Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T15:24:23.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On linking cognitive mechanisms to game play: A critique of Morikawa, Hanley, and Orbell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Peter Stone
Peter Stone*
Affiliation:
Political Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6044 stone68@stanford.edu
Get access

Abstract

Tomonori Morikawa, James E. Hanley, and John Orbell have argued that natural selection leads populations who play Hawk-Dove, a game-theoretic stylization of confrontation, to develop the capacity for various “orders of recognition.” Such an argument requires a model linking game play to the presence or absence of various cognitive mechanisms. Morikawa and colleagues present such a model but, I argue, leave it incomplete, unable to sustain the conclusions they wish to defend. The development of a more fully specified model would significantly assist future studies of cognitive structures related to game play.

Type
Critique and Reply
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , September 2003 , pp. 33 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Morikawa, Tomonori, Hanley, James E., Orbell, John, “Cognitive Requirements for Hawk-Dove Games: A Functional Analysis for Evolutionary Design.” Politics and the Life Sciences, March 2002, 21:1, 3–12.Google Scholar
2.Weibull, Jorgen W., Evolutionary Game Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997).Google Scholar
3.Samuelson, Larry, Evolutionary Games and Equilibrium Selection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998).Google Scholar
4.Cosmides, LedaTooby, John, “Better than Rational: Evolutionary Psychology and the Invisible Hand.” American Economic Review (May 1994), 84:2, 327–332, 327.Google Scholar
5.Cosmides, LedaTooby, John, “Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Part II. Case Study: A Computational Theory of Exchange.” Ethology and Sociobiology, (1989), 10:1–3, 51–97.Google Scholar
6.Morikawa, et al., p. 3.Google Scholar
7.Morikawa, et al., p. 6.Google Scholar
8.Morikawa, et al., pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
9.Knight, Frank, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971).Google Scholar
10.Elster, Jon, Explaining Technical Change (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 12.Google Scholar
11.Arrow, Kenneth J.Hurwicz, Leonid, “An Optimality Criterion for Decision-Making under Ignorance,” in Uncertainty and Expectation in Economics, Carter, C.F. and Ford, J.L., editors (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972).Google Scholar
12.Morikawa, et al., p. 6.Google Scholar
13.Morikawa, et al., p. 7.Google Scholar
14.Morikawa, et al., p. 8.Google Scholar
15.Mailath, George J., “Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory.” Journal of Economic Literature, September 1998, 36:3, 1347–1374, 1347.Google Scholar
16.Fudenberg, DrewMaskin, Eric, “The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information.” Econometrica, May 1986, 54:3, 533–554.Google Scholar
17.Simon, Herbert, “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1955, 69:1, 99–118.Google Scholar
18.Elster, Jon, “A Paradigm for the Social Sciences?” Inquiry, September 1982, 25:3, 378–385, 379.Google Scholar