Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If misframing were the mechanism, cooperation rates would drop to near-zero once subjects are corrected—but they do not fall to Nash equilibrium predictions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Subjects may reframe again post-correction using alternative interpretations, maintaining cooperation without reverting to initial misunderstanding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Dropout or demand effects could mask actual defection; those who remain cooperative after correction may be unrepresentative sample.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Near-zero predictions assume pure Nash play, but human baseline behavior typically exceeds theory; correction may not change cooperation relative to baseline.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Subjects possess stable cooperative preferences independent of frame; correction removes cognitive obstacle but not underlying motivation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Nash equilibrium assumes rational self-interest; persistent cooperation suggests subjects value fairness or reciprocity as terminal values.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Cooperative norms are deeply internalized; brief reframing cannot override social preferences formed through years of cultural conditioning.
?
How convincing is this?
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.