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
    Nash Equilibrium (NE) analysis is not a wholly satisfacto... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Nash Equilibrium (NE) analysis is not a wholly satisfactory equilibrium concept for extensive-form games on its own.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.NE permits strategies sustained by threats that rational agents would never execute, violating Selten's subgame perfection criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A solution concept tolerating incredible threats conflates equilibrium stability with rational deliberation, undermining predictive validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Backward induction, formalized by Selten (1965), shows NE selections in extensive-form games routinely fail tests of sequential rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kreps and Wilson's sequential equilibrium (1982) demonstrates NE leaves belief formation at information sets unconstrained off the equilibrium path.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unconstrained beliefs off the path of play generate multiple incompatible NE predictions, rendering the concept epistemically underdeterminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.NE analysis is insensitive to what happens off the path of play.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Off-path outcomes contain information relevant to predicting on-path behavior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ignoring off-path outcomes means throwing away information relevant to game solutions.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    A solution concept tolerating incredible threats conflates equilibrium stability...Backward induction, formalized by Selten (1965), shows NE selections in extensiv...Ignoring off-path outcomes means throwing away information relevant to game solu...Kreps and Wilson's sequential equilibrium (1982) demonstrates NE leaves belief f...
    +4 moreShow less
    NE analysis is insensitive to what happens off the path of play.NE permits strategies sustained by threats that rational agents would never exec...Off-path outcomes contain information relevant to predicting on-path behavior.Unconstrained beliefs off the path of play generate multiple incompatible NE pre...

    Similar

    A player has reason to consider out-of-equilibrium possibilities in an...82%Sequential equilibrium requires the application of Bayes's rule to pla...80%QRE is practically serviceable given modern econometrics packages such...80%If players in a game reach the (C,C) equilibrium under conditions wher...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: game-theory
    View source passageHide passage
    If you examine the matrix in Figure 10, you will discover that (LL, RL) is among the NE. This is a bit puzzling, since if Player I reaches her second information set (7) in the extensive-form game, she would hardly wish to play L there; she earns a higher payoff by playing R at node 7. Mere NE analysis doesn’t notice this because NE is insensitive to what happens off the path of play. Player I, in choosing L at node 4, ensures that node 7 will not be reached; this is what is meant by saying that
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit