The accumulating research indicates that individuals cognitive and behavioral orientations to objects (their thoughts and actions) are frequently based on rapid shortcuts or heuristics. The past few decades have witnessed a shift away from a view of judgments as the products of rational, logical decision making marred by the occasional presence of irrational needs and motives (Taylor 1982).
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2011. Thinking Fast: System 1 is generally automatic and heuristic-based, which means that it relies on mental shortcuts. It quickly proposes intuitive answers to problems as they arise. Thinking Slow: System 2, which corresponds closely with controlled processes, is slow, effortful, conscious, rule-based and also can be employed to monitor the quality of the answer provided by System 1. If it s convinced that our intuition is wrong, then it s capable of correcting or overriding the automatic judgments. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=of-two-minds-when-making
Daniel McFadden on rational behavior in economics Economics has always been concerned with the motivations and behavior of consumers. Rational behavior, in the broad meaning of sensible, planned, and consistent, is believed to govern most conduct in economic markets, because of self- interest and because of the tendency of markets to punish foolish behavior. However, rationality has been given a much more specific meaning in the classical theory of consumer demand perfected by Hicks and Samuelson that forms the cornerstone of courses in economic theory. In Herb Simon's words, "The rational man of economics is a maximizer, who will settle for nothing less than the best." While this model of consumer behavior dominates contemporary economic analysis, there is a long history among economists of questioning its behavioral validity and seeking alternatives.
Examples of System 2 Processes Mathematical Reasoning: deductions from axioms; proofs of statements Logical Reasoning: drawing conclusions from premises without violations of accepted logical fallacies: Rational Calculation (Optimizing): Under given constraints, and considering all alternative courses of actions and their consequences, selecting that course of action which maximizes positive returns (or their probability) and minimizes negative returns (or their probability).
Similarly, the cannons of logical reasoning toward valid conclusions present a variety of proscriptions that are frequently violated in the arguments and counter-arguments among individuals, e.g., Distortion of another s argument and an attack on the distorted argument. Change of subject to a different but sometimes subtly related issue, draw a conclusion about the different issue, and claim victory. Accepting the position of another in compliance to a threat or coercion. Accepting the position of another based on admiration or pity. Accepting the position of another based on a receipt of symbolic or material rewards. there are many more such proscriptions.
Embodied Positions on Issues Issue positions/arguments are typically embodied in individuals, i.e., confounded with particular individuals, as opposed to being disembodied positions/arguments. The displayed behaviors and attitudes of others bring System 1 fast-heuristics to the forefront. Such heuristics provide an automatic synthesis of the massive amount of information that is entailed in human interaction. This has profound implications for the bases of interpersonal influence. One cannot designate System 1 responses as necessarily illfounded, biased, or irrational, when they are responses to hard problems of judgment, e.g., when the number of conditions that bear on an issue is large. There may be a type of social wisdom in System 1 heuristics that is not attended to by mathematics, logic, or rational calculation. We must ask, why these heuristics?
Consider the coordination, control, and rapid adaption that is enabled by fast automatic adjustments of individuals attitudes and behaviors, via interpersonal influences. Interpersonal influences reduce individual uncertainty and interpersonal disagreements. Consider the individual and social costs of holding fast to an initial position. Consider the exhausting scenario of dealing with pedant and/or stubborn individuals at every turn. Consider the individual and social benefits of interpersonal accommodation and compromise in groups, communities, and organizations that are dealing with an ongoing sequence of complex issues. yet, with the above, understand that interpersonal influences also may generate undesirable outcomes, in hindsight.
Note that the French-Raven bases of interpersonal influences on individuals attitudes and behavior do not entail the mathematical analysis, logical reasoning, and rational calculations associated with System 2 responses. Punishment: P perceives that he or she will be punished by O if he/she fails to adopt to O s position. Reward: P perceives that he or she will be rewarded by O if he/she adopts to O s position. Expertise: P perceives O as knowing and truthful. Authority: P perceives O as someone who has a legitimate right to influence P, and that P has an obligation to adopt O s position. Identification: P identifies with O (I am like O, and therefore I shall behave or believe as O does or I want to be like O, and I will be more like O if I behave or believe as O does ).
Manipulation Individuals attitudes and behavior may be manipulated. There is developing technology for such manipulation: Broadcasted Advertising Techniques Interpersonal Closing the Sale Techniques Recruitment and Commitment Tactics Etc. You would be well-advised to be educated on this technology so that you can recognize what is going in particular situations.* *Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: Science and Practice