Questions, Methods and Concepts Introduction and Preliminaries Neural Networks I: Subdivision and Hierarchy Neural Networks II: Models of Mind Protein Folding I: Size Scaling of Time Protein Folding II: Kinetic Pathways Life I: Evolution-Origin of Complex Organisms Life II: Developmental Biology-Complex by Design Human Civilization I: Defining Complexity Human Civilization II: A Complex(ity) Transition.

Dynamics Of Complex Systems

In this book the author argues that moral principles are principles of rational choice. According to the usual view of choice, a rational person selects what is likely to give the greatest expectation of value or utility. But in many situations, if each person chooses in this way, everyone will be worse off than need be. Instead, Professor Gauthier proposes a principle whereby choice is made on an agreed basis of co-operation, rather than according to what would give the individual the greatest expectation of value. He shows that such a principle not only ensures mutual benefit and fairness, thus satisfying the standards of morality, but also that each person may actually expect greater utility by adhering to morality, even though the choice did not have that end primarily in view. In resolving what may appear to be a paradox, the author establishes morals on the firm foundation of reason.

Morals by Agreement

This book presents the most plausible reading of Thomas Hobbes's moral and political theory based on his book, Leviathan. Hobbes constructs a political theory that bases unlimited political authority on unlimited individualism. The conclusion requires the premiss; anything less than unlimited individualism would justify only limited political authority. But the premiss is too strong for the conclusions; as this book shows, from unlimited individualism only anarchy follows. The theory is a failure. But it has two outstanding merits. First of all, Hobbes introduces a number of important moral and political concepts that deserve our attention. Obligation is his basic moral concept, while authorisation is his basic political concept. Hobbes relies neither on the goodwill of men - their willingness to consider each other's interests for their own sake, and not as means to self-satisfaction - nor on the efficacy of institutions, as the means of both concentrating and limiting political power. Aside from political and moral theory, the book explores Hobbes's views on the nature of man, sovereignty, and God.

David Gauthier

Papers

Morals by Agreement

The Logic of Leviathan: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes

Morals by Agreement.

The logic of Leviathan

David Hume, contractarian