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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Selten's concept of trembling-hand perfection entails that rational agents must specify credible choices at all nodes, treating unreached nodes as limit cases of reachable ones.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Unreached nodes are metaphysically distinct from reachable ones; treating them as limits conflates counterfactuals with actual decision problems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Agents need only specify credible choices on the equilibrium path; off-path specifications are unfalsifiable and empirically indistinguishable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The trembling-hand construction imposes unnecessary cognitive burdens and contradicts bounded rationality without improving predictive accuracy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rational agents must plan contingencies for all possible states to avoid commitment to strategies that collapse under perturbation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating unreached nodes as limits of reachable ones ensures consistency: optimal play shouldn't depend on whether nodes are actually reached.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Credible specification at all nodes eliminates empty threats, which are rationally incoherent even if never challenged in equilibrium.
      ?

      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.