Team Reasoning and the Rational Choice of Payoff-Dominant Outcomes in Games.

IF 1.3 2区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

TOPOI-AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-07-10 DOI:10.1007/s11245-018-9575-z

Natalie Gold, Andrew M Colman

引用次数: 20

Abstract

Standard game theory cannot explain the selection of payoff-dominant outcomes that are best for all players in common-interest games. Theories of team reasoning can explain why such mutualistic cooperation is rational. They propose that teams can be agents and that individuals in teams can adopt a distinctive mode of reasoning that enables them to do their part in achieving Pareto-dominant outcomes. We show that it can be rational to play payoff-dominant outcomes, given that an agent group identifies. We compare team reasoning to other theories that have been proposed to explain how people can achieve payoff-dominant outcomes, especially with respect to rationality. Some authors have hoped that it would be possible to develop an argument that it is rational to group identify. We identify some large-probably insuperable-problems with this project and sketch some more promising approaches, whereby the normativity of group identification rests on morality.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

团队推理与博弈中收益优势结果的理性选择。

标准博弈论无法解释在共同利益博弈中，对所有参与者都最有利的收益显性结果的选择。团队推理理论可以解释为什么这种互惠合作是理性的。他们提出，团队可以是代理人，团队中的个人可以采用一种独特的推理模式，使他们能够在实现帕累托优势结果中尽自己的一份力。我们表明，如果一个代理群体能够识别，那么发挥收益优势的结果可能是理性的。我们将团队推理与其他理论进行了比较，这些理论被用来解释人们如何实现收益优势的结果，特别是在理性方面。一些作者希望有可能提出一种观点，即群体认同是合理的。我们在这个项目中发现了一些可能无法克服的大问题，并概述了一些更有希望的方法，据此，群体认同的规范性取决于道德。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

TOPOI-AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

7.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Topoi''s main assumption is that philosophy is a lively, provocative, delightful activity, which constantly challenges our received views, relentlessly questions our inherited habits, painstakingly elaborates on how things could be different, in other stories, in counterfactual situations, in alternative possible worlds. Whatever its ideology, whether with the intent of uncovering a truer structure of reality or of soothing our anxiety, of exposing myths or of following them through, the outcome of philosophical activity is always the destabilizing, unsettling generation of doubts, of objections, of criticisms. It follows that this activity is intrinsically a ''dialogue'', that philosophy is first and foremost philosophical discussion, that it requires bringing out conflicting points of view, paying careful, sympathetic attention to their structure, and using this dialectic to articulate one''s approach, to make it richer, more thoughtful, more open to variation and play. And it follows that the spirit which one brings to this activity must be one of tolerance, of always suspecting one''s own blindness and consequently looking with unbiased eye in every corner, without fearing to pass a (fallible) judgment on what is there but also without failing to show interest and respect. Topoi''s structure is a direct expression of this view. To maximize discussion, we devote most or all of this issue to a single topic. And, since discussion is only interesting when it is conducted seriously and responsibly, we usually request the collaboration of a guest-editor, an expert who will identify contributors and interact with them in a constructive way. Because we do not feel tied to any definite philosophical theme (or set of them), we choose the topic with absolute freedom, looking for what is blossoming and thriving, occasionally betting on what might - partly through our attention - ''begin'' to blossom and thrive. And because we do not want our structur e to become our own straightjacket, we are open to contributions not fitting the ''topos'', and do not rule out in principle the possibility of topic-less issues.