I guess I misunderstood what you meant by “There are many ways to tackle this question, but I mean this in a homo economicus, not biased perspective.” then. See my reply to ShardPhoenix.
Oh, yes, you did (but this is always the writer responsibility, so it is my fault (Gilbert 2012))
I am writing a text about what Should happen. Not what does happen. Is-ought problem.
I mean’t what a rational actor should do, without changing the Is aspect of reality.
So the homo economicus was the Should agent. The is agent is still like us.
I guess I misunderstood what you meant by “There are many ways to tackle this question, but I mean this in a homo economicus, not biased perspective.” then. See my reply to ShardPhoenix.
Oh, yes, you did (but this is always the writer responsibility, so it is my fault (Gilbert 2012))
I am writing a text about what Should happen. Not what does happen. Is-ought problem.
I mean’t what a rational actor should do, without changing the Is aspect of reality.
So the homo economicus was the Should agent. The is agent is still like us.