I think that you and I are in basic agreement. What I am suggesting is not that the rational actor model - rigorously applied, of course, - is always a good predictor/explainer but rather that it is simply the best one available. I tend to think about its efficacy arbitrarily as 80% accurate. I then posit that org theory adds another 10% predictive capability, and the political model another 5% (Remember these are my arbitrary assigned values - may be more but probably are less.) That leaves 5% of the cases unexplained or worse, wrongly predicted. Compound that with Sam's introduction of "groupthink" and your challenge of mirror imaging and you increase several times the nimber of cases mis-predicted/explained.
That said, what is the alternative to using the rational actor model? To go back to AP's questions and dilemma, he's stuck with it. So, he needs to use it as rigorously as he can and supplement it with things like Allison's Models II and III, testing it for evidence of Janis' groupthink. Sorry AP, you don't have to do all that; it's not a doctoral dissertation - just be aware of the possibilities and pitfalls.
Cheers
JohnT
PS I did like the A - F, 1 - 6 scale. Used well it was a good shorthand but it never was scientific and F 6 was most often misinterpreted as meaning bad info instead of unknown quality of both source and info.
Bookmarks