The aim of my paper “What does It Mean to be a Rational Decision Maker” was to suggest that the lens of rational choice theory, powerful though it is, is too limited to tell us what it means to be rational. Frederick, Stanovich, and Zeelenberg have written three thoughtful commentaries on my paper. Stanovich and Zeelenberg provide perceptive extensions of my arguments. Frederick is critical. In this reply I try to make clear that I am not suggesting that rational choice theory is wrong, but that it is incomplete. Frederick successfully defends the theory against an accusation that I was not making, but in my view fails to address the limitations of rational choice theory that I was focused on.