When Ought Implies Can’t: The Bounded Rationality of Belief

People often hold beliefs which are factually incorrect, inconsistent, and seemingly immune to counterevidence, among other normative deficiencies. A common strategy for explaining these beliefs is to propose novel psychological processes which cause irrationality. I argue instead that the problems involved in forming, maintaining, and revising ideally rational beliefs are often so difficult that people cannot plausibly be expected to solve them. Instead of searching for explanations of irrationality, recognizing the impossibility of ideal rationality reorients attention to the limited processes that people must use to cope with intractable problems. This perspective offers a parsimonious approach to understanding belief.