4 research outputs found
The Confusion of Is and Ought in Game Theoretic Contexts
This paper explores the distinction between normative and positive theoretical statements in
a game theoretic context from a Bayesian perspective. Normative and positive theoretical
statements are often confused in decision making research. The confusion results from some
unique epistemological and methodological problems associated with cognitive behavior as an
object for scientific inquiry. The confusion persists because of poor model validation procedures
which are themselves further complicated by the confusion. The confusion greatly
impedes the development of more useful prescriptions for and predictions of human decision
behavior. From a Bayesian perspective which acknowledges the importance of incomplete
information and imperfect theories of behavior, the confusion is unnecessary
Reply to Professor Harsanyi
Response to HARSANYI, J. C., "Subjective Probability and the Theory of Games: Comments on Kadane and Larkey's
Paper," Management Science Vol. 28, No. 2 (Feb., 1982
Subjective Probability and the Theory of Games
This paper explores some of the consequences of adopting a modern subjective view of
probability for game theory. The consequences are substantial. The subjective view of
probability clarifies the important distinction between normative and positive theorizing about
behavior in games, a distinction that is often lost in the search for "solution concepts" which
largely characterizes game theory since the work of von Neumann and Morgenstern. Many of
the distinctions that appear important in conventional game theory (two-person versus
n-person, zero-sum versus variable sum) appear unimportant in the subjective formulation.
Other distinctions, such as single play versus repetitive-play games, appear to be more
important in the subjective formulation than in the conventional formulation
Adjusting GPA to Reflect Course Difficulty
The computation of Graduate Point Average (GPA) incorrectly assumes that grades are comparable across courses and instructors. GPA overstates the performance of students who elect an "easier" course of study relative to those who choose a more "difficult" course of study. This paper proposes a method of adjusting GPA and applies it to data from one cohort of undergraduates at Carnegie Mellon University. Adjusted GPAs are more highly correlated with students’ high school Grade Point Average and with SAT scores than are the raw GPAs or GPAs adjusted using a prominent alternative method, Item Response Theory. A survey of students finds that the new methods’ estimates of relative course difficulty are consistent with students’ perceptions of relative course difficulty