1988Philosophical PerspectivesRequires access

Deliberational Dynamics and The Foundations of Bayesian Game Theory

Brian Skyrms

Open publisher page 11 citations

Abstract

1. Introduction: There are two rationality concepts at work in separate areas of the theory of rational decision: EQUILIBRIUM, which is the dominant solution concept in the theory of noncooperative games and MAXIMUM EXPECTED UTILITY which is the central principle in the theory of coherent individual choice under uncertainty. In the development of game theory, the relationship between the two principles, and to a lesser extent the status of the equilibrium principle itself, has been less than crystal clear.2 This question is put in a new light if we regard deliberation as a dynamical process with informational feedback. We will take the expected utility principle as basic. One deliberates by calculating expected utility. In the simplest cases deliberation is trivial; one calculates expected utility and maximizes. But in more interesting cases, the very process of deliberation may generate information which is salient to the evaluation of the expected utilities. Then, processing costs permitting, a Bayesian deliberator will feedback that information and recalculate the expected utilities in light of the new knowledge.3 In such an interesting decision problem, deliberation can be modeled as a dynamic system. The decision maker starts in a state of indecision; calculates expected utility; moves in the direction of maximum expected utility; feeds back the information generated and recalculates; etc. In this process, his probabilities of doing the various acts evolve4 until, at the time of decision, his probabilities of doing the selected act become virtually one.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

1. Introduction: There are two rationality concepts at work in separate areas of the theory of rational decision: EQUILIBRIUM, which is the dominant solution concept in the theory of noncooperative games and MAXIMUM EXPECTED UTILITY which is the central principle in the theory of coherent individual choice under uncertainty. In the development of game theory, the relationship between the two principles, and to a lesser extent the status of the equilibrium principle itself, has been less than crystal clear.2 This question is put in a new light if we regard deliberation as a dynamical process with informational feedback. We will take the expected utility principle as basic. One deliberates by calculating expected utility. In the simplest cases deliberation is trivial; one calculates expected utility and maximizes. But in more interesting cases, the very process of deliberation may generate information which is salient to the evaluation of the expected utilities. Then, processing costs permitting, a Bayesian deliberator will feedback that information and recalculate the expected utilities in light of the new knowledge.3 In such an interesting decision problem, deliberation can be modeled as a dynamic system. The decision maker starts in a state of indecision; calculates expected utility; moves in the direction of maximum expected utility; feeds back the information generated and recalculates; etc. In this process, his probabilities of doing the various acts evolve4 until, at the time of decision, his probabilities of doing the selected act become virtually one.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 11 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

1. Introduction: There are two rationality concepts at work in separate areas of the theory of rational decision: EQUILIBRIUM, which is the dominant solution concept in the theory of noncooperative games and MAXIMUM EXPECTED UTILITY which is the central principle in the theory of coherent individual choice under uncertainty. In the development of game theory, the relationship between the two principles, and to a lesser extent the status of the equilibrium principle itself, has been less than crystal clear.2 This question is put in a new light if we regard deliberation as a dynamical process with informational feedback. We will take the expected utility principle as basic. One deliberates by calculating expected utility. In the simplest cases deliberation is trivial; one calculates expected utility and maximizes. But in more interesting cases, the very process of deliberation may generate information which is salient to the evaluation of the expected utilities. Then, processing costs permitting, a Bayesian deliberator will feedback that information and recalculate the expected utilities in light of the new knowledge.3 In such an interesting decision problem, deliberation can be modeled as a dynamic system. The decision maker starts in a state of indecision; calculates expected utility; moves in the direction of maximum expected utility; feeds back the information generated and recalculates; etc. In this process, his probabilities of doing the various acts evolve4 until, at the time of decision, his probabilities of doing the selected act become virtually one.

Key concepts: Dynamics (music), Mathematical economics, Bayesian probability, Game theory, Epistemology, Computer science, Psychology, Philosophy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Deliberational Dynamics and The Foundations of Bayesian Game Theory — Research Paper | ScholarLens