You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Comments on the Interpretation of Game Theory
Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jul., 1991), pp. 909-924
Published by: The Econometric Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938166
Page Count: 16
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Game theory, Mixed strategy, Economic theory, Repeated games, Economic games, Theoretical econometrics, Reasoning, Behavioral economics, Sensory perception, Battle of the sexes games
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The paper is a discussion of the interpretation of game theory. Game theory is viewed as an abstract inquiry into the concepts used in social reasoning when dealing with situations of conflict and not as an attempt to predict behavior. The first half of the paper deals with the notion of "strategy." Its principal claim is that the conventional interpretation of a "strategy" is not consistent with the manner in which it is applied, and that this inconsistency frequently results in confusion and misunderstanding. In order to prove this point, the term "strategy" is discussed in three contexts: extensive games in which players have to act more than once in some prespecified order, games normally analyzed using mixed strategies, and games with limited memory. The paper endorses the view that equilibrium strategy describes a player's plan of action, as well as those considerations which support the optimality of his plan rather than being merely a description of a "plan of action." Deviation from the perception of a strategy as a mere "plan of action" fits in well with the interpretation of the notion "game" which is discussed in the second half of this paper. It is argued that a good model in game theory has to be realistic in the sense that it provides a model for the perception of real life social phenomena. It should incorporate a description of the relevant factors involved, as perceived by the decision makers. These need not necessarily represent the physical rules of the world. It is not meant to be isomorphic with respect to "reality" but rather with respect to our perception of regular phenomena in reality.
Econometrica © 1991 The Econometric Society