Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Global rationality is a reasonable normative standard but... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Global rationality is a reasonable normative standard but problematic as a descriptive theory of human judgment and decision-making

    ConsequentialismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Aumann's first four arguments implicitly treat global rationality as a reasonable normative standard
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Global rationality fails to adequately describe actual human judgment and decision-making behavior
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The normative/descriptive distinction is unstable: a standard that systematically exceeds human cognitive capacity lacks genuine normative force (Gibbard, 1990).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ought implies can: if global rationality is computationally intractable for finite agents, it cannot serve as a binding normative ideal even in principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ecological rationality research (Gigerenzen & Todd, 1999) demonstrates that heuristics are not failures of global rationality but context-sensitive adaptations that outperform optimization in uncertain environments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If bounded strategies are demonstrably more accurate than global optimization under real-world conditions, then global rationality is deficient as a normative standard, not merely as a descriptive one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    ConsequentialismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    All sources support it1 linkedConsciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    Aumann's first four arguments implicitly treat global rationality as a reasonabl...Ecological rationality research (Gigerenzen & Todd, 1999) demonstrates that heur...Global rationality fails to adequately describe actual human judgment and decisi...If bounded strategies are demonstrably more accurate than global optimization un...
    +2 moreShow less
    Ought implies can: if global rationality is computationally intractable for fini...The normative/descriptive distinction is unstable: a standard that systematicall...

    Similar

    Global rationality fails to adequately describe actual human judgment ...91%Overall rationality is the all-things-considered perspective that acco...87%Naturalist approaches treat rationality as an explanans that explains ...87%The concept of rationality does not simply consist in one's conception...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: bounded-rationality
    View source passageHide passage
    Implicit in Aumann’s first four arguments is the notion that global rationality (section 2) is a reasonable normative standard but problematic for descriptive theories of human judgment and decision-making (section 8). Even the literature standing behind Aumann’s fifth argument, namely that there are problems with expected utility theory as a normative standard, nevertheless typically address those shortcomings through modifications to, or extensions of, the underlying mathematical theory (
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit