I’ve seen plenty of cases where people talk about pre-commitment as though you are only pre-committed if you are formally pre-committed. However, maybe this is just an assumption that they didn’t examine too hard. But perhaps it would have been better to call this Legible vs. Effective pre-commitments.
In many discussions, “effective pre-commitment” is more simply described as “commitment”. Once you’re talking about pre- something, you’re already in the realm of theory and edge cases.
There _is_ a fair bit of discussion about pre-commitment as signaling/negotiation theory rather than as decision theory. In this case, it’s the appearance of the commitment, not the commitment itself that matters.
I’d argue that nobody cares about formal pre-commitments, except to the extent that formality increases knowledge of effective pre-committments.
I’ve seen plenty of cases where people talk about pre-commitment as though you are only pre-committed if you are formally pre-committed. However, maybe this is just an assumption that they didn’t examine too hard. But perhaps it would have been better to call this Legible vs. Effective pre-commitments.
In many discussions, “effective pre-commitment” is more simply described as “commitment”. Once you’re talking about pre- something, you’re already in the realm of theory and edge cases.
There _is_ a fair bit of discussion about pre-commitment as signaling/negotiation theory rather than as decision theory. In this case, it’s the appearance of the commitment, not the commitment itself that matters.