
Publication details
Year: 2000
Pages: 361-384
Series: Synthese
Full citation:
, "What is rational about Nash equilibria?", Synthese 124 (3), 2000, pp. 361-384.
Abstract
Nash Equilibrium is a central concept ingame theory. It has been argued that playing NashEquilibrium strategies is rational advice for agentsinvolved in one-time strategic interactions capturedby non-cooperative game theory. This essaydiscusses arguments for that position: vonNeumann–Morgenstern's argument for their minimaxsolution, the argument from self-enforcingagreements, the argument from the absence ofprobabilities, the transparency-of-reasons argument,the argument from regret, and the argument fromcorrelated equilibrium. All of these argumentseither fail entirely or have a very limited scope.Whatever the use of Nash Equilibrium is, therefore,it is not useful as a rational recommendation inone-time strategic interactions. This is good newsfor Bayesians: although this discussion does notargue directly for the Bayesian idea of rationalityas expected utility maximization, it argues againsta position that has been regarded as a contender insituations of strategic interaction.
Publication details
Year: 2000
Pages: 361-384
Series: Synthese
Full citation:
, "What is rational about Nash equilibria?", Synthese 124 (3), 2000, pp. 361-384.