The Experimental Philosophy Blog

Philosophy Meets Empirical Research

Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guidelines for Comments
  • Labs and Organizations
  • Resources
Menu

Call: “The Puzzle of Social Behavior – Game Theory and Beyond”

Posted on November 5, 2024December 30, 2024 by Alexander Max Bauer

Mantas Radzvilas and Wolfgang Spohn organize a workshop on “The Puzzle of Social Behavior – Game Theory and Beyond” at the University of Bielefeld. It will take place from April 3 to 5, 2025.

Abstracts for presentations can be submitted until January 6, 2025. The call reads:

There are up to 5 further slots of 40 minutes (30 minutes talk, 10 minutes discussion) for presentations. Everyone interested in presenting themselves is invited to apply for participation. Early-career researchers and scholars from underrepresented groups are particularly encouraged to apply.

For this purpose, please submit an abstract of your talk of at most 1000 words (2 pages) and a CV till January 6, 2025. Decisions on the submissions will be made within four weeks. Those selected will be invited to participate including a coverage of travel and accommodation costs.

Please send your application both to: mantas.radzvilas@uni-konstanz.de and wolfgang.spohn@uni-konstanz.de

Abstract: The workshop will be co-organized by the Reinhart-Koselleck project “Reflexive Decision and Game Theory” of Wolfgang Spohn at the University of Konstanz and the Center of Interdisciplinary Research at the University of Bielefeld. Its game-theoretic part is particularly concerned with foundational issues of game theory. Which is hence the topic of the second workshop of this project.

Social reality is built on the capacity of human beings to engage in social behavior – complex forms of intentional, coordinated actions involving more than one individual. For several decades, game theory has served as the primary conceptual framework for developing a variety of theories aiming to explain social behavior, such as social norms, prosocial preferences, virtual bargaining, and team reasoning theories. All of these theories converge on the idea that social behavior is sustained by sufficiently aligned interests and beliefs of the interacting individuals, yet they disagree on how these necessary alignments of interests and beliefs come about. A number of game-theoretic accounts of social behavior can claim substantial amounts of experimental results as supporting evidence. In many cases, experimental evidence supports multiple accounts equally, thus creating a problem of underdetermination. To conclude, after a number of decades of intensive development, a unified mathematical framework of game theory has not been able to produce a unified account of social behavior.

This conceptually unsatisfactory state of affairs raises a number of important questions. Is there a methodology to select among the competing accounts? Should these accounts be viewed as competing theories of social behavior, or rather as theories that complement one another? Are there better unconsidered alternatives to existing theories? Is game theory truly the best approach towards explaining social behavior?

The purpose of the workshop is to advance the discussion on these and other philosophical questions related to the status of game-theoretic explanations of social behavior.

Tags: BehaviorGame TheoryNorms
Category: CallsMethodsPhilosophy of Action

Post navigation

← Talk: “Maximize Expressivity!” (Nicolás Lo Guercio)
Call: “EPITHETS & STAL-2025 Workshop” →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Search

Categories

Tags

Agency Artificial Intelligence Basic Needs Beauty Behavior Beliefs Bias Bioethics Blame Causation Cognitive Science Consciousness Corpus Analysis Cross-Cultural Research Determinism Distributive Justice Emotions Essentialism Expertise Expressives Folk Morality Framing Free Will Gender Intention Intuition Jurisprudence Knowledge Large Language Models Luck Norms Objectivism Pejoratives Problem of Evil Psycholinguistics Reasoning Reflective Equilibrium Replication Responsibility Self Side-Effect Effect Slurs Truth Valence Virtue

Recent Posts

  • Call: “Valence Asymmetries”
  • Talk: “Intentionality and Discrimination”
  • Call: “Folk Epistemology”
  • Call: “Philosophers on Philosophy”
  • Call: “Moral Epistemology and Social Progress”

Recent Comments

  1. Nova Praxis on The Folk Concept of ArtJuly 11, 2025

    This article highlights an important point: everyday people don’t rely on rigid definitions to determine what qualifies as art. They’re…

  2. Koen Smets on Priming Effects Are Fake, but Framing Effects Are RealMay 27, 2025

    That is indeed exactly the question I have as well. I operationalize it as having de facto contradicting intuitions, in…

  3. Joshua Knobe on Priming Effects Are Fake, but Framing Effects Are RealMay 24, 2025

    Hi Koen, Thanks once again. This idea brings up all sorts of fascinating questions, but for the purposes of the…

  4. Koen Smets on Priming Effects Are Fake, but Framing Effects Are RealMay 24, 2025

    Great! In the meantime I thought of another potentially interesting example of framing—Arnold Kling’s Three Languages of Politics. Just about…

  5. Joshua Knobe on Priming Effects Are Fake, but Framing Effects Are RealMay 23, 2025

    Thanks Koen! This is all super helpful.

Archives

  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Imprint • Disclaimer • Privacy Statement • Cookie Policy

© 2024 The Experimental Philosophy Blog
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View Preferences
{title} {title} {title}