= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on Open Thread June 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (534)
That article makes it sound like "countersignaling" is forgoing a mandated signal - like showing up at a formal-dress occasion in street clothes.
Alicorn made a post about the tactics of countersignaling a while back.
I said "standard" because game theory doesn't talk about mandates, but that's pretty much what I said, isn't it? If you disagree with that usage, what do you think is right?
Incidentally, in von Neumann's model of poker, you should raise when you have a good hand or a poor hand, and check when you have a mediocre hand, which looks kind of like countersignaling. Of course, the information transference that yields the name "signal" is rather different. Also, I'm not interested in applications of game theory to hermetically sealed games.
I guess I don't understand your question, then - countersignaling seems like a perfectly ordinary proper subset of signaling.
Yes, countersignaling is signaling. The question is about practice, not theory. Does countersignaling actually happen?
I can't prove that it does, if I'm honest.
I play randomly for the first several rounds, so as to destroy the entanglement between my bets, my face, and my hand.
Unless you're using an external randomness generator, it's quite unlikely that you're not generating a detectable pattern.
He can just play blind, and not look at his cards.
I only care whether humans detect it.