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 Non-psychological game theory still presupposes solution concepts (e.g., subgame perfect equilibrium) that implicitly encode normative rationality assumptions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Solution concepts like SPE are mathematical definitions of consistency, not normative claims about how agents ought to behave.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Subgame perfect equilibrium requires players to make optimal choices at every decision node, embedding a norm of instrumental rationality.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.