First, I did not get though the entire post. That said, some thoughts that occurred to me.
Under what conditions is does this generalize? I was trying to apply it to my world. If I am hiring part of the problem is not about hard skills but soft skill—and those will differ a bit based on what team the new person will be part of.
Good game theory always wins seems to have directed at the candidates but what happens when the game master (lack of a better term) has poor game theory or doesn’t think such behavior good? Again, from a corporate hiring standpoint that might be a real situation. In terms of consumers shopping around that might also apply (the average advertiser is a better game theorists than the average consumer). Do the conclusions still hold here?
Closely related to the first bullet, just what market settings were considered for the analysis.
I recall an old paper that asked if duopoly was more competitive than the standard atomistic competition in the Econ 101 pure competition model. That was largely driven by search costs and asymmetric information problems. Would theory here be complementary?
My gut reaction is there is some value and truth here but that it should not be taken too seriously. Consider it an area of consideration and element of a solution rather than a solution to any problem of getting the best out of the messy social institutions that mediate our activities and greatly influence the collective/aggregate results.
Small edit to my own comment. I neglected to point out my comments and assessment were really about the what I understood to be the position of the paper under review and not about the analysis per se.
First, I did not get though the entire post. That said, some thoughts that occurred to me.
Under what conditions is does this generalize? I was trying to apply it to my world. If I am hiring part of the problem is not about hard skills but soft skill—and those will differ a bit based on what team the new person will be part of.
Good game theory always wins seems to have directed at the candidates but what happens when the game master (lack of a better term) has poor game theory or doesn’t think such behavior good? Again, from a corporate hiring standpoint that might be a real situation. In terms of consumers shopping around that might also apply (the average advertiser is a better game theorists than the average consumer). Do the conclusions still hold here?
Closely related to the first bullet, just what market settings were considered for the analysis.
I recall an old paper that asked if duopoly was more competitive than the standard atomistic competition in the Econ 101 pure competition model. That was largely driven by search costs and asymmetric information problems. Would theory here be complementary?
My gut reaction is there is some value and truth here but that it should not be taken too seriously. Consider it an area of consideration and element of a solution rather than a solution to any problem of getting the best out of the messy social institutions that mediate our activities and greatly influence the collective/aggregate results.
Small edit to my own comment. I neglected to point out my comments and assessment were really about the what I understood to be the position of the paper under review and not about the analysis per se.