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.
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.