Ben Saunders thinks the PFA player of the year awards - in which Ronaldo got player of the year whilst Cesc (pbuh) got young player of the year - show footballers to be irrational. How, he asks, "can Ronaldo be the best out of all players but not best out of the young ones?"
Quite easily. Players' weren't just expressing a preference for player of the year, but a wider preference. It would have been quite rational for a player to vote for Ronaldo as player of the year but Cesc (pbuh) as young player, even though Ronaldo was eligible in this category. He might have figured:
I have to acknowledge that Ronaldo has been the best player this year. But I don't want the oily little turd to become even more arrogant by giving him two prizes. And I want to recognize too the divinity of Cesc (proof). So I want him to get a prize too.
This, surely, is quite rational.
I make this point because it has a wider application. What looks like irrationality can sometimes (often?) be merely different preferences than we think.
Take a trivial example. Today, I prefer to have chicken than salmon for dinner. But yesterday, I preferred salmon to chicken. Isn't it inconsistent and irrational to prefer one thing one day and another the next? Not at all. My over-arching preference is for a varied diet.
If we re-assess preferences, then, what seems irrational can become rational, and vice versa.