IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/eujhet/v28y2021i5p844-869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Jacques Lacan and game theory: an early contribution to common knowledge reasoning

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Courtois
  • Tarik Tazdaït

Abstract

Lacan’s contribution in applying and promoting game theory in the early 1950s is mostly ignored in the history of game theory. Yet his early analyses of logical reasoning made him one of the first social scientists to consider the importance of the hypothesis of common knowledge. By retracing Lacan's path in his discovery of game theory, we show how much he has been a precursor in applying it. While accommodating a narrative approach, he demonstrated rigour and originality. Soliciting mathematicians open to interdisciplinarity, he introduced as early as 1945 modes of reasoning which corresponds to reasoning based on common knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Courtois & Tarik Tazdaït, 2021. "Jacques Lacan and game theory: an early contribution to common knowledge reasoning," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(5), pages 844-869, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:eujhet:v:28:y:2021:i:5:p:844-869
    DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2021.1908392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09672567.2021.1908392
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09672567.2021.1908392?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stahl Dale O. & Wilson Paul W., 1995. "On Players' Models of Other Players: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 218-254, July.
    2. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "Bayesian game theorists and non-Bayesian players," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1420-1454, November.
    3. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    4. Eliaz, Kfir & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2011. "Edgar Allan Poe's riddle: Framing effects in repeated matching pennies games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 88-99, January.
    5. Leonard,Robert, 2012. "Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the Creation of Game Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107609266, January.
    6. Stahl, Dale II & Wilson, Paul W., 1994. "Experimental evidence on players' models of other players," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 309-327, December.
    7. Jean-Pierre Dupuy, 1989. "Convention et Common knowledge," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 40(2), pages 361-400.
    8. Daniel Read, 2020. "The five games of Mr Edgar Allan Poe: A study of strategic thought in ‘The Purloined Letter’," Rationality and Society, , vol. 32(4), pages 369-401, November.
    9. Rabia Nessah & Tarik Tazdaït & Mehrdad Vahabi, 2021. "The game is afoot: The French reaction to game theory in the fifties," Post-Print hal-03081226, HAL.
    10. Regis Deloche & Fabienne Oguer, 2006. "Game Theory and Poe's Detective Stories and Life," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 97-110, Winter.
    11. Frederic KOESSLER, 2000. "Common Knowledge and Interactive Behaviors: A Survey," Working Papers of BETA 2000-07, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2004. "Fatal Attraction: Focality, Naivete, and Sophistication in Experimental Hide-and-Seek Games," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000316, UCLA Department of Economics.
    2. Strzalecki, Tomasz, 2014. "Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 108-122.
    3. Quement, Mark T. Le & Marcin, Isabel, 2020. "Communication and voting in heterogeneous committees: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 449-468.
    4. Dengler, Sebastian & Prüfer, Jens, 2021. "Consumers' privacy choices in the era of big data," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 499-520.
    5. Baethge, Caroline, 2016. "Performance in the beauty contest: How strategic discussion enhances team reasoning," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Betriebswirtschaftliche Reihe B-17-16, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    6. Choo, Lawrence C.Y & Kaplan, Todd R., 2014. "Explaining Behavior in the "11-20" Game," MPRA Paper 52808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Kyle Hyndman & Antoine Terracol & Jonathan Vaksmann, 2022. "Beliefs and (in)stability in normal-form games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1146-1172, September.
    8. Sanjith Gopalakrishnan & Moksh Matta & Hasan Cavusoglu, 2022. "The Dark Side of Technological Modularity: Opportunistic Information Hiding During Interorganizational System Adoption," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 1072-1092, September.
    9. Tilman Börgers & Jiangtao Li, 2019. "Strategically Simple Mechanisms," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 2003-2035, November.
    10. Florian Gauer & Christoph Kuzmics, 2020. "Cognitive Empathy In Conflict Situations," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1659-1678, November.
    11. Dorothea Kübler & Georg Weizsäcker, 2004. "Limited Depth of Reasoning and Failure of Cascade Formation in the Laboratory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 71(2), pages 425-441.
    12. Trabelsi, Emna & Hichri, Walid, 2021. "Central Bank Transparency with (semi-)public Information: Laboratory Experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. David Ettinger & Philippe Jehiel, 2021. "An experiment on deception, reputation and trust," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 821-853, September.
    14. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2007. "Level-k Auctions: Can a Nonequilibrium Model of Strategic Thinking Explain the Winner's Curse and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(6), pages 1721-1770, November.
    15. Doğan, Gönül, 2018. "Collusion in a buyer–seller network formation game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 445-457.
    16. Llorente-Saguer, Aniol & Sheremeta, Roman M. & Szech, Nora, 2023. "Designing contests between heterogeneous contestants: An experimental study of tie-breaks and bid-caps in all-pay auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    17. Nagel, Rosemarie & Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn, 2017. "Inspired and inspiring: Hervé Moulin and the discovery of the beauty contest game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 191-207.
    18. Stefano Galavotti & Luigi Moretti & Paola Valbonesi, 2018. "Sophisticated Bidders in Beauty-Contest Auctions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 1-26, November.
    19. Devetag, Giovanna & Warglien, Massimo, 2003. "Games and phone numbers: Do short-term memory bounds affect strategic behavior?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 189-202, April.
    20. Blume, Andreas & Gneezy, Uri, 2010. "Cognitive forward induction and coordination without common knowledge: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 488-511, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:eujhet:v:28:y:2021:i:5:p:844-869. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REJH20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.