Abstract
Rational choice is often read as “always maximize.” In consumer practice, finitude and conditional subjectivity make that idealization fragile. Selection Logic reframes rationality as need–product matching under constraints, supported by explicit criteria and validated by outcomes.[^1][^2]
1. The mismatch between textbook rationality and consumer reality
Consumers face time pressure, information asymmetry, and persuasive environments. Scarcity is not an edge case; it is the default.[^1] Under multi-dimensional evaluation, the question “best product–is ill-posed without stating weights.[^3]
2. Bounded rationality as the bridge
Simon’s bounded rationality shifts focus from perfect optimization to feasible procedures, including satisficing.[^1] Selection Logic adopts this and makes it operational: allocate effort based on stakes and reversibility.[^4]
3. A normative restatement (Selection Logic)
- T1 Matching: match products to needs, not universal rankings — T1 Matching Theorem
- T2 Cognitive budget: invest where it matters — T2 Cognitive Budget Theorem
- T1.2: reviews embed value assumptions — T1.2 Corollary
4. Practical procedure
1) write needs — 2) define criteria — 3) gather evidence — 4) set weights — 5) choose — 6) validate.
References
- Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press.[source]
- Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–18.[source]
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–91.[source]
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.[source]
- Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press.[source]
- Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Harper Perennial.[source]
- Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–0.[source]