Questions of the type “What do you think other people would think?”
$begingroup$
For a study in the adoption of new technology, a student and I are developing a questionnaire that will poll domain experts on their opinions of what their colleagues would think about benefits/drawbacks of adopting a particular technology. This is research in social science/business but not strictly game theory, and as we are not economists, we don't know the literature.
Have economists/game theorists investigated questions of the type What do you think other people would think? If several experts can, say, draw technology acceptance distribution functions that reflect their own beliefs about the community's attitude toward a particular strength or weakness of a new technology, then the geometrical average of those distribution functions could be a starting point for inquiry into ranking the relative importance of a set of several strengths and weaknesses. Has this been done before? By whom?
We are not asking for a tutorial here, just a pointer to where should we should start looking for prior art.
Full disclosure: I asked this question on SE/Psychology and Neuroscience and did not receive meaningful answers.
reference-request game-theory bayesian-game
edited yesterday
Herr K.
6,94331235
asked yesterday
Peter LeopoldPeter Leopold
1185
New contributor
Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a study in the adoption of new technology, a student and I are developing a questionnaire that will poll domain experts on their opinions of what their colleagues would think about benefits/drawbacks of adopting a particular technology. This is research in social science/business but not strictly game theory, and as we are not economists, we don't know the literature.
Have economists/game theorists investigated questions of the type What do you think other people would think? If several experts can, say, draw technology acceptance distribution functions that reflect their own beliefs about the community's attitude toward a particular strength or weakness of a new technology, then the geometrical average of those distribution functions could be a starting point for inquiry into ranking the relative importance of a set of several strengths and weaknesses. Has this been done before? By whom?
We are not asking for a tutorial here, just a pointer to where should we should start looking for prior art.
Full disclosure: I asked this question on SE/Psychology and Neuroscience and did not receive meaningful answers.
reference-request game-theory bayesian-game
edited yesterday
Herr K.
6,94331235
asked yesterday
Peter LeopoldPeter Leopold
1185
New contributor
Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
You might want to consider the Keynesian beauty contest
$endgroup$
– Henry
20 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For a study in the adoption of new technology, a student and I are developing a questionnaire that will poll domain experts on their opinions of what their colleagues would think about benefits/drawbacks of adopting a particular technology. This is research in social science/business but not strictly game theory, and as we are not economists, we don't know the literature.
Have economists/game theorists investigated questions of the type What do you think other people would think? If several experts can, say, draw technology acceptance distribution functions that reflect their own beliefs about the community's attitude toward a particular strength or weakness of a new technology, then the geometrical average of those distribution functions could be a starting point for inquiry into ranking the relative importance of a set of several strengths and weaknesses. Has this been done before? By whom?
We are not asking for a tutorial here, just a pointer to where should we should start looking for prior art.
Full disclosure: I asked this question on SE/Psychology and Neuroscience and did not receive meaningful answers.
reference-request game-theory bayesian-game
edited yesterday
Herr K.
6,94331235
asked yesterday
Peter LeopoldPeter Leopold
1185
New contributor
Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
For a study in the adoption of new technology, a student and I are developing a questionnaire that will poll domain experts on their opinions of what their colleagues would think about benefits/drawbacks of adopting a particular technology. This is research in social science/business but not strictly game theory, and as we are not economists, we don't know the literature.
Have economists/game theorists investigated questions of the type What do you think other people would think? If several experts can, say, draw technology acceptance distribution functions that reflect their own beliefs about the community's attitude toward a particular strength or weakness of a new technology, then the geometrical average of those distribution functions could be a starting point for inquiry into ranking the relative importance of a set of several strengths and weaknesses. Has this been done before? By whom?
We are not asking for a tutorial here, just a pointer to where should we should start looking for prior art.
Full disclosure: I asked this question on SE/Psychology and Neuroscience and did not receive meaningful answers.
reference-request game-theory bayesian-game
reference-request game-theory bayesian-game
edited yesterday
Herr K.
6,94331235
asked yesterday
Peter LeopoldPeter Leopold
1185
New contributor
Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Herr K.
6,94331235
asked yesterday
Peter LeopoldPeter Leopold
1185
New contributor
Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Herr K.
6,94331235
edited yesterday
Herr K.
6,94331235
edited yesterday
Herr K.
