Mathematical symmetry fails as a bargaining principle under value uncertainty
Evidence
The uncertainty that can usually be presumed to exist about each other’s value systems also reduces the usefulness of the concept of mathematical symmetry as a normative or predictive principle. Mathematical symmetry cannot be perceived if one has access to only half the relevant magnitudes. To the extent that symmetry is helpful to the players in accommodating their movements to each other’s, it would tend to be symmetry of a more qualitative sort, of the kind that depends on visible context rather than underlying values. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 283
Categorization
- XREF: The ‘visible context rather than underlying values’ symmetry echoes how Mafia norms of honor and insult operate as observable, contextual conventions rather than revealed preferences. — connects to: Binding-agreement machinery becomes irrelevant under perfect symmetry — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 624; Defining rationality to include symmetry strips the theory of empirical content — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 650; Pure symmetry can single out a unique tacit-coordination point — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 658 (+1 more)
Related
- Defining rationality to include symmetry strips the theory of empirical content (similarity 0.90)
- Asymmetry cannot be proven inconsistent with player rationality (similarity 0.83)
- Non-symmetry beats both committed symmetry and committed asymmetry. (similarity 0.82)
- Pure symmetry can single out a unique tacit-coordination point (similarity 0.81)
- Perfect move symmetry neutralizes all interesting bargaining moves in advance. (similarity 0.79)