Article contents
Sub-optimal reasons for rejecting optimality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 April 2001
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.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2000 Cambridge University Press
- 6
- Cited by