Herbert Simon's Game Theory

It should be noted, however, that rational choice theory, long ascendant among economists as the preferred assumption of how an individual will, or should choose among set of alternatives, became increasingly challenged. Despite its hegemony in economics and substantial influence in political science and sociology, Herbert Simon, a decision theorist, used behavioral studies to examine, among other things, the adequacy of the theory. Simon’s “bounded rationality” did not quarrel with rationality as a guiding principle in human affairs but with what constitutes rationality. The concept of “satisficing” has also been developed by those who reject the normative expectations and assumptions of the rational choice model in circumstances when not

Game theory models decision makers without individual identities or a specific social context in which their choices are made. Critics, however, argue that game theory does not adequately portray the complexity of individual motivation and social interaction in the real world. It is seen as a simplifying model that captures some important dynamics of competition, conflict, and cooperation, but is unreliable in predicting a player’s behavior in a given context. Game theory is centered on the thinking realm of individual players who voluntarily engage each other rather than the behavioral realm where social relationships are a different and often unpredictable dimension. Consequently, critics argue that individual self-interest, which a rational choice theorist assumes is inherent in every player, does not adequately account for behavior learned through social interaction. Behavioral economists argue that the evidence in the real world shows that “rational man” just does not behave predictably according to rational choice

What most assumptions share is an often -unacknowledged desire of those who use them to limit the number of variables that may threaten the supposed “truth” of their assumptions?. For example, too many variables are likely to undermine a liberal’s assumption that government leaders and experts are the most likely to solve our social problems, or acknowledging a list of variables can make a news story confusing and inconclusive. When journalists and social commentators try to “make sense of what often is inexplicable,” their stories “may be far, far from being sensible. It’s only natural to minimize the number of variables to support an assumption that whatever happened has an explanation,” but in doing so “they often ignore the messy process, the trial and error that produced an outcome.” And too many variables threaten the strict and narrow path that rational choice theorists in academe use to get from point A to point B. “Unfortunately, those with one expertise or another tame what to them is an unmanageable number of variables only to distort how social problems can be addressed. They often give undue weight to those variables they can quantify and incorrectly mistake numbers for cold, hard fact. Furthermore, they like to bend problems to fit within their particular expertise and they often ignore those parts that lie beyond their