The player about to be
excluded can "counter-argue" by demonstrating the existence of yet
another coalition in which the members will get at least as much as in
the first coalition and in the coalition proposed by his adversary, the
"objector". Each coalition has, at least, one solution.
The Game in GT is an idealized concept. Some of the assumptions can -
and should be argued against. The number of agents in any game is
assumed to be finite and a finite number of steps is mostly
incorporated into the assumptions. Omissions are not treated as acts
(though negative ones). All agents are negligible in their relationship
to others (have no discernible influence on them) - yet are influenced
by them (their strategies are not - but the specific moves that they
select - are). The comparison of utilities is not the result of any
ranking - because no universal ranking is possible. Actually, no
ranking common to two or n players is possible (rankings are bound to
differ among players). Many of the problems are linked to the variant
of rationality used in GT. It is comprised of a clarity of preferences
on behalf of the rational agent and relies on the people's tendency to
converge and cluster around the right answer / move.
Pages:
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193