Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-h5th4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-01T10:41:07.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Probably, approximately useful frames of mind: A quasi-algorithmic approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2022

Mihnea C. Moldoveanu Open the ORCID record for Mihnea C. Moldoveanu [Opens in a new window]
Mihnea C. Moldoveanu*
Affiliation:
Rotman School of Management & Desautels Centre for Integrative Thinking, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3E6, Canada mihnea.moldoveanu@rotman.utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Frames for interpreting situations are necessary in the face of time constraints for action and indeterminacy of the “right or optimal thing to do” given multiple objectives but not all frames are equally useful. We need a way of modeling representational frames according to the informational gain of using them and the computational cost of synthesizing a decisive reason for acting from them.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e235
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bacharach, M. (2006). Beyond individual choice: Teams and frames in game theory. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bermúdez, J. L. (2020). Frame it again: New tools for rational thought. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, S. (1971). The complexity of theorem proving procedures. Proceedings of the Third annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daskalakis, K. (2008). The complexity of Nash equilibria. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723.Google ScholarPubMed
Ho, T.-H., Camerer, C. F., & Chong, J.-K. (2004). A cognitive hierarchy model of games. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 861–898.Google Scholar
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799–823.Google ScholarPubMed
Moldoveanu, M. C. (2009). Thinking strategically about thinking strategically: The computational structure and dynamics of managerial problem selection and formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 737–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moldoveanu, M. C. (2011). Inside man: The discipline of modeling human ways of being. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Papadimitriou, C. (1994). Computational complexity. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar