Over the past half-century, the study of human decision making has evolved from dry philosophy into a diverse set of experimentally-tested, behavior-centered theories. However, the sheer volume of disciplines and sub-disciplines-and the often-esoteric debates that divide them-threaten to obscure the very real advances that have been made in modeling human decision making. This paper, giving preliminary analysis from a longer study, begins to address the "so-what" factor in decision making theory, specifically as related to Air Force modeling, simulation, and decision-support needs. While a general consensus is forming on how humans make decisions (descriptive), there are still major conflicts on how humans should make decisions (normative), and by extension, how human decision making can be improved (prescriptive). The first half of this paper surveys modern decision science, focusing on two of the most influential sub-disciplines: the heuristics & biases paradigm (HBP) and the naturalistic paradigm (NP). The second half of this paper will attempt to sketch out a normative/prescriptive synthesis between the two schools, and chart implications for design of decision support.