People may not be homo economicus, but in general I believe them to be mostly rational actors who know what their own best interest is. When you exclude the drugged out parents that other posters have mentioned, and focus on the parents in this story who are generally trying to take care of their kids; I expect they are making mostly rational decisions about how they value their time and resources [e.g., it is worth the extra money to save time and go to a grocery store, because they won't actually be starving].
This goes back to changing the definition of what you're trying to fight from "hunger" to "food insecurity". If these people were truly "hungry" vs. "food insecure", I expect they would make markedly different choices to ensure their children weren't actually hungry.
The children, also being maybe not rational actors, but not stupid; would also make different choices. If the boy were starving he probably wouldn't have skipped the free breakfast to hold out for chicken nuggets, tater tots, and hot dogs.
> People may not be homo economicus, but in general I believe them to be mostly rational actors who know what their own best interest is.
You do know that what you just said is "People may not be homo economicus, but in general I believe them to be mostly <definition of homo economicus>", right?
In any case, research in the social sciences (economics, sure, but also psychology and a number of other related fields) has established quite clearly that people are not rational actors and that, in particular, even with all of the information presented to rationally analyze and unambiguously determine their best interest, in simple, clear-cut cases -- a much easier situation than most people find themselves in in their day to day lives -- they very often fail to correctly determine that interest, and even when they intellectually determine it fail to act on it, contrary to the rational actor model.
Rational choice theory may often be a useful baseline to start from when explaining human behavior, but people, in general, are clearly not rational actors.
So maybe it would be better phrased as, people will act rationally given their own optimization function that I may or may not agree with. There is the concept of Bounded rationality, in that I am going to make rational decisions given the information I have, and how much cognitive resources I am willing to spend on it. I may not make an optimal decision, but I can make one that is good enough.
Also, someone can rationally choose to do something that I don't agree with, because they have very different preferences than I do; and thus would optimize for those.
Even the same person can make very different decisions at different points. When I was younger, I was more likely to drink a lot. My preference was to have a social lubricant, even if that was bad for brain cells and my liver. You could say that it wasn't a rational decision, but I wouldn't have engaged in the behavior if there was zero benefit.
> People may not be homo economicus, but in general I believe them to be mostly rational actors who know what their own best interest is.
Could you provide some more thoughts on this (or supporting research)? I'm truly curious, because to me it seems so... alien to be able to hold such a view in light of reality, and I'd like to assume you've thought this through.
What I mean is, my experience (and knowledge) overwhelmingly support the idea that humans are largely not rational actors, and in fact the degree to which one is a 'rational' actor is mostly a result of an upbringing that emphasizes this.
I do pretty well in life, and I consider myself far from rational.
But to get where I am, I see it as essential that I had wonderful parents, a safe environment to experiment and explore in, the ability to conform to common norms (hell, to even be aware of them), the ability to keep my impulses from controlling me too much, and the friends I found largely through college who can help me when I make my less rational choices or when I am in my less rational 'moods'. I also had parents who were raised with a good sense of health and the time to think and read about this.
I guess fundamentally I don't see why you would separate 'drugged up' parents from the rest of them, when in reality there's a continuum of 'fucked up' along which lives are lived and in which lives are created. Parents who were not raised to eat well or exercise are likely to not raise their children to eat well or exercise.
To use an extreme example that I think applies to varying to degrees to all of us: if humans were rational beings, we wouldn't have children of alcoholics become alcoholics and subject their own kids to the suffering they themselves suffered through! Either that, or those children-of-alcoholics are just assholes. And I find that hard to believe.
This ignores marketing and other pricing and sales techniques specifically designed to trick someone into thinking a choice is in their best interest when it is not. One could simple look at politics for plenty of easy to understand examples.
Also, many products are shaped and designed over time to be as addictive as possible. Video games, television, soda, fast food, facebook, tobacco etc etc. All of these things are generally outside of a persons best interest beyond light moderate use. The are specifically designed and adjusted over time to cause people to go well beyond that threshold of moderate use.
By simplifying the situation to "rational actors" you are doing exactly as I described. Refusing to take responsibility for those who are less able to deal with the forces and influences I described above.
> By simplifying the situation to "rational actors" you are doing exactly as I described. Refusing to take responsibility for those who are less able to deal with the forces and influences I described above.
I think that it is condescending to assume that people are unable to make their own choices. Why should you impose upon people that Facebook or soda is not "in their best interests." If I want to drink 6 cans of Coke Zero a day (and I actually do), it isn't your place to tell me that I should switch to water.
Thinking it is condescending is once again refusing to take responsibility. Its one thing to allow someone to drink 6 cans of Coke Zero a day, its another to actively manipulate someone into doing so. By saying, "Everyone is just as smart as me" what you are actually doing is removing the responsibility of being more capable.
There are 10 people trapped on an island. You are the only one who knows how to make a boat. Are you responsible to help the other 9 people get off the island? Or are they just "rational actors" that should have know to learn to make a boat and therefore none of your responsibility?
You are letting a mental trick you use in your head to deal with the inequality in the world to control your entire view of the world.
This goes back to changing the definition of what you're trying to fight from "hunger" to "food insecurity". If these people were truly "hungry" vs. "food insecure", I expect they would make markedly different choices to ensure their children weren't actually hungry.
The children, also being maybe not rational actors, but not stupid; would also make different choices. If the boy were starving he probably wouldn't have skipped the free breakfast to hold out for chicken nuggets, tater tots, and hot dogs.