Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A strictly dominated strategy will never be rational under any epistemic model for a game.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rationality is agent-relative: what counts as rational depends on the agent's actual belief-formation process, not idealized Bayesian updating.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An agent with systematically non-standard priors (e.g., lexicographic preferences per Blume, Brandenburger & Dekel 1991) may assign probability zero to certain opponent strategies, making a 'strictly dominated' strategy locally optimal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the epistemic model presupposes common knowledge of rationality, it smuggles in the conclusion, making the claim circular rather than a genuine constraint on rational play.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Strict dominance is defined relative to a fixed strategy space, but bounded rationality (Simon 1955) entails agents may not correctly represent or enumerate that full space.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an agent's cognitive model of the game omits strategies that would dominate their chosen action, the dominated strategy is rational relative to the agent's actual epistemic situation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a strategy is strictly dominated, it remains strictly dominated even when the player receives more information about opponents' strategies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a strategy is strictly dominated with respect to the entire set of opponents' strategies, there are no beliefs a player can hold that would make that strategy rational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.