Asymmetry cannot be proven inconsistent with player rationality

Evidence

What I am going to argue is that, though symmetry is consistent with the rationality of the players, it cannot be demonstrated that asymmetry is inconsistent with their rationality, while the inclusion of symmetry in the definition of rationality begs the question. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 643

Categorization

• XREF: Directly attacks the Nash/Harsanyi symmetry axioms the reader is mapping onto Gambetta’s private-protection framework and Milgrom et al.’s private judges, where asymmetric bargaining power is precisely what makes Mafia enforcement work. — connects to: Non-symmetry beats both committed symmetry and committed asymmetry. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 631; Defining rationality to include symmetry strips the theory of empirical content — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 650

Related

• Defining rationality to include symmetry strips the theory of empirical content (similarity 0.89)
• Non-symmetry beats both committed symmetry and committed asymmetry. (similarity 0.83)
• Perfect move symmetry neutralizes all interesting bargaining moves in advance. (similarity 0.83)
• Mathematical symmetry fails as a bargaining principle under value uncertainty (similarity 0.83)
• Pure symmetry can single out a unique tacit-coordination point (similarity 0.80)
• Rational players must factor non-mathematical focal details into strategy (similarity 0.79)