Skip to main content
  • 484 Accesses

Abstract

We argue in favour of identifying one aspect of rational choice with the tendency to conform to the choice you expect another like-minded, but non-communicating, agent to make and study this idea in the very basic case where the choice is from a non-empty subset K of 2A and no further structure or knowledge of A is assumed.

Partially supported by EPSRC research studentship and a grant from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Program for the Investment in the Future (ZIP) of the German Government.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aizermann, M. and A. Malishevski: 1981, ‘General Theory of Best Variants Choice: Some Aspects’, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 26, 1030–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C.: 2003, Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments on Strategic Interaction, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D.: 1984, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D.: 2001, ‘Rational Animals’, In Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, Oxford University Press. pp. 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D.: 2001, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elio, R.: (ed.) 2002, Commonsense, Reasoning, and Rationality, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J.: 2003, Reasoning About Uncertainty, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpinen, R.: 1973, ‘Carnap’s New System of Inductive Logic’, Synthese 25, 307–333.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hosni, H.: 2004, ‘Conformity and Interpretation’, In Prague International Colloquium on Logic, Games and Philosophy: Foundational Perspectives, Prague, Czech Republic, October 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosni, H.: 2005, Doctoral Thesis. School of Mathematics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, http: www.maths.man.ac.uk/~hykel/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M.: 2001, ‘Rationalizing Focal Points’, Theory and Decision 50, 119–148.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kalai, G., A. Rubinstein and R. Spiegler: 2002, ‘Rationalizing Choice Functions by Multiple Rationales’, Econometrica 70(6), 2481–2488.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M.: [1936] 1951, The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, McMillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S., J. S. Rosenschein and M. Fenster: 2000, ‘Exploiting focal points among alternative solutions: Two approaches’, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 28(1–4), 187–258.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1969, Convention: A Philosophical Study, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marker, D.: 2002, Model theory: An Introduction, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 217. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, J., C. Strarmer and R. Sugden: 1994, ‘The Nature of Salience: An Experimental Investigation of Pure Coordination’, The Americal Economic Review 84(3), 658–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, S. and H. S. Shin: 2003, ‘Global Games: Theory and Application’, In M. Dewatripont, L. Hanson and S. Turnovsky (eds.), Advances in Economics and Econometrics, Proceedings of the 8th World Congress of the Econometric Society, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R.: 1993, The Nature of Rationality, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, J. B: 1999, ‘Common Sense and Maximum Entropy’, Synthese 117(1), 73–93.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, J. B. and A. Vencovská: 1990, ‘A Note on the Inevitability of Maximum Entropy, International Journal of Approximated Reasoning 4, 183–224.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, J. B. and A. Vencovská: 1997, ‘In Defence of the Maximum Entropy Inference Process’, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 17, 77–103.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, J. B. and A. Vencovská: 2001, ‘Common Sense and Stochastic Independence’, In D. Corfield and J. Williamson (eds.), Foundations of Bayesianism, Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 230–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott, C. R.: 1973, ‘Path Independence, Rationality and Social Choice’, Econometrica 41(6), 1075–1091.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V.: 1960, Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rott, H.: 2004, Change, Choice and Inference: A Study of Belief Revision and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T.: 1960, The Strategy of Conflict, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hosni, H., Paris, J. (2005). Rationality as Conformity. In: Uncertainty, Rationality, and Agency. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4631-6_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4631-6_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-4630-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-4631-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics