You say that HB will fall under its own weights because HB is not finite. However, notice that your argument could also support the claim: the HB changes on the go. So it’s not finite because it’s dynamical, and also the space of possible HB is changing.
The problem arises if we view the paradigm as trying to catalogue biases. Right now there are 200+ biases on wikipedia, but if the arguments above are correct, then that list will never stop growing.
We could select a finite set of prescriptive models to compare human decisions against. Arguably this still wouldn't fix the problem, but even if it did, it would mean that we would be unsure if a given biases actually represents a deviation from rationality/optimality.
If we are merely using HB to discover heuristics (as Kahneman and Tversky intended), the above arguments don't matter. The argument is only a problem for researchers who want to treat HB as a prescriptive paradigm for cataloguing "human errors" so that we can fix them.
Now I get it. You mean HB paradigm as way of doing behavior economy. I was thinking about HB paradigm as program in cognitive science. You probably know the Anderson Rationality analysis regarding HB?
Comments