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’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.