Mind & Society

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 263–271 | Cite as

Re-assessing the Heuristics debate

Mark G. Kelman: The Heuristics Debate, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011
  • Andrea Polonioli
Book Review


Open image in new window Mark Kelman’s recent book, The Heuristics Debate (HD), has two main goals. First, it seeks to reconstruct the controversy in decision science between Kahneman et al.’s heuristics-and-biases approach and Gigerenzer et al.’s fast-and-frugal heuristics approach. Second, it tries to discuss its implications for jurisprudence and policy-making. This study focuses on the first task only. The study attempts to show that, although HD has several important merits, its interpretation of the controversy misses some crucial aspects. Specifically, HD fails to appreciate that the debate is fundamentally about what a “rational” judgment is in the first place. Moreover, because of this, HD also fails to acknowledge the interplay between normative and methodological considerations. With regard to this aspect, HD’s treatment of the controversy fits into a long tradition. This study takes the opportunity to rectify the error.



I would like to thank Michela Massimi, Lars Penke, and Tillmann Vierkant for discussion of some of the ideas that motivated this paper.


  1. Berg N, Gigerenzer G (2007) Psychology implies paternalism? Bounded rationality may reduce the rationale to regulate risk-taking. Soc Choice Welf 28(2):337–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg N, Gigerenzer G (2010) As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise? HEconI 18(1):133–166Google Scholar
  3. Bishop MA (2006) Fast and frugal heuristics. Philos Compass 1:201–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fiedler K (1988) The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors. Psychol Res 50(3):123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gigerenzer G (2004) The irrationality paradox. Behav Brain Sci 27(3):336–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grosenick L, Clement TS, Fernald RD (2007) Fish can infer social rank by observation alone. Nature 445:429–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gruene Yanoff T (2007) Bounded rationality. Philos Compass 2(3):534–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hammond KR (1996) Human judgment and social policy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hammond KR (2007) Beyond rationality. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G (1999) The conjunction fallacy revisited: how intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. J Behav Decis Mak 12:275–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Houston AI, McNamara JM, Steer MD (2007a) Violations of transitivity under fitness maximization. Biol Lett 3:365–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Houston AI, McNamara JM, Steer MD (2007b) Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behavior? Phil Trans Biol Sci B 362:1531–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Newell BR, Shanks DR (2003) Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing “one-reason” decision making. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 29:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oppenheimer D (2003) Not so fast! (and not so frugal!): rethinking the recognition heuristic. Cognition 90:B1–B9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Place SS, Todd PM, Penke L, Asendorpf JB (2009) The ability to judge the romantic interest of others. Psychol Sci 20:22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rysiew P (2008) Rationality disputes: psychology and epistemology. Philos Compass 3(6):1153–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Samuels R, Stich S, Bishop M (2002) Ending the rationality wars: how to make disputes about human rationality disappear? In: Renee R (ed) Common sense, reasoning and rationality. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 236–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stanovich K (2004) The robot’s rebellion. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Stanovich K, West R (2003) Evolutionary versus instrumental goals: how evolutionary psychology misconceives human rationality? In: Over E (ed) Evolution and the psychology of thinking: the debate. Psychological Press, New York, pp 171–230Google Scholar
  20. Stevens JR (2008) The evolutionary biology of decision making. In: Engel C, Singer W (eds) Better than conscious? Ernst Strüngmann Forum Report 1. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 285–304Google Scholar
  21. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  22. Todd PM, Gigerenzer G (2000) Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart. Behav Brain Sci 23(5):727–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vranas P (2000) Gigerenzer’s normative critique of Kahneman and Tversky. Cognition 76:179–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilke A, Todd PM (2012) The evolved foundations of decision-making. In: Dhami MK, Schlottmann A, Waldmann M (eds) Judgment and decision making as a skill: learning, development and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 3–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations