Hall’s method reads conjunctures to find strategic moves, not first principles

Evidence

A third conclusion, which is particularly applicable whenever the facilities for communication are short of perfect, where there is inherent uncertainty about each other’s value systems or choices of strategies, and especially when an outcome must be reached by a sequence of moves or maneuvers, is that some essential part of the study of mixed-motive games is necessarily empirical. This is not to say just that it is an empirical question how people do actually perform in mixed-motive games, especially games too complicated for intellectual mastery. It is a stronger statement: that the principles relevant to successful play, the strategic principles, the propositions of a normative theory, cannot be derived by purely analytical means from a priori considerations. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 366 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Strategic principles in mixed-motive games cannot be derived purely analytically — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 366; Marx’s method moves between successive levels of abstraction rather than abstracting once; Method is not rules but the experience of a path making its own history — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 86

Related

• Strategic principles in mixed-motive games cannot be derived purely analytically (similarity 0.83)
• Mixed strategies primarily prevent the opponent’s anticipation of one’s choice. (similarity 0.80)
• Rational players must factor non-mathematical focal details into strategy (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Strategic principles in mixed-motive games cannot be derived purely analytically #corroborates (0.85) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 366
• Marx’s method moves between successive levels of abstraction rather than abstracting once #complicates (0.75)