[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
when A is done, then it appears illogical, but that is in a very simplified system when there are no Ia, Ib, Ic, to contend with. IOW, I is not as easy to define as we’d like to think. To go along with your poker example, an outside logical observer, perhaps me as his omniscient opponent may predict “ He’ll call even though he knows he’s almost surely beat because …. “ and go on to list Ib, Ic . “He won’t want to look like a wuss”, “99% certainty means he’ll be worrying about not sleeping tonight wondering if I had it.”.


[/ QUOTE ]
It's easy to define but hard to be confident as to whether he is acting illogicaly or we are mistaken about what he believes is in his interests.

[ QUOTE ]
So the logical error occurs in MrP not correctly identifying his needs, ‘leaving out facts’ and pretending that simple ‘I’ was his interest. His action however was consistent with his actual interests whether or not we or he thinks they are worthwhile interests or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by actual interests, I don't think there is any such thing. All we have to work with when deciding what to do is what we believe we want.

chez