6,94331235
6,94331235
asked yesterday
Peter LeopoldPeter Leopold
1185
New contributor
Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Peter LeopoldPeter Leopold
1185
asked yesterday
Peter LeopoldPeter Leopold
1185
1185
New contributor
Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
$begingroup$
You might want to consider the Keynesian beauty contest
$endgroup$
– Henry
20 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
You might want to consider the Keynesian beauty contest
$endgroup$
– Henry
20 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
You might want to consider the Keynesian beauty contest
$endgroup$
– Henry
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
You might want to consider the Keynesian beauty contest
$endgroup$
– Henry
20 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents.
The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good entry point to the literature. From its introduction:
Epistemic game theory formalizes assumptions about rationality and mutual beliefs in a formal language, then studies their behavioral implications in games. Specifically, it asks: what do different notions of rationality and different assumptions about what players believe about ... what others believe about the rationality of players imply regarding play in a game?
"Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a less technical introduction.
There is also a strand of literature in behavioral economics that studies cognitive hierarchies. The theories there are developed mostly to explain behaviors in the lab settings. Crawford, Costa-Gomes, and Iriberri (2013) provide a good summary.
answered yesterday
Herr K.Herr K.
6,94331235
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "591"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Peter Leopold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2feconomics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f27158%2fquestions-of-the-type-what-do-you-think-other-people-would-think%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents.
The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good entry point to the literature. From its introduction:
Epistemic game theory formalizes assumptions about rationality and mutual beliefs in a formal language, then studies their behavioral implications in games. Specifically, it asks: what do different notions of rationality and different assumptions about what players believe about ... what others believe about the rationality of players imply regarding play in a game?
"Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a less technical introduction.
There is also a strand of literature in behavioral economics that studies cognitive hierarchies. The theories there are developed mostly to explain behaviors in the lab settings. Crawford, Costa-Gomes, and Iriberri (2013) provide a good summary.
answered yesterday
Herr K.Herr K.
6,94331235
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents.
The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good entry point to the literature. From its introduction:
Epistemic game theory formalizes assumptions about rationality and mutual beliefs in a formal language, then studies their behavioral implications in games. Specifically, it asks: what do different notions of rationality and different assumptions about what players believe about ... what others believe about the rationality of players imply regarding play in a game?
"Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a less technical introduction.
There is also a strand of literature in behavioral economics that studies cognitive hierarchies. The theories there are developed mostly to explain behaviors in the lab settings. Crawford, Costa-Gomes, and Iriberri (2013) provide a good summary.
answered yesterday
Herr K.Herr K.
6,94331235
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents.
The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good entry point to the literature. From its introduction:
Epistemic game theory formalizes assumptions about rationality and mutual beliefs in a formal language, then studies their behavioral implications in games. Specifically, it asks: what do different notions of rationality and different assumptions about what players believe about ... what others believe about the rationality of players imply regarding play in a game?
"Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a less technical introduction.
There is also a strand of literature in behavioral economics that studies cognitive hierarchies. The theories there are developed mostly to explain behaviors in the lab settings. Crawford, Costa-Gomes, and Iriberri (2013) provide a good summary.
answered yesterday
Herr K.Herr K.
6,94331235
$endgroup$
Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents.
The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good entry point to the literature. From its introduction:
Epistemic game theory formalizes assumptions about rationality and mutual beliefs in a formal language, then studies their behavioral implications in games. Specifically, it asks: what do different notions of rationality and different assumptions about what players believe about ... what others believe about the rationality of players imply regarding play in a game?
"Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a less technical introduction.
There is also a strand of literature in behavioral economics that studies cognitive hierarchies. The theories there are developed mostly to explain behaviors in the lab settings. Crawford, Costa-Gomes, and Iriberri (2013) provide a good summary.
answered yesterday
Herr K.Herr K.
6,94331235
answered yesterday
Herr K.Herr K.
6,94331235
answered yesterday
Herr K.Herr K.
6,94331235
answered yesterday
Herr K.Herr K.
6,94331235
6,94331235
add a comment |
add a comment |
Peter Leopold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Peter Leopold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Peter Leopold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Peter Leopold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Economics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2feconomics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f27158%2fquestions-of-the-type-what-do-you-think-other-people-would-think%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
You might want to consider the Keynesian beauty contest
$endgroup$
– Henry
20 hours ago