Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):761-762 (2000)

Authors
Abstract
Although we welcome Gigerenzer, Todd, and the ABC Research Group's shift of emphasis from “coherence” to “correspondence” criteria, their rejection of optimality in human decision making is premature: In many situations, experts can achieve near-optimal performance. Moreover, this competence does not require implausible computing power. The models Gigerenzer et al. evaluate fail to account for many of the most robust properties of human decision making, including examples of optimality.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x00453446
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,437
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Re-Visions of Rationality?Ben R. Newell - 2005 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):11-15.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Plans And Decisions.John L. Pollock - 2004 - Theory and Decision 57 (2):79-107.
``Two'' Many Optimalities.Oscar Vilarroya - 2002 - Biology and Philosophy 17 (2):251-270.
Optimality Modeling in a Suboptimal World.Angela Potochnik - 2009 - Biology and Philosophy 24 (2):183-197.
Optimization in Evolutionary Ecology.Robert C. Richardson - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:13 - 21.
A Test of the Principle of Optimality.John D. Hey & Enrica Carbone - 2001 - Theory and Decision 50 (3):263-281.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
29 ( #376,957 of 2,449,149 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #441,480 of 2,449,149 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes