Resource-rational analysis's 'Rationality revisited' section redefines cognitive bias as a violation of resource rationality, performing the swap-the-normative-standard move the vault catalogues as Oaksford & Chater's signature

resource-rationalityrational-analysisoaksford-chaterrationalitybounded-rationalitycognitive-sciencecognitive-bias

The vault's note on Oaksford & Chater (claim-oaksford-chater-redefine-rationality-as-reasoning-about-uncertainty) already identifies a "single rhetorical shape" — humans aren't irrational, the yardstick was wrong — shared with Gigerenzer's ecological rationality. The resource-rational analysis target article performs the same move explicitly, in its own words. Section 5.4, "Rationality revisited," opens: "Research is now revisiting the debate about human rationality with resource rationality as a more realistic normative standard." The same section proposes that "we should redefine the term 'cognitive bias' as a violation of resource rationality rather than as a violation of logic, probability theory, or expected utility theory" — swapping the normative standard, exactly as Oaksford & Chater swap logic for probability and Gigerenzer swaps optimality-via-logic for optimality-via-ecological-fit.

This makes resource-rational analysis a documented third member of the "rationality was mismeasured" family Simon's satisficing (claim-simon-satisficing-and-heuristic-search-same-move), Oaksford & Chater's Bayesian rationality, and Gigerenzer's ecological rationality already populate — each keeping the reasoner and replacing the measuring stick. Where the earlier members replaced logic with probability or with ecological fit, resource-rational analysis replaces all three classical norms at once (logic, probability, and expected utility) with a resource-sensitive standard (claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-list-probability-theory-among-three-classical-norms-resource-rationality-supersedes), recasting "cognitive bias" itself as a violation of that new standard rather than of the old ones. The family's internal disagreements over mechanism — and whether the ecological and rational-analysis members are compatible or in tension — remain unsettled (observation-ecological-rationality-and-rational-analysis-are-contested-not-compatible).