Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:13:25.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A critique of team and Stackelberg reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2003

Herbert Gintis
Herbert Gintis*
Affiliation:
Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Northampton, MA01060; External Faculty, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NMhttp://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gintis
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Colman's critique of classical game theory is correct, but it is well known. Colman's proposed mechanisms are not plausible. Insufficient reason does what “team reasoning” is supposed to handle, and it applies to a broader set of coordination games. There is little evidence ruling out more traditional alternatives to Stackelberg reasoning, and the latter is implausible when applied to coordination games in general.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 160 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)