Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the classical theories of human rationality with the bounded rationality model. It discusses the importance of emotions and the mechanisms in human cognition and everyday decision-making. The paper then aims to prove that the unconscious system of decision-making is inevitably activated because of natural selection and that humans are primarily driven by emotions. It also discusses how the loss of emotions corrupts decision-making ability.

Table of Contents:
Introduction
Criticisms of the Classical Rationality
The Bounded Rationality Model
Conclusion

From the Paper
"The Classical view of rationality holds that "the laws of human inference are equivalent to the laws of probability and logic." The concern is the methods of thinking and not the conclusions of the thinking . This is a normative theory as it suggests ways people ought to think in order to achieve their goals in an efficient, logical way. A good outcome yielded by a decision does not make that decision a good decision. Similarly, a good decision does not guarantee a good outcome. Examples of inferences labeled "irrational" are overconfidence, base-rate neglect, and the conjunction fallacy. These "cognitive illusions" actually help us a great deal in decision-making. These heuristics are applied unconsciously everyday in many situations. It does not make sense to contemplate and go through the logical calculation for every decision we are faced with. Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes, "Our minds are not built to work by the rules of probability"."

Tags:rationality, cognitive, performance, decontextualization