Werbos's optimal-control ADP and Oaksford–Chater's rational analysis make the same 'optimization as a theory of mind' bet from two independent disciplines

Two lineages, starting from unrelated problems, arrive at the same wager: that the mind is best explained as an optimizer. From cognitive science, rational analysis treats thought as the optimal solution to the problems the environment poses (claim-rational-analysis-anderson-optimal-solution-marr-level); its flagship case recasts the Wason selection task, long read as proof that people reason badly, as optimal data selection (claim-oaksford-chater-recast-wason-task-as-optimal-data-selection). From optimal-control engineering, Werbos framed optimization as a route to understanding mind — "the concept of optimization… can be a useful tool in serious efforts to understand consciousness and the mind" (claim-werbos-1997-optimization-consciousness-chapter, werbos.com, Tier 1), a project whose origin was his attempt to mathematise Freud's psychic energy (claim-werbos-backprop-from-freud-own-account). Cognitive science and control theory, the same computational-level move made twice, independently.

The connection is real but sits one note over from where the seed pair suggested. The Werbos–Freud note is an inventor's origin story — what motivated him — while Oaksford & Chater is a normative re-explanation of behaviour — people were right, the yardstick was wrong. Different kinds of claim; the genuine bridge is the shared computational-level bet, not the surface "both recast a classic under a new objective."

The deeper structure both cases share: what a computation is, and whether behaviour counts as rational, is fixed by the observer's chosen objective, not read off the mechanism. Change the objective and the verdict flips — logical falsification makes Wason choices irrational, expected-information-gain makes them optimal. The same objective-relativity governs the priority literature one cluster over, where coarsening the equivalence relation makes the Kelley–Bryson formula be backpropagation and sharpening it makes them cousins (claim-backprop-special-case-kelley-bryson-formula, claim-recht-adjoints-equivalence-not-transmission). The objective function is a lens; both seed notes, and both priority verdicts, are lens-swaps.

The sharpest version of this convergence — where Werbos's approximate dynamic programming and Anderson's rational analysis meet most tightly — was tested at resource-rational analysis (bounded optimization under compute limits) and came back a partial disconfirmation: the Anderson leg holds but the Werbos leg does not, because resource-rational analysis descends from Horvitz/Russell's bounded optimality, not Werbos's ADP (observation-resource-rational-analysis-confirms-anderson-leg-not-werbos-leg, answering question-resource-rational-analysis-sharpest-werbos-anderson-bridge).