Nuts+and+Bolts+for+the+Social+Sciences

The focus of the reading are the tools that can be used to explain complex social phenomena. Terms as defined in the reading: • **fact-** temporal snapshot of a stream of events, or a pile of such snapshots. (p3) • **explain an event-** to give an account of why it happened //as// it happened (usually with an account earlier event linked by a causal mechanism) (p3, 6)
 * Notes- “Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences- Elster Cpht 1-3**

Causal explanation v. causal statement- a causal explanation w/o a causal mechanism is a causal statement (states a “cause” for an event but has no vehicle as an explanation for the cause). Causal explanation v. assertions about correlation- because one event may invariably follow another does not mean the first event caused the second. Causal explanation v. assertions about necessitation- p6 Causal explanation v. storytelling- story telling tells an account for what happened as it //might// have and perhaps did happen) Causal Explanation v. predictions- it is possible to be able to explain without predicting (ie. everyone else is cooperating, so there is no need for me to do so, or if everyone else is doing it, I should too, yet we are still unable to determine the outcome) and predict without being able to explain. (i.e. when prices for good go up people will buy less, yet we don’t know the individual motivation for WHY it happens this way) 9 I. Some economists argue that all people have essentially the same preferences and desires: only the opportunities differ. A. opportunities are more basic than desires in the sense that they are easier to observe  B. Opportunities appear more fundamental because it’s easier to change people’s circumstances than to change their minds -opportunity can be deliberately shaped by a person’s desires weakness of will- people do not always trust their ability to act rationally and will add constraints to their opportunities (i.e. not going to the office party for fear of acting out in an embarrassing way) Strategic interaction- ex. p 20, during wartime, burning bridges to make retreat physically impossible and to force parties to the negotiating table critique: explaining an action in terms of opportunities and desires can be problematic because of the nature of opportunity and desire. Opportunity is external to a person, and objective, Desires are internal, and subjective. “what explains the action is the person’s desires together with his beliefs about the opportunities” (p20) And a person’s beliefs can be wrong.
 * Chpt 2: Desires & Opportunities**
 * Author initially argues about opportunities and desires as if they vary independently of one another**
 * When opportunity and desire are both influenced by a 3rd factor-** sometimes desires and opportunities can be linked to a common cause. for example, the the US, voters cannot elect men of distinction(however that is defined) to public office, partly b.c such men do not wish to run, and partailly because they would not want such a candidate even if one were to appear (Alexis deTocqueville, 17)
 * When opportunity and desire can influence each other directly**

Terms as defined in the reading: • **rational choice theory**- when faced with several courses of action, people usually do what they believe is likely to have the best overall outcome. Actions are valued and chosen not for themselves, but as more or less efficient means to a further end (p22). • **Preference ordering-** Still not sure how do define see example (23) • **utility function-** assigning numbers to options so that the more preferred options receive higher numbers (a numerical function of preference ordering) • **truth**- is a relation between a belief and what the belief is about • **rationality-** a relation between a belief and the grounds on which it is held (p 25 references Othello and Desdemona) • **Game theory-** the theory in interdependent actions (see “the Prisoner’s dilemma” (pg 29)) • **expected utility-** a mechanism to assist in making decisions while taking risk into account. choosing that which has the best average utility over time Rational choice as a mechanism- it is not infallible since the rational person can choose only what he //believes// to be the best means. That said, beliefs need be rational with respect to available evidence, and the amount of evidence collected should in some way be optimal. However, as researchers we need to keep in mind that in some time sensitive cases especially, when taking more time can cause more harm than good (ex. child custody cases 26) The theory of rational choice is defined for an individual not for a collective group
 * Chpt 3: Rational Choice**
 * It might also be worthwhile to review the chart and explanation about the crop and marginal utility as explained on pg 27

SIS 700 Readings Notes Elster: Nuts and Bolts, Chapters 4 and 8
 * Chapter 4 - When Rationality Fails **

This chapter gives an account of the shortcomings of Rational Choice. Essentially people like to believe that the world is orderly and rational at all times. Unfortunately (perhaps) we cannot derive a knowledge of all human actions through rational thought process as people often act irrationally for a variety of reasons. // “We have an irrational belief in the power of rationality” p. 7 // In making rational choice, our desires are the only independent variable: //“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”// D. Hume - This doesn’t mean that we should act solely on our passions, but that our desires underlie all of our choices. 1. Determine what a rational person would do 2. Ascertain if that person really did this But it can fail… First, Rational Choice can fail through **indeterminacy**. We could have two or more equally optimal options. “What can of soup do I want?” Conversely we could have no optimal options. Another way rational choice can lead to **indeterminacy** is when we don’t have enough evidence to make an informed decisions. This can happen for two reasons: 1) Uncertainty about the future, and 2) “Strategic Interaction.” (What will others do?) In these cases we often make choices based on peripheral aspects. NOTE: Bayesian decisions theorists disagree with this. They say we always have SOME knowledge of the possible outcome, which informs our choice. When rational choice does lead to indeterminacy other mechanisms must take up the slack. One of these is “satisficing” (Good enough). There is not enough evidence as to what people do when they want to act rationally, but indeterminacy exists. Often people deny indeterminacy altogether! Sometimes we just act irrationally. This can stem from irrational beliefs (wishful thinking) and/or weaknesses, such as addiction. Wishful thinking is pervasive in humanity. Unfortunately people who are best able to avoid wishful thinking are also clinically depressed! We also can be unduly influenced by personal experience and present conditions, which leads to irrational beliefs. Finally, we all like to look for patterns when much of the world is actually random. We have trouble judging this randomness so we prefer false rational explanations instead.
 * Two steps to Rational Choice **
 * The Abdication of Reason **
 * Chapter 8 - Natural and Social Selection **

