Note: I got about a third through this, and… had a strong sense that this was about something important that was worth my time understanding, but something about the description/examples made that hard to do.
(This does leave the article in a state where, I predict, to understand it, I’d have to invest effort, and the invested effort would in fact improve my understanding. But this feels more accidental than optimal)
I think part of it is just that the names are fairly unintuitive. Concession equilibria and Challenge Equilibria don’t neatly map into whatever they’re supposed to be about in my head. I have an easier time understanding jargon if I know why a name was chosen.
In that particular case, I would have chosen different names that likely would have resonated better, but felt it was important not to change the paper’s chosen labels, even though they seemed not great. That might have been an error.
Their explanation is that the question is, will the weaker candidates concede that they are weaker than strong ones and let the strong ones all win, or will they challenge the stronger candidates.
Suggestions for other ways to make this more clear are appreciated. I’d like to be able to write things like this in a way that people actually read and benefit from.
Datapoint: I got the point about challenge equilibria being the place where everyone has to start fighting and taking risks. However I thought that ‘concession’ referred to the employers making concessions to weaker candidates, by hiring some. I suppose the paper’s explanation makes more sense.
I almost gave up halfway through, for much the same reasons, but this somehow felt important, the way some sequences/codex posts felt important at the time, so I powered through.
I definitely will need a second pass on some of the large inferential steps, but overall this felt long-term valuable.
Note: I got about a third through this, and… had a strong sense that this was about something important that was worth my time understanding, but something about the description/examples made that hard to do.
(This does leave the article in a state where, I predict, to understand it, I’d have to invest effort, and the invested effort would in fact improve my understanding. But this feels more accidental than optimal)
I think part of it is just that the names are fairly unintuitive. Concession equilibria and Challenge Equilibria don’t neatly map into whatever they’re supposed to be about in my head. I have an easier time understanding jargon if I know why a name was chosen.
In that particular case, I would have chosen different names that likely would have resonated better, but felt it was important not to change the paper’s chosen labels, even though they seemed not great. That might have been an error.
Their explanation is that the question is, will the weaker candidates concede that they are weaker than strong ones and let the strong ones all win, or will they challenge the stronger candidates.
Suggestions for other ways to make this more clear are appreciated. I’d like to be able to write things like this in a way that people actually read and benefit from.
I think simply explaining that in the OP would have helped
Datapoint: I got the point about challenge equilibria being the place where everyone has to start fighting and taking risks. However I thought that ‘concession’ referred to the employers making concessions to weaker candidates, by hiring some. I suppose the paper’s explanation makes more sense.
Two years later I vaguely recall this being important but don’t think it percolated into my thinking. But, am interested in others looking into it.
I almost gave up halfway through, for much the same reasons, but this somehow felt important, the way some sequences/codex posts felt important at the time, so I powered through. I definitely will need a second pass on some of the large inferential steps, but overall this felt long-term valuable.