On page 213 of the commentary by Speekenbrink and Shanks (Reference Speekenbrink and Shanks2011) on the target article by Jones & Love, there are some equations in which the operators are missing. The sentence that reads:
For example, suppose the sequence of rewards is S 1 and the sequence of responses is S 8. The first response x 1 = 1 implies that v 1+v 2+v 3+v 4v5v6v7v8; the second response x21 implies that v1v2v3v4; the third response x3 1 implies that v1v2. One choice of values consistent with this is vjj.
should read as follows:
For example, suppose the sequence of rewards is S 1 and the sequence of responses is S 8. The first response x 1 = 1 implies that v 1+v 2+v 3+v 4<v 5+v 6+v 7+v 8; the second response x 2 = 1 implies that v 1+v 2<v 3+v 4; the third response x 3 = 1 implies that v 1<v 2. One choice of values consistent with this is v j =j.
We regret the error.
Target article
Subtracting “ought” from “is”: Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking
Related commentaries (1)
Is everyone Bayes? On the testable implications of Bayesian Fundamentalism – Erratum
Author response
Towards a descriptivist psychology of reasoning and decision making