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 Identifying the solution to Selten's Horse on general principles requires reasoning about players' beliefs about conditional probabilities, not merely strategic beliefs about actions.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Harsanyi's purification theorem shows that beliefs about mixed strategies reduce to beliefs about payoff perturbations, collapsing the distinction between strategic and probabilistic beliefs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If conditional probability assessments are themselves derived from perturbed payoff structures, then reasoning about them is a special case of strategic belief, not a categorically distinct operation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kreps and Wilson's sequential equilibrium framework encodes conditional probability beliefs as 'systems of beliefs' that are formally part of the equilibrium concept itself, not external to strategic reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Because sequential equilibrium makes beliefs about conditional probabilities constitutive of strategy profiles, the claim that such beliefs are non-strategic conflates a technical distinction with a conceptual one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Player III, upon receiving a move, must reason about whether his action node was reached from node 11 or node 12.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This reasoning involves conditional probabilities: the probability that Player III is at node 13 or 14 given that he has a move.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If Player III reasons in terms of conditional probabilities, then Players I and II must conjecture about Player III's beliefs about those conditional probabilities.
      ?

      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.