 Implicit in Aumann’s first four arguments is the notion that global rationality  (section 2)  is a reasonable normative standard but problematic for descriptive theories of human judgment and decision-making  (section 8).  Even the literature standing behind Aumann’s fifth argument, namely that there are problems with expected utility theory as a normative standard, nevertheless typically address those shortcomings through modifications to, or extensions of, the underlying mathematical theory  (section 1.2).  This broad commitment to optimization methods, dominance reasoning, and logical consistency as bedrock normative principles is behind approaches that view bounded rationality as optimization under constraints: