Talk:Rational ignorance

Game theory Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Logic

Economics

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Rational ignorance or Rational inattention[edit]

Any difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qx2020 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2003 remarks[edit]

The word cost can be used in different ways. At first glance here it would seem to mean the effort of learning, and this may be the way it's intended to be used. However it could also refer to some disadvantage which learning might bring. Normally learning is not considered to bring disadvantages, but David Rumelhart has described situations in which knowledge can lead to a disadvantage. Example - suppose my wife has cancer, and you are a debt collector suing me for failing to pay for something. If I let you know that my wife is ill, and the nature of her illness, you may be more willing to let me run the debt for a few more months. However, suppose also the debt collector gets paid a proportion of the debt which is repaid. It is to his/her advantage not to know about any possible rational reason why I should not pay.

Apparently this kind of situation is quite common in bargaining situations - so some parties sometimes deliberately keep themselves ignorant of all the facts. I'm not sure if this is relevant to the current article, but it may be.

David Martland 16:12, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Categorical Imperative"[edit]

Being an educated person, I understand that the person who added the "Categorical Imperative" link is probably suggesting that a Kantian democrat would hold voting to be an absolute duty, and therefore it is irrelevant that one vote is extremely unlikely to influence an election. However, the parenthetical as written does not refer to voting or rational ignorance, nor do the words "vote", "voting", or "ignorance" appear in the "Categorical Imperative" article. Therefore it is very confusing and arguably not the correct approach for enforcing NPOV on this article. user Jjb, 2006/03/14

- Perhaps changing the note to something like: This uses the term "rational" to mean providing a greater benefit than cost purely to oneself and does not show that such ignorance is rational in any other sense. - This provides additional information and neutralizes the POV.

Links and references[edit]

I've come across some noteworthy papers on the subject, if someone would like to read through them and make the article better, it'd be in wikipedia's spirit. Thanks! 128.6.175.10 20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

"This suggests that voters' interest in political information increases with the importance of political choices. "

How on earth is this a criticism? Isn't this exactly what rational ignorance theory predicts? --83.150.90.58 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, I was about to make the very same note. If agents responded to Vietnam conscription by consuming more information, it just goes to show how well the rational ignorance applies to the electorate. As the benefit of being informed got bigger (since you -- or someone dear to you for older people -- could be called upon to serve, then the cost of continuing ignorant increased).

On another note, might be interesting to mention Bryan Caplan's rational irrationality theory which is a refinement of this theory -- only that he argues (based on behavioral economics) that instead of ignorant, people tend have innate bias towards some policies and these errors will of course compound in an election. -- Ricardo Cruz -- --87.196.47.194 (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly 3 years since this question was raised. It really needs to be resolved. I'd help if I was familiar enough. 75.138.188.189 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QuoteFarm/Longquotes[edit]

The guidance is clear. These are stand alone quotes. Adding descriptives such as "influential" and "noted" actually makes it worse because these descriptives do not help integrate the ideas presented into article prose and only serve to promote what some people feel is important.--S. Rich (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]