The Mechanisms of Rational Choice and Selection differ in a number of important ways. There is controversy as to which is more influential in determining human action. Rational Choice is concerned with the **intended** outcomes of actions, whereas selection is determined by the **actual** outcomes themselves.

A difference between Rational Choice and selection is that selection can get stuck in a “local maximum trap”. To go from A (local optimum point) to C (maximum optimal point) selection must pass through B… if B is not as good an option as A, selection will be stuck at A. Rational choice, however, can skip B altogether and choose to go straight to C. Elster is a proponent of reductionism in the social sciences. Individual human action is the basic unit of explanation in social sciences… thus Sociology can be reduced to Psychology --- and then socio-biology. Socio-biology has drawbacks as people don’t behave as rigidly as animals. Also firms don’t evolve steadily like organisms in natural selection. That being said… Reductionism is preferable to analogy. The past analogy between biology and social science was disastrous. Society is not analogous with an living organism (see chapter 11) Conclusions: Both rational choice and selection do not often produce optimal adaptation. Rational Choice can fall short due to indeterminacy, whereas selection works far too slowly in the rapidly changing world.
 * REDUCTIONIST: **

SIS 700 Readings Notes Elster: Nuts and Bolts, Chapters 4 and 8
 * Chapter 4 - When Rationality Fails **

This chapter gives an account of the shortcomings of Rational Choice. Essentially people like to believe that the world is orderly and rational at all times. Unfortunately (perhaps) we cannot derive a knowledge of all human actions through rational thought process as people often act irrationally for a variety of reasons. // “We have an irrational belief in the power of rationality” p. 7 // In making rational choice, our desires are the only independent variable: //“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”// D. Hume - This doesn’t mean that we should act solely on our passions, but that our desires underlie all of our choices. 1. Determine what a rational person would do 2. Ascertain if that person really did this But it can fail… First, Rational Choice can fail through **indeterminacy**. We could have two or more equally optimal options. “What can of soup do I want?” Conversely we could have no optimal options. Another way rational choice can lead to **indeterminacy** is when we don’t have enough evidence to make an informed decisions. This can happen for two reasons: 1) Uncertainty about the future, and 2) “Strategic Interaction.” (What will others do?) In these cases we often make choices based on peripheral aspects. NOTE: Bayesian decisions theorists disagree with this. They say we always have SOME knowledge of the possible outcome, which informs our choice. When rational choice does lead to indeterminacy other mechanisms must take up the slack. One of these is “satisficing” (Good enough). There is not enough evidence as to what people do when they want to act rationally, but indeterminacy exists. Often people deny indeterminacy altogether! Sometimes we just act irrationally. This can stem from irrational beliefs (wishful thinking) and/or weaknesses, such as addiction. Wishful thinking is pervasive in humanity. Unfortunately people who are best able to avoid wishful thinking are also clinically depressed! We also can be unduly influenced by personal experience and present conditions, which leads to irrational beliefs. Finally, we all like to look for patterns when much of the world is actually random. We have trouble judging this randomness so we prefer false rational explanations instead.
 * Two steps to Rational Choice **
 * The Abdication of Reason **
 * Chapter 8 - Natural and Social Selection **

The Mechanisms of Rational Choice and Selection differ in a number of important ways. There is controversy as to which is more influential in determining human action. Rational Choice is concerned with the **intended** outcomes of actions, whereas selection is determined by the **actual** outcomes themselves.

A difference between Rational Choice and selection is that selection can get stuck in a “local maximum trap”. To go from A (local optimum point) to C (maximum optimal point) selection must pass through B… if B is not as good an option as A, selection will be stuck at A. Rational choice, however, can skip B altogether and choose to go straight to C. Elster is a proponent of reductionism in the social sciences. Individual human action is the basic unit of explanation in social sciences… thus Sociology can be reduced to Psychology --- and then socio-biology. Socio-biology has drawbacks as people don’t behave as rigidly as animals. Also firms don’t evolve steadily like organisms in natural selection. That being said… Reductionism is preferable to analogy. The past analogy between biology and social science was disastrous. Society is not analogous with an living organism (see chapter 11) Conclusions: Both rational choice and selection do not often produce optimal adaptation. Rational Choice can fall short due to indeterminacy, whereas selection works far too slowly in the rapidly changing world.
 * REDUCTIONIST: **