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 process of play itself, including players' types and how they change over time, is a better focus for understanding interaction than mere games or game forms alone.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Game forms provide the invariant structural constraints that make any process of play intelligible as a game at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without prior specification of rules and payoff functions, 'player types' and 'processes of play' lack the formal grounding needed for rigorous analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Harsanyi's type-space framework itself presupposes a fixed game structure within which types are defined, making structure prior to process.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Personal identity theorists from Parfit onward have shown that appeals to evolving psychological states risk circular regress when used as explanatory foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If player types change over time, the account of interaction loses a stable referent, undermining the causal continuity required for attributing strategic agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Games do not fully determine their outcomes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Games allow for various styles of play
      ?

      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.