Judging from the direct psychological experience of the actor, anyone's current behavior presents three remarkable characteristics: first, it is dominant, that is, the current behavior is the explicit choice of the actor's possible behavior concentration in a specific environment, in other words, the actor always prefers the current behavior, which means that any behavior from the first-person perspective meets the inherent consistency of preferences; At the same time, the scope of the first person only refers to a single actor, so the external consistency of his preference is also satisfied. The second is optimality, that is, the current behavior is endowed with the highest value of the first-person perspective by the actor, which means that the condition of maximizing the preference of the first-person perspective is also met. Of course, the satisfaction brought by preference realization here includes material and immaterial satisfaction, which can be called generalized utility or herbert simon's ambition level (Wang Dingding, Ye Hang, 2003). Third, it is non-binding, that is, the actor always thinks that he chooses on the basis of unlimited subjective ability (mainly referring to cognitive ability and behavioral ability) and making full use of information (in fact, in the eyes of a third person, the subjective ability and objective ability of the actor may be limited). Therefore, according to the definition of rational behavior, the three characteristics of current behavior show that any behavior is completely rational in the first person sense. This kind of understanding is of self-evident importance to explain complex human behavior choices from multiple angles and without discrimination, especially to explain the unconventional choice state of a single actor. For example, although the behavior of the actor may be irrational within the framework of mainstream economics, it is still rational from its own point of view. On the one hand, we can show the internal information related to this behavior from the actor's preference order through appropriate intermediary indicators; On the other hand, we can also combine the behavioral state parameters of the actor and the corresponding psychological laws to infer the ranking relationship of travel preferences, and further understand the history or expected behavior of the actor. In fact, Gary S. Becker, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics from 65438 to 0992, thinks that drug abuse, smoking, alcoholism and even suicide are all rational behaviors from the perspective of free choice of self-will (Wang Dingding and Ye Hang, 2003), so the division of rational behavior standards has been formed in Becker's economic system.

(C) the choice of rational behavior and its decision-making basis

The debates among various schools of economics about whether the actor shows rational behavior have also poured into free enthusiasm. First of all, from a long-term and dynamic point of view, mainstream economics believes that the behavior choice of actors is actually rational and the market is based on the activities of rational actors. Even some irrational actors will eventually be expelled from the market because of Darwin's market selection mechanism. Or, these irrational actors can evolve into rational actors through learning (Liu Hongzhong, 2003). Therefore, in the long run, all actors are dynamic rational actors, and the market will converge to an efficient state; The focus of mainstream economics research is completely rational behavior. Secondly, behavioral economics asserts that real actors may deviate from rational behavior for a long time and systematically, so the market may deviate from the effective state periodically or for a long time. Behavioral finance provides strong empirical support for this proposition, and the focus of behavioral economics is irrational behavior. On the other hand, Simon and the new institutional school also adhere to this rational behavior view of behavioral economics. The main difference between the new institutional school and behavioral economics is that the new institutional school focuses on analyzing the institutional factors that affect the behavior of actors (that is, paying attention to interpersonal relationships), while behavioral economics focuses on analyzing the personality factors that affect actors (that is, paying attention to personality characteristics); Behavioral economics is also different from Simon's view of rational behavior to some extent. The former emphasizes that the actor's incomplete rationality is the starting point of maximization under constraints, that is, the nominal optimal choice but the actual suboptimal choice comes from the actor's incomplete rational behavior, while the former tends to study the behavior interval with lower degree of rational behavior. The latter emphasizes that the bounded rationality of actors is the end point of maximization under constraints, that is, the nominal failure to achieve the optimal choice stems from the fact that only suboptimal choice can be achieved, while the latter tends to study the behavior interval with higher degree of rational behavior. Therefore, from the perspective of the first person, any behavior of any actor under any conditions is completely rational.

So, what is the internal basis of rational behavior? Western economics believes that rational behavior is the result of optimization. In the deterministic environment, mainstream economics describes the rational behavior of actors through utility or profit maximization equation, and behavioral economics and new institutional school have no objection to this; Under the uncertain environment, mainstream economics has successively established decision equations of expected utility and maximization of expected utility to explain the rational behavior choice of actors, while new institutionalism realizes rational behavior by reducing transaction costs from the perspective of adhering to appropriate institutional arrangements. At the same time, behavioral economics explains rational behavior or irrational behavior choice through the maximization of value function proposed in prospect theory. Recently developed nonlinear probability weighted generalized expected utility theory (0,2005) and cumulative prospect theory (0,2003) introduce a large number of event results and may realize random domination, which provide a good framework for explaining behavior choice.

Third, further analyze the multiplicity of rational behavior.

Besides economics, we can also explore the connotation of rational behavior from the perspective of historical dialectics and formal logic.

First of all, from the perspective of historical dialectics and statistics, the meaning of the word rationality comes from the majority of individual behavior in western society. /kloc-in the 0/8th century, the western capitalist economy developed rapidly. The market mechanism of natural selection and the capitalist values of freedom, equality, fraternity and "every man for himself, the devil takes the hindmost" have contributed to the general tendency of "self-interest+maximization" in economic activities. In order to describe this general trend in theory, the word rational behavior has been given a specific selfish meaning in history. Obviously, if everyone in western society has the tendency of "altruism+maximization", then rational behavior will be endowed with altruistic significance. Therefore, the concept of rational behavior defined by western economics has certain historical dependence. At the same time, the word rational behavior, as a category of linguistic analysis, also has symbolic variable function and propositional function, that is, if western scholars call the above general tendency "Mori" or "Jin Gao" and other names, it will not hinder the logical, systematic and functional integrity of western economics, but simply replace "rational behavior" with "Mori" or "Jin Gao" in all data. This means that the phenomenon that really deserves to rise to the theoretical level in rational behavior is the general tendency of individual behavior or the pattern nature on a significant level. Therefore, the significance of rational behavior is highly related to the nature of the general tendency of individual behavior. For example, if the scope of investigation is locked in some religious fields (such as Buddhism), then the general tendency or significant level of the pattern nature of personal behavior in this field is "altruism+maximization", and then rational behavior is endowed with the meaning of "altruism+maximization". Similarly, if the scope of investigation is locked in China's realistic party member collective, then the general tendency of personal behavior in this field is also "altruism+maximization", and at this time rational behavior is also given the meaning of "altruism+maximization". In fact, this view has a successful empirical basis. For example, at that time, the * * * Party army, which was far inferior in weapons and equipment and strength, finally defeated the Kuomintang army, the altruistic behavior of countless sacrificed party member and PLA officers and soldiers, and the altruistic behavior of many scientists who resolutely returned to China in the immortal project of "two bombs and one satellite" in China. Obviously, we are talking about these large-scale productions. Therefore, the connotation of rational behavior is not exogenous, but has a certain background and range dependence, which must be carefully guarded against. Therefore, when using the word rational behavior, adding appropriate qualifiers will not lead to the logical fallacy of "affirming the latter". For example, the formulation of "rational behavior in western society" is logically more reliable than the formulation of "universal rational behavior".

This article is from CSSCI Academic paper net:/Full text reading link:/eco/eco/lilunjingji/47868 _ 2.html _ 2.html.