Do we have reason to think that games where both players make their move simultaneously are more important than games where you get to see your opponent’s move before you make yours, or other game structures?
My priors are that most important social situations are not best modeled as simultaneous games.
In a formal game, the player must make his move all the way, he is not allowed pauses, feints or tentative half-moves whose second half depends on the equally tentative reactions, tâtonnements of the other player. In the state of nature a player, before even making a half-move, may make speeches, brandish his weapon, cajole, etc. Depending on the other player’s reaction or rather on his reading of it, he may walk away (if the other stands his ground), or strike a blow (either because the other looks about to strike first, or because he is looking the other way), or perhaps hear and consider an offer of Danegeld.
Do we have reason to think that games where both players make their move simultaneously are more important than games where you get to see your opponent’s move before you make yours, or other game structures?
My priors are that most important social situations are not best modeled as simultaneous games.
-- Anthony de Jasay, The State