Lecture 6: actions, agents and game theory

Question 1

covering law model explanation

Answer 1

explanans: that which explains
- the law en cause

explanandum: what has to be explained
- the effect

• this is a species of the deductive-nomological method
• attempts to explain events in which intentional actions play a role

Question 2

causes and reasons definiton

Answer 2

causes: pertain to empirical regularities (laws) and predictions. No references to causes is required to explain motives/intentions
reasons: principles of action (which always refer to intentions) psychological and social patterns

Question 3

opinion of hempel vs. winch about reasons/intentions

Answer 3

hempel: considers reasons/intentions as causes that refer to general laws (can’t be broken)
- example my laptop is 1.2 kg
winch: reasons/intentions aren’t causes: they refer to socially practices and rules (can be broken)
- example: i was too late

Question 4

rational choice theory

Answer 4

• goals and beliefs are translated into preferences
• preferences are translated into utility functions that order preferences from high to low
• preferences are expressed in values (ordinal numbers) and the optimum choice is calculated
• example: chicken & rice is 2 point for utility function, but a chocolate cake is 0

Question 5

dominant strategy in rational choice theory (pay-off matrix)

Answer 5

an optimal strategy for a player, without being dependent on the strategy of other players

Question 6

nash equilibrium

Answer 6

a situation nobody can do better by changing only his choice

Question 7

interpretation prisoners dilemma

Answer 7

• shows there’s a trust problem in competitive games
• rational (dominant strategy) move is one that serves only one’s own best interest
• there can be free riders

Question 8

interpretation assurance game

Answer 8

• assuring for cooperation
• dominant strategy is probably the best option to choose
• group identities, solidarity reinforces cooperation between agents
• no free-rider problem