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
    Non-psychological game theory still presupposes solution ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The paradox of backward induction is primarily a problem for normative theories of rationality, not for non-psychological game theory

    Non-psychological game theory still presupposes solution concepts (e.g., subgame perfect equilibrium) that implicitly encode normative rationality assumptions.

    ?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.Subgame perfect equilibrium requires players to make optimal choices at every decision node, embedding a norm of instrumental rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Solution concepts eliminate outcomes through logical constraints that reflect 'how rational agents should play,' not merely descriptive predictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even supposedly 'non-psychological' frameworks must assume players can deliberate and choose optimally, presupposing rational agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Solution concepts like SPE are mathematical definitions of consistency, not normative claims about how agents ought to behave.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A framework can be silent on psychology while describing equilibria without endorsing rationality as a normative standard agents should follow.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Showing that a model uses rationality assumptions doesn't prove those assumptions are normative rather than merely structural or analytic.
      ?

      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

    Skepticism1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A framework can be silent on psychology while describing equilibria without endo...Even supposedly 'non-psychological' frameworks must assume players can deliberat...Showing that a model uses rationality assumptions doesn't prove those assumption...Solution concepts eliminate outcomes through logical constraints that reflect 'h...
    +3 moreShow less
    Solution concepts like SPE are mathematical definitions of consistency, not norm...Subgame perfect equilibrium requires players to make optimal choices at every de...The paradox of backward induction is primarily a problem for normative theories ...

    Details

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