Homo economicus

Homo economicusYes, classicists, we know it should be "Homo œconomicus", but we didn't create the term. is the theoretical ideal of the "rational" person, often used in economics and political science as part of the precise model making and "physics envy" featured within those disciplines. The idea is often derided, however, with critics claiming that people are mostly irrational. However, this is probably too much of a simplification of why homo economicus isn't an accurate representation of reality. In economics, rationality merely means that people follow easy to model choices; if a person prefers A to B, and B to C, they will then prefer A to C. Most theories do not expect much more from people, and in fact several theories have been created to explain how the lack of information can lead a rational person to making an irrational choice. 
Chicago schoolers are known for a near-mystical belief in homo economicus, which ironically separates them from the Austrians who have already abandoned this concept as backward. Two decades into ad-hoc, empirically dubious justifications for why it is reasonable to continue using Homo Economicus and the so-called "Real Business Cycle" model, even the educated public has come to realize that their school is dependent upon what is akin to adding epicycles to epicycles.
This theory is also very important in voter choice in politics; however, the incentives in voting are much harder to quantify.
==Problems with the "rational" man==
One problem with this theory is that one object may not be objectively better than another. Take cars, for example: if car A is more comfortable than car B, and car B is more efficient than car A, which is the better car? A very careful person could list the qualities of each car, assign each a value, and add them up to decide which is better.Engineers do this sort of thing all the time, but engineers are total nerds. Most people (assuming they can afford both cars) will decide based on a more instinctual process,I.e. "I just like car A better, even if I'll have to pay a little more for gas." which may or may not be a rational decision. The A > B, B > C, therefore C > A might also just be one of those irrational things that real people engage in and can't quite explain.
Rationality in decision making is affected greatly by a lack of information. A rational decision made on incomplete information may not be the same decision made with every aspect of the problem known. This is what happens when you buy something online and promptly frown when you open up the package.
But there is also the brute irrational side; the economic man is prone to emotional purchasing, such as impulse buying. The candy and gadgets at the front registerThat's a till for you goofy kids across the ocean. are probably not the ideal rational purchase, but people purchase them anyway. Advertising also affects emotional purchasing, as does popularityName brand clothing isn't usually functionally good enough to justify the increase in price over off brands, for example. and luxury items.For certain items, such as Rolex watches and high-end cars, even the laws of supply and demand break down.
Another inescapable problem is that while it is conceivable to assume economic agents can pick the optimal combination if there are very few options, things turn out absurd pretty fast if numbers increase. In the words of Steven Keen:
 
The field of behavioral economics takes the side of sanity (i.e. actual empirical data on decision-making) and scraps the concept of homo economicus entirely, assuming some amount of irrationality and attempting to identify where rational thinking fails and what mistakes are common enough to be predictable.
==Notes==
==References==
Category:Economics