Suppose a classmate claims that the reason he knows nothing about politics is rational ignorance. What does he mean

He meant that he doesn't know anything about politics since he doesn't want to try to grasp it, preferring instead to remain in a state of non-knowledge and, as a result, reasonable ignorance.

When the perceived expense of educating oneself on a topic exceeds the predicted potential advantage that knowledge would give, rational ignorance is the result.

About Rational ignorance:

For more information about Rational ignorance refer to the link:

link

He meant that he doesn't know anything about politics because he doesn't want to try to understand about it, preferring to keep non-knowledge and, therefore, rational ignorance.

Explanation:

Rational ignorance is the term that refers to the human being's ability to keep believing in a wrong or insufficient concept, as he does not want to bear the search for information and the costs to better inform himself about this concept and understand it efficiently, that is, to an individual in a rational way and by his own choice, he prefers to remain ignorant about a certain subject.

In this case, when someone says that he does not know anything about politics because of rational ignorance, it means that he knows that his knowledge of politics is insufficient, but he or she prefers to continue like this, because he does not want to be informed about politics.

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.