Sub-optimal reasons for rejecting optimality

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


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.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 86,554

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

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.


Added to PP

33 (#400,393)

6 months
2 (#525,456)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references