Rational choice theory is the most overrated crap ever inflicted on humanity by fools.

For any choice there exists a value function maximized by that choice. All that pundits like the undercover economist do is cherry-pick social problems where there exist convenient post-hoc rationalizations that validate social prejudices.

Note how fragile the analysis is -- how little it actually answers, even in its own terms.

For example -- why is the analysis limited to black people? Wouldn't an economist supposed that a shortage of marriagable black men would lead black women to marry outside their ethnic group? Wouldn't black men be more likely to marry within their ethnic group, where they could get a better deal?

In truth the reverse is true. Black men are more than twice as likely to marry outside there ethnic group as black women. Just to be clear -- this is the opposite of what one would expect under the rational choice argument made in the article.

Of course the economist could reply that some factor particular to women made women unwilling to marry outside there ethnic group. Black women would be unwilling to marry outside their ethnic group simply because they are women.

Except that asian women are much more likely to marry outside their ethnic group than asian men. White women are about as likely as white men to marry outside their ethnic group.

Only by postulating some factor particular to black women can the economist get his rational choice theory to match the data. At that point though, he's assumed his conclusion.

Perhaps he ought just give up and stop bothering people who don't think a linear regression is an experiment.

(data from <link>

via Dr. Google)