David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 43 (3):279-292 (1997)
An agent who violates independence can avoid dynamic inconsistency in sequential choice if he is sophisticated enough to make use of backward induction in planning. However, Seidenfeld has demonstrated that such a sophisticated agent with dependent preferences is bound to violate the principle of dynamic substitution, according to which admissibility of a plan is preserved under substitution of indifferent options at various choice nodes in the decision tree. Since Seidenfeld considers dynamic substitution to be a coherence condition on dynamic choice, he concludes that sophistication cannot save a violator of independence from incoherence. In response to McClennenâs objection that relying on dynamic substitution when independence is at stake must be question-begging, Seidenfeld undertakes to prove that dynamic substitution follows from the principle of backward induction alone, provided we assume that the agentâs admissible choices from different sets of feasible plans are all based on a fixed underlying preference ordering of plans. This paper shows that Seidenfeld's proof fails: depending on the interpretation, it is either invalid or based on an unacceptable assumption.
|Keywords||Sequential choice planning independence axiom dynamic inconsistency sophisticated choice Seidenfeld, Teddy McClennen, Ned|
|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
Wlodek Rabinowicz (2000). Preference Stability and Substitution of Indifferents: A Rejoinder to Seidenfeld. Theory and Decision 48 (4):311-318.
Wlodek Rabinowicz (1995). To Have One's Cake and Eat It, Too: Sequential Choice and Expected-Utility Violations. Journal of Philosophy 92 (11):586-620.
Teddy Seidenfeld (2000). Substitution of Indifferent Options at Choice Nodes and Admissibility: A Reply to Rabinowicz. Theory and Decision 48 (4):305-310.
Teddy Seidenfeld (2000). The Independence Postulate, Hypothetical and Called-Off Acts: A Further Reply to Rabinowicz. [REVIEW] Theory and Decision 48 (4):319-322.
Edward F. McClennen (1990). Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations. Cambridge University Press.
Ludwig von Auer (1999). Dynamic Choice Mechanisms. Theory and Decision 46 (3):295-312.
Paul E. Howard (1973). Limitations on the Fraenkel-Mostowski Method of Independence Proofs. Journal of Symbolic Logic 38 (3):416-422.
Christian W. Bach & Conrad Heilmann (2011). Agent Connectedness and Backward Induction. International Game Theory Review 13 (2):195-208.
Joseph G. Johnson & Jerome R. Busemeyer (2001). Multiple-Stage Decision-Making: The Effect of Planning Horizon Length on Dynamic Consistency. Theory and Decision 51 (2/4):217-246.
Nathalie Etchart (2002). Adequate Moods for Non-Eu Decision Making in a Sequential Framework. Theory and Decision 52 (1):1-28.
Teddy Seidenfeld (1988). Decision Theory Without “Independence” or Without “Ordering”. Economics and Philosophy 4 (02):267-.
Paul E. Howard, Arthur L. Rubin & Jean E. Rubin (1978). Independence Results for Class Forms of the Axiom of Choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic 43 (4):673-684.
Teddy Seidenfeld, Getting to Know Your Probabilities: Three Ways to Frame Personal Probabilities for Decision Making.
G. P. Monro (1983). On Generic Extensions Without the Axiom of Choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic 48 (1):39-52.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads9 ( #177,826 of 1,410,178 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #57,803 of 1,410,178 )
How can I increase my downloads?