Notes on "Bounded rationality"

"When, abandoning the a priorism of neoclassical economical economics, I looked at actual decision making and problem solving, I saw a creature of bounded rationality using heuristic search to find satisficing -- "good enough" -- courses of action...

"Economists did not flock to the banner of satisficing with its bounded rationality. These ideas still remain well outside the mainstream of economics -- but not indefinitely. For they provided a realistic picture of human choices, a picture that may instruct us about some of the puzzling problems of economics today: decision making under uncertainty, business cycles with their accompanying natural or unnatural unemployment, the role of entrepreneurship in investment, and others.

"But there is backbreaking empirical work ahead, for the theory of bounded rationality does not permit all one's theorems to flow from a few a priori truths. Fixing the postulates of such a theory requires close, almost microscopic, study of how people actually behave."

Models of My Life, Herbert Simon, p. 364

"When people don't know how to optimize, they may very well be able to satisfice, to find good enough solutions. And good enough solutions can often be found by heuristic search through the maze of possibilities"

Models of My Life, Herbert Simon, p. 370

On teaching -- Herbert A. Simon

Excerpts from Models of My Life, Herbert A. Simon:

"I learned that there is no use lecturing a class unless the class is listening. And they will only listen if you are saying something that they think they can understand and that seems relevant. They will listen better if you talk LOUDLY. If you pace up and down, you can tell from their moving heads whether they are following you (like the crowd at a tennis match). You can also get feedback by keeping your eye on the prettiest girl in the class to see whether she is attentive [One of the most interesting part to me:)]...

"Teaching is not entertainment, but it is unlikely to be successful unless it is entertaining (the more respectable word would be interesting).

"Coverage of subject matter is a snare and a delusion. You begin where the students are prepared to begin; and you carry them as far as you can without losing them. Whether that takes you to the end of the specified curriculum, half as far, or twice as far, is irrelevant. You talk from notes, and certainly do not read lectures -- in fact, it is better if you do not write them out. Anything you cannot communicate without reading will be forgotten instantly, and probably is not suitable for a lecture anyway.

"You prepare notes for more material than you can possibly cover so that you don't suffer from the beginning teacher's nightmare: What happens if I run out of material before the class ends? (If you do, which almost never happens, you dismiss the class. They will thank you for it.) There is zero correlation between the number of hours you put in preparing formally for your classes and their success, provided that you have a coherent general outline of the curriculum and a thorough knowledge of the subject.

"You start every class by giving students the opportunity (or better, the obligation) to ask questions about their readings, about previous sessions, or about anything. you take each question seriously, and answer it without making a jackass of the student who asked it (no matter how foolish the question)...

"Of course, students don't learn by being lectured at, anyway; they learn by thinking hard, solving problems, dissecting proofs. Requiring them to write briefs was the most important component of our teaching at IIT. After students have thought hard about a topic, a lecture can help them sort out and organize their thoughts. Enlightenments, like accidents, happen only to prepared minds. If students have thought about something, you can discuss it profitably in class; without the preparation, it is just a bull session.

"You keep lectures on the high ground. The details of proofs are better gleaned from books. Above all, you feel no obligation to repeat the contents of the textbook, for that would simply confirm student in the habit of not reading it.

"... Without exception, I believe, the real core of the complain [about a faculty member]
was that the instructor showed disdain for students, or a punitive attitude toward them, or cynicism about teaching. Students are prepared to tolerate any other form of incompetence in an instructor, but not hostility."