I’d like people not to threaten to hit me to get my stuff. I’d like people to trade with me. I’d like people who trade with me not to precommit to taking 90% of the gains from trade. I’d also like people who trade with me not to precommit to taking 10% of the gains from trade.
Hell, if someone is going to hit me anyway, I’d like the option of paying them a little to make them hit less hard.
It seems to me that counterfactual is just another word for default—ie the alternative that would have happened if they’d not decided to extort/trade.
It seems to me that counterfactual is just another word for default—ie the alternative that would have happened if they’d not decided to extort/trade.
Sure, we can use default as another name for a particular counterfactual. Note that many people around here are already asking “how should we compute logical counterfactuals?” Thinking about defaults suggests an emphasis on different considerations, like norms, which seem like the wrong place to start.
(Note also that “what would have happened if they’d not decided to extort/trade” isn’t the right counterfactual, so if that’s what “default” means then I don’t think that defaults are the important questions. We care about counterfactuals over our behavior, or over other peoples’ beliefs about our behavior.)
I’d like people not to threaten to hit me to get my stuff. I’d like people to trade with me. I’d like people who trade with me not to precommit to taking 90% of the gains from trade. I’d also like people who trade with me not to precommit to taking 10% of the gains from trade.
Hell, if someone is going to hit me anyway, I’d like the option of paying them a little to make them hit less hard.
It seems to me that counterfactual is just another word for default—ie the alternative that would have happened if they’d not decided to extort/trade.
Sure, we can use default as another name for a particular counterfactual. Note that many people around here are already asking “how should we compute logical counterfactuals?” Thinking about defaults suggests an emphasis on different considerations, like norms, which seem like the wrong place to start.
(Note also that “what would have happened if they’d not decided to extort/trade” isn’t the right counterfactual, so if that’s what “default” means then I don’t think that defaults are the important questions. We care about counterfactuals over our behavior, or over other peoples’ beliefs about our behavior.)