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
    Binmore's critique of bounded rationality holds that rati... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A cooperative equilibrium exists in finitely repeated prisoner's dilemmas for sufficiently memory-constrained players

    Binmore's critique of bounded rationality holds that rationality norms apply to the idealized game, not to cognitively crippled proxies of the original agents.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Game theory's explanatory power derives from idealizations about rational actors, not from modeling actual cognitive limitations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Confusing norms for idealized agents with descriptive claims about real agents creates category errors that undermine theoretical clarity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bounded rationality studies should explain deviations from ideal rationality, presupposing rather than replacing the ideal standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Real agents are not 'proxies' of ideal agents—they are the primary subjects. Norms should apply where decisions actually occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Idealizations about infinite computation are empirically false; norms for impossible agents cannot guide real-world policy or evaluation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bounded rationality shows agents have different cognitive architecture; rationality norms must be tailored to actual capacities, not ideals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consequentialism1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    A cooperative equilibrium exists in finitely repeated prisoner's dilemmas for su...Bounded rationality shows agents have different cognitive architecture; rational...Bounded rationality studies should explain deviations from ideal rationality, pr...Confusing norms for idealized agents with descriptive claims about real agents c...
    +3 moreShow less
    Game theory's explanatory power derives from idealizations about rational actors...Idealizations about infinite computation are empirically false; norms for imposs...Real agents are not 'proxies' of ideal agents—they are the primary subjects. Nor...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit