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 B is trivially materially rational at the single state w, regardless of what B would choose at v2

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual rationality requirements persist even at unreached nodes, as Stalnaker argues in 'Knowledge, Belief and Counterfactual Reasoning in Games' (1996).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A strategy profile that renders a node unreachable does not dissolve the normative requirement that the agent would choose rationally if that node were reached.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Vacuous satisfaction of rationality conditions obscures the epistemic work done by backward induction, which requires substantive counterfactual commitments at every node.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Selten's concept of trembling-hand perfection entails that rational agents must specify credible choices at all nodes, treating unreached nodes as limit cases of reachable ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rationality criterion that is trivially satisfied by unreachability fails to distinguish between agents with coherent disposition sets and those with arbitrary off-path intentions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Material rationality defined vacuously at unreached nodes cannot ground the forward-looking stability conditions that Nash equilibrium refinements are designed to capture.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A's strategy prescribes O1 at the initial decision node, making it impossible for B to move at v2
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Material rationality only requires rationality at decision nodes that are reachable according to the strategy profile
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since B's decision node v2 is unreachable given A's choice of O1, B's rationality at v2 is vacuously satisfied
      ?

      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.