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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Non-psychological game theory still presupposes solution concepts (e.g., subgame perfect equilibrium) that implicitly encode normative rationality assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Binmore's own defense of backward induction in evolutionary terms still requires agents to behave 'as if' rational at each node, preserving the normative paradox structurally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Stalnaker and Reny demonstrate that backward induction requires common knowledge of rationality, a condition that is self-undermining at off-path nodes regardless of psychological interpretation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the paradox infects the epistemic foundations of any solution concept requiring sequential rationality, the psychological/non-psychological distinction cannot quarantine the problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Non-psychological game theorists can account for apparently irrational play through empirical learning dynamics rather than normative rational requirements
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The paradox of backward induction only generates a problem when game theory is viewed as contributing to a normative theory of strategic rationality
      ?

      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.