| Pt | Sa | Çar | Per | Cu | Ct | Pa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Abstract: Rejecting the claim that human reasoning can approximate generally NP-hard Bayesian models—in the sense that the mind’s actual “computations” come close to, or be like, the inferences that Bayesian models dictate—this paper addresses whether a Bayesian model can have normative pull on human reasoners. For such normative pull to arise, we argue, a well-defined and empirically supported approximation relation is required—but broadly absent—between (i) human reasoning on the ground and (ii) the behavior of a non-NP-hard model. We discuss a responsible stance on this issue.
A long abstract can be found here.

