[spacebanana7]

The idea you’re describing sounds similar to Satisficing Theory [1]. I agree this approach does a much better job of describing real life decision making than the traditional rational actor model. Unfortunately, Satisficing rarely gets discussed (at least in my experience) in mainstream economics/psychology, despite having been around since the 1950s.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing

[darkerside]

Seems obvious that type 1 thinking satisfices and type 2 maximizes.

[whatshisface]

Nobody can maximize that's impossible, it'd involve something like making perfect stock picks.

[MereInterest]

Finding the best possible choice is impossible, but selecting the choice that maximizes expectation is possible. The former would be driving a different route because you know that a specific driver would rear-end you, and is impossible because it requires knowing the future. The latter would be driving a different route because you know that there's an annoying left turn.

The distinction isn't in whether your have access to all possible information for use in a decision. It's whether you use all available information in a decision.

[whatshisface]

Nobody uses all available information, whoever did would probably start by collecting every millennium prize.

[darkerside]

Not sure if you realize this is coming off a pedantic, but everybody realizes what you are getting at. It's just not useful or relevant.

Define information being available as what people are able to load up into working memory to make the decision. You can maximize with those factors easily.

[kragen]

I think the fact that you think this is pedantic rather than useful and relevant demonstrates that you don't realize what he's getting at, possibly because your definition of "information being available" is wrong; it would make type 1 thinking the same as type 2.

[whatshisface]

I can "load up" the axioms of set theory plus the necessary definitions into working memory, but I'm still not claiming any millennium prizes. I do not think that a model of a person that is only limited by information would be anything close to a person that is limited by computational ability.

[mistermann]

True, but even execution with literally zero unforced errors with the information one does have is something that can be pursued.

Or can it? Is it even possible or are humans so fundamentally flawed they they inevitably fail on day one? Pointing to monks is a standard example, but they tend to isolate themselves from difficult environments.

The laws of physics don't stop us, but something does.

[whatshisface]

If I ask you to solve a difficult puzzle in one second, is your failure an unforced error?