Comments on: Wicked, epic fail problem

By: Roger Jones

Roger Jones — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:44:49 +0000

James, I agree with your broad framework. I think though that rationality where strictly meaning that 20% of effect should mean 20% of effort in response, is too limited a word-meaning for what we are discussing.

By: James

James — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:38:20 +0000

They are definitely interesting thoughts… although perhaps we’re meaning different things by the word ‘rationality’? I borrow it directly from Ulrich, who I as understand it, in fact uses it similarly to what you describe, by expanding its meaning to social situations. This draws on the philosophical approach of Habermas in recognising that what is ‘socially rational’ is a product of collective understanding, negotiation and argumentation, rather than just some sort of ‘objective’ knowledge alone. Hence the ‘rational consumer’ you mention would be a classic case of ultra ‘instrumental rationality’ – and exactly the reason why it is vital to expand our understanding of concepts of rationality. I see that this encompasses a broader perspective that asks: “by what logic are decisions made and actions taken in social situations?”, and different answers to this question based on different types of assumptions or boundary conditions is what Ulrich outlines. So in short, I see that this very much aligns with the sort of example that you raised.

By: Roger Jones

Roger Jones — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 06:21:52 +0000

My reply to James repeated here:

Hmmm. Different concepts of rationality don’t help me much – would rather use something else – although the hierarchy Ulrich’s definitions cover is useful. I also think it is useful to deconstruct what rational is intended to mean. It is clear that human behaviour is not rational in that behaviour does not conform to ratios. The rational consumer is a figment of positivist economics. The constructivist position where varying normative positions are recognised and a valuation and decision-based system generally agreed to in order to make transparent decisions is a good way forward. The trouble is that incommensurate values (socially constructed) mean that people have to give way in order to compare and contrast those values. E.g., how do we compare wetland values against pasture production in an irrigation system? Both points of view need to be respected, and valuation methods generally agreed to. One may call the accommodation rational, but there’s more to it than that, I think.

By: James

James — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:37:42 +0000

Hi Roger,

Thanks for you article. I was very relieved to see it because I had some major anxieties when I read the original post in The Conversation. It also got me thinking more about misunderstanding generated due to people holding different ‘rationalities’. You might be interested in a blog article I just wrote on this here: http://freshwatergovernance.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/are-we-thinking-the-same-language-why-rationality-is-important/

I’d be keen to hear yours and others thoughts on this.

Cheers, James

By: Are we thinking the same language? Why ‘rationality’ is important | Fresh Water Governance

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:56:20 +0000

[...] with colleagues, and come across some articles on wicked problems (this one followed by this one) that got me thinking about rationality. I am sometimes surprised when concepts like wicked [...]

By: jennydooley

jennydooley — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:08:11 +0000

Wicked! Shared in Care2 News Network