Abstract

Bayesian reasoning is considered to be the prototype of rational judgment. The differences between the descriptive and normative models of reasoning used to be interpreted as supporting the thesis of the principal irrationality of humans. The paper shows the possible re-interpretations of this research evidence by means of focusing on the contexts of individual differences as well as the context of differences in the experimental environment. Taking into account of these contexts makes the originally pessimistic answer to the question of rationality more optimistic.