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 Thus the claim overstates the failure—it is refinement-type-relative, not absolute, as Brandenburger and Dekel's rationalizability framework implies.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If a solution concept fails across all reasonable refinement types, the distinction between 'relative' and 'absolute' becomes merely terminological.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The core logical structure of rationalizability remains unchanged across refinements; only applications differ, so 'refinement-relative' may be misleading.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Deflecting to refinement-relativity risks obscuring whether the underlying concept itself has genuine explanatory or normative limitations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Rationalizability failures depend on which type of refinement is adopted, so claiming absolute failure ignores this important theoretical variation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Different refinement types capture different strategic assumptions, making relative rather than absolute assessment more analytically precise.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Brandenburger-Dekel framework itself permits multiple refinement specifications, suggesting failures should be indexed to particular specifications.
?
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.