Behavioral and Brain Sciences


Short Communication

A critique of team and Stackelberg reasoning


Herbert Gintis a1

a1 Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Northampton, MA 01060; External Faculty, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM hgintis@comcast.net www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gintis

Abstract

Colman's critique of classical game theory is correct, but it is well known. Colman's proposed mechanisms are not plausible. Insufficient reason does what “team reasoning” is supposed to handle, and it applies to a broader set of coordination games. There is little evidence ruling out more traditional alternatives to Stackelberg reasoning, and the latter is implausible when applied to coordination games in general.