Editing Rational choice model (section)

===Methodological critiques===
Schram and Caterino (2006) <ref>{{cite book |last1=Caterino, Schram |first1=Brian, Sanford F. |title=Making political science matter: debating knowledge, research, and method |date=2006 |publisher=New York University Press |pages=4–5 |url=https://web-p-ebscohost-com.uea.idm.oclc.org/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzIwMDkzOF9fQU41?sid=2c916317-ecdd-4b1b-b4b3-58418d8af99a@redis&vid=0&format=EB&lpid=lp_1&rid=0}}</ref> contains a fundamental methodological criticism of rational choice theory for promoting the view that the natural science model is the only appropriate methodology in social science and that political science should follow this model, with its emphasis on quantification and mathematization. Schram and Caterino argue instead for methodological pluralism. The same argument is made by [[William E. Connolly]], who in his work Neuropolitics <ref>{{cite book |last1=Connolly |first1=Willliam E. |title=Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed |date=2002 |volume=23 |publisher=University of Minnesota Press |isbn=978-0-8166-4021-8 |jstor=10.5749/j.cttts8p6 }}</ref>shows that advances in neuroscience further illuminate some of the problematic practices of rational choice theory.