Normative theories of judgment either focus on rationality (decontextualized preference maximization) or reasonableness (pragmatic balance of preferences and socially conscious norms). Despite centuries of work on these concepts, a critical question appears overlooked: How do people's intuitions and behavior align with the concepts of rationality from game theory and reasonableness from legal scholarship? We show that laypeople view rationality as abstract and preference maximizing, simultaneously viewing reasonableness as sensitive to social context, as evidenced in spontaneous descriptions, social perceptions, and linguistic analyses of cultural products (news, soap operas, legal opinions, and Google books). Further, experiments among North Americans and Pakistani bankers, street merchants, and samples engaging in exchange (versus market) economy show that rationality and reasonableness lead people to different conclusions about what constitutes good judgment in Dictator Games, Commons Dilemma, and Prisoner's Dilemma: Lay rationality is reductionist and instrumental, whereas reasonableness integrates preferences with particulars and moral concerns.

中文翻译：

---

合理判断的民间标准：合理与合理。

规范的判断理论要么关注理性（去上下文化的偏好最大化），要么关注理性（偏好和社会意识规范的实用平衡）。尽管在这些概念上进行了数百年的努力，但仍然出现了一个关键问题：人们的直觉和行为如何与博弈论中的理性概念和法律学术中的合理性概念保持一致？我们证明，外行人将理性视为抽象和偏好最大化，同时也将理性视为对社会环境敏感，如对文化产品（新闻，肥皂剧，法律意见和Google书籍）的自发描述，社会观念和语言分析所证明。此外，在北美人和巴基斯坦银行家，街头商人，