I think what it means is that regardless of the emphasis/priority that we place on any one issue/factor/parameter, the person is in fact more oriented towards results/payoff as long as they are informed.
In other words, people will act on "impulse" and change their their initial beliefs on the fly, when given additional information, in order to maximise the chances of a desirable outcome.
Come on, Nash equilibrium are not dead because of one paper. There is a huge competition in bounded rationality for the best theory to explain behaviour, this paper offers a nice contribution to the race but it does not end it. (btw Selten who is an author of this paper got a Nobel prize for his work in extending Nash equilibria).
when you call "impulse balance equilibrium" the winner you mean it provides the most accurate predictions of howpeople actually behave, right? That is, as opposed to how people "should" behave?
I think what it means is that regardless of the emphasis/priority that we place on any one issue/factor/parameter, the person is in fact more oriented towards results/payoff as long as they are informed.
In other words, people will act on "impulse" and change their their initial beliefs on the fly, when given additional information, in order to maximise the chances of a desirable outcome.
Come on, Nash equilibrium are not dead because of one paper. There is a huge competition in bounded rationality for the best theory to explain behaviour, this paper offers a nice contribution to the race but it does not end it. (btw Selten who is an author of this paper got a Nobel prize for his work in extending Nash equilibria).
George:
From the introduction:
Experimental evidence suggests that mixed Nash-equilibrium is not a very good predictorof behavior.
So yes, how people do behave, not how they should behave.
when you call "impulse balance equilibrium" the winner you mean it provides the most accurate predictions of howpeople actually behave, right? That is, as opposed to how people "should" behave?
I dont get it
Mind to elaborate?