Cognition and Rationality: Writing Straight with Crooked Lines?

Abstract

Four different approaches dominate the modern discussion around the topic of how best to define human rationality. These are the following: (1) Unbounded Rationality (ur); (2) Optimization under Constraints (ouc); (3) Heuristics and Biases (h&b); (4) Ecological Rationality (er). Typically, proponents of approaches (3) and (4) criticize the models put forth by the proponents of approaches (1) and (2) for their cognitive unrealism. However, many ethologists contend that it makes sense to account for data gathered in animal behavior research along the lines of precisely these models. Elaborating upon this claim, Stanovich suggested that models of the kinds (1) and (2) are more appropriate to account for the behavior of creatures endowed with simple cognitive architectures rather than to account for the behavior of humans. Moreover, according to Stanovich’s own new approach, it is the cognitive complexity of humans rather than their computational limitations that makes them (partially) irrational. Could he be right? Following a suggestion made by , I will contend that, in order to try to find out an answer to this question, one needs to realize that the term “rationality” in use in this debate has to be understood as referring to, at least, three distinct properties; and that, once one analyzes each of them properly, most of the above-mentioned approaches, including Stanovich’s, reveal themselves to be untenable.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 0 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.