ABSTRACT
In this chapter, two alternative explanations for normative/descriptive gaps are examined. Both center on information-processing problems at the algorithmic level of analysis. Both are used to refute the claim that such gaps represent instances of human irrationality, but they do so in very different ways. One alternative explanation, that of a performance error, is used by Panglossian theorists to essentially deny the existence of a normative/descriptive gap because such errors are transitory. The other alternative explanation, that of a computational limitation, is emphasized by the Apologist camp, which admits the possibility of a normative/descriptive gap. Here, the algorithmic-level processing error is admitted to be nontransitory. However, it is used to deny the existence of a prescriptive/descriptive gap and to warn against the premature inference that human irrationality at the intentional level has been demonstrated.
