If you think of a Schelling point as the point we’d coordinate on with no further exchange of information,
The problem I have with this definition is that it makes Schelling point a fairly useless term. I think of Schelling points as the the things that result without specific coordination, but only common background knowledge.
But arriving at that point didn’t involve zero coordination. There’s a bunch of information we all have to know, and there are a bunch of specific reasons why that would be the place to meet. We all had to know that Grand Central exists. That it’s prominent. That it’s a convenient point for getting to lots of other parts of New York City. And people certainly had to coordinate to build Grand Central in the first place.
Exactly this type of background knowledge that’s separate from the game/decision being made.
Yes. And schelling points refer to the latter (IE, coordination that was done in the long time past that creates common knowledge), and not the former (coordination around this specific decision point)
The problem I have with this definition is that it makes Schelling point a fairly useless term. I think of Schelling points as the the things that result without specific coordination, but only common background knowledge.
Exactly this type of background knowledge that’s separate from the game/decision being made.
Yes, but specific coordination today can create the common background knowledge for tomorrow.
Yes. And schelling points refer to the latter (IE, coordination that was done in the long time past that creates common knowledge), and not the former (coordination around this specific decision point)