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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42