ABSTRACT
If rationality is defined by maximization, optimality or consistency, there are plenty of actions that can be characterized as irrational because they are clearly non-maximizing, sub-optimal or inconsistent. However, the price to pay for those who adopt this position and attempt to apply it to actual human societies is the quasi-necessity of concluding that most decisions and actions of actual people are irrational. Few among the adepts of such a view of rationality will draw such an embarrassing conclusion; they will rather avoid raising the question and develop a theory that can describe with remarkable precision, as suggested by Ross, the behaviour of insects or of some robots, but only in a distortedly idealized fashion the behaviour of human beings, who are poor maximizers and inconsistent choosers. Moreover, as we have seen, they refer to a very counterintuitive notion of rationality since rationality should instead be characterized by constant adaptation rather than by mechanical implementation of predetermined solutions. In contrast, characterizing rational actions by the simple claim that such actions are purposeful and make sense is much more intuitive and much closer to the actual behaviour of human beings; however, a consequence of this approach is that it becomes much more difficult to clearly characterize rational actions by contrasting them with irrational ones since, by placing the bar so low for being considered rational, it becomes difficult to even find convincing examples of irrational actions.1
