That has very little to do with the rational choice model. Rational choice agrees that people don't act on perfect information. It also agrees that even when given good information, individuals don't necessarily believe it. All RCT really boils down to is the fairly uncontroversial statement that people act in accordance with their actual preferences (even if their preferences should be different, the actions are not well-calculated to achieve their goals, or they say they have different preferences).
> Rational choice agrees that people don't act on perfect information
No, full rational choice theory posits that people do behave in a way which maximizes actual (not expected) net utility, or, in more detail, as if:
(1) They have a coherent “utility function” mapping each potential path through time that might be taken to a unidimensional, real-number utility value.
(2) They have perfect knowledge of the outcome (path through time), or at least resulting utility value, produced by every possible option with every decision they make,
(3) They consistently choose the option that maximizes utility.
There are more limited modifications of rational choice theory that attempt, with varying degrees of success, to close the predictive gap between full rational choice theory and actual behavior resulting from the fact that humans do not behave “rationally” in the sense of rational choice theory, but they aren't what is involved with the question “how can you lose when rationality is on your side?” asked upthread.
