Reconsidering the foole's rejoinder: Backward induction in indefinitely iterated prisoner's dilemmas
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 136 (2):135 - 157 (2003)
According to the so-called “Folk Theorem” for repeated games, stable cooperative relations can be sustained in a Prisoner’s Dilemma if the game is repeated an indefinite number of times. This result depends on the possibility of applying strategies that are based on reciprocity, i.e., strategies that reward cooperation with subsequent cooperation and punish defectionwith subsequent defection. If future interactions are sufficiently important, i.e., if the discount rate is relatively small, each agent may be motivated to cooperate by fear of retaliation in the future. For finite games, however, where the number of plays is known beforehand, there is a backward induction argument showing that rational agents will not be able to achieve cooperation. On behalf of the Hobbesian “Foole”, who cannot see any advantage in cooperation, Gregory Kavka (1983, 1986) has presented an argument that significantly extends the range of the backward induction argument. He shows that, for the backward induction argument to be effective, it is not necessary that the precise number of future interactions be known. It is sufficient that there is a known definite upper bound on the number of interactions. A similar argument is developed by John W. Carroll (1987). We will here question the assumption of a known upper bound. When the assumption is made precise in the way needed for the argument to go through, its apparent plausibility evaporates. We then offer a reformulation of the argument, based on weaker, and more plausible, assumptions.
|Keywords||backward induction game theory repeated Prisoner's Dilemma Kavka, Gregory backaward induction in indefinitely long games|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
José Luis Bermúdez (1999). Rationality and the Backwards Induction Argument. Analysis 59 (4):243–248.
Giacomo Bonanno (2001). Branching Time, Perfect Information Games and Backward Induction. Games and Economic Behavior 36 (1):57-73.
Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour (1998). Backward Induction Is Not Robust: The Parity Problem and the Uncertainty Problem. [REVIEW] Theory and Decision 45 (3):263-289.
Jordan Howard Sobel (1993). Backward-Induction Arguments: A Paradox Regained. Philosophy of Science 60 (1):114-133.
John Broome & Wlodek Rabinowicz (1999). Backwards Induction in the Centipede Game. Analysis 59 (264):237–242.
Thorsten Clausing (2003). Doxastic Conditions for Backward Induction. Theory and Decision 54 (4):315-336.
Luc Bovens (1997). The Backward Induction Argument for the Finite Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Surprise Exam Paradox. Analysis 57 (3):179–186.
Cristina Bicchieri (1988). Backward Induction Without Common Knowledge. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:329 - 343.
John W. Carroll (2000). The Backward Induction Argument. Theory and Decision 48 (1):61-84.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #118,953 of 1,911,681 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #144,539 of 1,911,681 )
How can I increase my downloads?