Not only has he heard of it - he's dissed it on this very forum.
Übereil, in this very thread even
Thanks for pointing that out… I jumped into the discussion a bit late.
As for his interpretation, to each his own. I'm not a sociologist/psychologist but I'll bounce it off my mom(she has a couple degrees in those fields). Will post more later on… Though after having read through their earlier exchanges I must agree with DTE(for the most part).
-EDIT-
He seems to actually agree with it in the end though, to one degree or another… Or maybe not…
Some of the points I have taken away from your posts:
1) You can hold someone accountable for their choices, despite their ignorance, as a means of possibly shaping their future actions.
2) For true choice to exist the consequences(of said choice) must be equal in magnitude and direction.
3) People do not consciously pick the lesser of two choices.
4) People do not think before they commit to an action, they act on impulse.
If #3 and #4 are to be taken as truth, #1 is entirely pointless. #2 is predicated on ones ability to gauge equivalence and assign subjective value to the desired consequences of their choices. Desired consequences are not always achieved. Sexual gratification is anything but constant, variability makes equality or repetition of results impossible. #2 is denying the antecedent. If the consequences are equal then true choice exists. The consequences are not equal therefore true choice does not exist. Picking the lesser or bad choice and it's subsequent consequence is still
true choice. Your added "true" qualification is entirely subjective and left to, I assume, self appointed moral authority figures. Like you or the Pope, right?
Back to #2+3, here's a scenario:
Man desires sex. Man tries to attract woman to achieve that end. Man fails horribly in his quest. Man still desiring sex can either A) forgo sex or B) rape someone. According to you there is no real choice here, for the potential consequences of his choices are not equal. So, which would be the lesser of the two choices, raping or not raping?
-EDIT - #2
Back to the whole rational choice theory…
I can only speak from my own personal experiences… So I'll tell you a little story, growing up I lived in a middle class neighborhood and attended private school through HS. Long story short, one of my good childhood friends started smoking marijuana around the age of 12(exposure to it from his older brother). Shortly thereafter he also began dealing the stuff… Could you imagine that an affluent kid would resort to selling pot? Well he did and made a small fortune throughout our HS years. But every sale/drug run was a calculated risk - from his suppliers, network of fellow sellers, clients and law enforcement. He avoided detection until the time he "retired" because everything was thought out and planned in advance with multiple contingency plans.
The same holds true for any career criminal or criminal syndicate…
The only criminals who don't fall into the rational choice theory are those acting purely on impulse or in the heat of the moment…