The theory of rational choice is a set of systematic ideas born in the field of economics and aimed at explaining how people make decisions, this theoretical body was then integrated into psychology and sociology with the same objective, that is, to explain the mechanisms by which people choose certain options and discard others.
According to the theory of rational choice, people always choose options that involve lower cost and greater advantage, this applies not only to their financial decisions, but to all areas, in this sense the human being is a fundamentally selfish and individualistic person.
- “Aggressive individualism is not what will drive humanity.
- But what will destroy it.
- Is it human brotherhood that will make greatness possible?-José Maria Arguedas-.
Another central aspect of rational choice theory is the idea that, as the name suggests, reason is what motivates the process of choosing between choices, proposes that choices be consistent with our personal preferences and needs, so they have an intrinsic logic.
The theory of rational choice arose in the mid-20th century in the United States, from its beginnings it was intimately associated with the political question, it was basically a search for support for the idea that capitalism is consistent with human nature. In capitalism, everyone seeks their maximum benefit. The theory, on the other hand, sought to show that this also happened in every human being.
Many researchers and academics have helped shape this theory. However, it was Kenneth Arrow who developed these ideas to the fullest. For his work, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1972. What Arrow wanted to demonstrate was that there is no “collective interest” but that all interests are individual.
While it is a theoretical body that aims to explain human behavior, rational choice theory has quickly captured the interest of other disciplines, in particular psychology and sociology. However, in both areas, he has been heavily criticized.
For rational choice theory, the logic of any decision is to seek maximum benefit for itself and the lowest cost. This is in fact the logic of the entrepreneur. There is no denying that the rationality of the entrepreneur is to gain more by investing as little as possible, however, many theorists have asked the question: can only be understood how, rational ? what coincides with economic rationality?Why is what is not in this logic irrational?
Based on this theory, societies are groups of people who challenge existing assets, which are limited, so basically everyone thinks only of themselves. That is why, when making a decision, it puts your interests first and only your interests, however, not all societies have been like this throughout history.
Thus, according to the theory of rational choice, reason is the axis that guides our decisions, on the other hand, this same rationality prevents us from choosing something that injuryes our interests by the interests of others, anything that is not selfish is irrational.
There is no evidence that human nature is exclusively selfish, in fact, human society is only possible in terms of the margin of mutual solidarity, otherwise companies would never have been possible, so it is clear that in human beings there are intrinsic forces that make it selfish and supportive at the same time.
On the other hand, it has been found that people tend to make decisions based on how they are presented with the issue of benefits and losses, this presentation is not necessarily rational. When you say that something is rarer or less risky, you will tend to lean toward it; However, just because someone makes that claim doesn’t mean it’s true.
Many psychological currents suggest that the irrational component of the human being is very high, they also indicate that this irrational component determines behavior on many occasions, so not all decisions can be explained in terms of selfish rationality, whether an election is profitable or not as well. depends on the imaginary nature of benefits and costs. This imaginary aspect is not necessarily rational.