Hacker News Reader

Comment by sschwartz | Hacker News Reader

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-...

This article is pretty bad.

The OP, however, is quite good. In a nutshell, it argues that (1) disruption theory assumes rational actors and (2) consumers are much less rational than businesses.

ISTM that the author is not so much saying or arguing people are not rational, but that the economic definition of "rational" is missing the modeling of consumer behavior in this area. (i am not an economist.)

That's fair.

I think the economic notion of "rationality" actually gets a lot less credit than it deserves. While there are definitely situations in which consumers do not behave rationally (in the economic sense), they are relatively few and far between.

There are lots of situations in which consumers do not behave according to an observer's (non-economic) notion of "rationally". This is rarely a failure of economic rationality, and much more often a failure of the observer to understand the consumer's notion of utility or cost (or both).

My GF is an economist, and she takes great exception at any phraseology that describes people as irrational. As far as she's concerned, everybody is rational. See this for more details: http://mises.org/library/what-do-austrians-mean-rational

Praxeology is a fringe theory espoused by radical libertarians. I'd even go so far as to call it a just-so story.

in other fora, Ben argues that the main failing of Christiansen's theory is that it was formed in an era where most tech (either by number of products or total spend) was not purchased by the end users. Now that consumers buy their own stuff, success is determined on a different set of metrics including look and feel / UX, which means that "good enough" (disruption by low end) may not ever happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com