ABSTRACT
Performance errors and computational limitations as explanations of the normative/descriptive gap both locate the source of the discrepancy in the human cognitive apparatus. The former explanation posits transitory information-processing mishaps; the latter posits permanent algorithmic-level limitations that prevent computation of the normative response. However, a much more contentious alternative explanation is the claim that an inappropriate normative model has been applied to the task. The charge of incorrect norm application locates the problem in the experimenter rather than the subject. It is a potent strategy for the Panglossian theorist to use against the advocate of Meliorism because the latter is quite prone to rely on the heuristics and biases literature (e.g., Baron, 1994b; Dawes, 1988; Gilovich, 1991; Piattelli-Palmarini, 1994; Stanovich, 1998)-precisely the place where the appropriateness of norms has been most at issue.
