Rationality violations

The anomalous iodoacetamide-fluoride reaction violates this rule, in that a less stable -halonium complex (18) must be involved, which then opens to (19) in the Markownikoff sense. This has been rationalized in the following way estimates of nonbonded destabilizing interactions in the possible products suggest that the actual product (16) is more stable than the alternative 6)5-fluoro-5a-iodo compound, so the reaction may be subject to a measure of thermodynamic control in the final attack of fluoride ion on the iodonium intermediate. To permit this, the a- and -iodonium complexes would have to exist in equilibrium with the original olefin, product formation being determined by a relatively high rate of attack upon the minor proportion of the less stable )9-iodonium ion. 

Let us finally discuss to what extent the MFT method is able to (i) obey the principle of microreversibility, (ii) account for the electronic phase coherence, and (iii) correctly describe the vibrational motion on coupled potential-energy surfaces. It is a well-known flaw of the MFT method to violate quantum microreversibility. This basic problem is most easily rationalized in the case of a scattering reaction occurring in a two-state curve-crossing system, where the initial and final state of the scattered particle may be characterized by the momenta p, and pf, respectively. We wish to calculate the probability Pi 2 that... 

The federal district court ruled that the statute was not vague, because it addresses an understandable core of banned guns and adequately puts gun owners on notice that their weapon could be prohibited. The Court also ruled that the law did not violate anyone s equal protection rights any burden on those rights was acceptable because the rationality of the link between public safety and proscribing assault weapons is obvious. Finally, under the lesser standards protecting commercial speech under the First Amendment, no violation of free speech rights was found. 

In standard rational choice theory, actors are assumed to have consistent preferences and to act according to their own better judgment. In particular, rational actors are assumed to be dynamically consistent planners If actors prefer an early, small reward A to a later, bigger reward at a certain point in time, they will do so at all times. Hence, rational actors do not suffer from weakness of the will, and they never give in to temptations that they later regret. Addictions are often mentioned as an example of behavior that violates rationality Many addicts seem to act contrary to their own better judgment, as they claim that they would like to stop their self-destructive consumption behavior, but still they continue consuming the substance they are addicted to. 

One strategy is to seek evidence always where it is likely to support what one wants to believe and never where it is likely to go the other way. This violates the rational principle that relevant evidence should be maximized and that it should be collected in fair samples. However, it is easy to think of situations in which a person might actually judge it better to violate these principles. For example, he might calculate that, if he avoided situations that could yield confirmation of his suspicion that an employee was dishonest, and if he continued to show trust in him, that might help to put him back, or at least to keep him on the narrow path of scrupulousness. Parents sometimes use this strategy with children. 

Self-deception and akrasia present severe problems for certain theories of rational agency, problems that have provoked an astonishing exercise of philosophic self-deception in denying the phenomena, redescribing them in ways that attempt to preserve the theories they jeopardize. Such philosophical self-deception is often also accompanied by philosophic akrasia standard practices violate the preferred philosophic theories. 

Jencks (1972, 1969b) has proposed a model which maintains the significance of a as a measure of transition state structure and yet provides a very elegant rationalization of the fact that linear Br nsted plots are often obtained over large reactivity ranges, both by variation in catalyst pKa and substrate reactivity. Jencks noted that the acid catalysed nucleophilic addition to carbonyl compounds (21) yielded linear Br nsted plots (in apparent violation of the reactivity-selectivity principle) yet as the basicity of the nucleophile N was increased the Br nsted slope decreased (in agreement with the... 

Lou would be violating his public trust if he took what is commonly called a bribe. His rationalizing about his low salary and his college loans is naive thinking. Lou is the point man in this case. The buck will stop at his desk if there are any problems, especially if there is a building collapse and lives are lost. Even if the problem is less serious, Lou will still be held responsible. His professional life is in jeopardy and, given today s legal climate, jail time will be a real possibility. Lou s dilemma is the classic one since there is always a window of opportunity for persons in positions such as his. 

Is it rational that reactions c (glassy C )/Br/Hi.j N /Cfl iC N and (l.i°. Nn". K VBr/ROI 1(1)) be at or neat the 1-3-4 limit. Does this not violate the rule that more polar solvents shift the reaction away Iront the 1 3-4 limit1.1 Possibly not. I lie pi incipient inversion of solvent eflects. which i.uinnali/vs... 

If shared meaning can be transferred to a deeper level, justitication and rationalization are less likely to occur [16,17]. In such a case, one washes his or her hands because it is important to feel part of a team, larger than the individual self. At this level, meaning binds individuals to one another. With deeper, shared values, an individual is less likely to violate the rules [16]. 

---