Interactive Epistemology and Reasoning: On the Foundations of Game Theory

Game theory describes and analyzes strategic interaction. It is usually distinguished between static games, which are strategic situations in which the players choose only once as well as simultaneously, and dynamic games, which are strategic situations involving sequential choices. In addition, dynamic games can be further classified according to perfect and imperfect information. Indeed, a dynamic game is said to exhibit perfect information, whenever at any point of the game every player has full informational access to all choices that have been conducted so far. However, in the case of imperfect information some players are not fully informed about some choices. Game-theoretic analysis proceeds in two steps. Firstly, games are modelled by so-called form structures which extract and formalize the significant parts of the underlying strategic interaction. The basic and most commonly used models of games are the normal form, which rather sparsely describes a game merely in terms of the players' strategy sets and utilities, and the extensive form, which models a game in a more detailed way as a tree. In fact, it is standard to formalize static games with the normal form and dynamic games with the extensive form. Secondly, solution concepts are developed to solve models of games in the sense of identifying the choices that should be taken by rational players. Indeed, the ultimate objective of the classical approach to game theory, which is of normative character, is the development of a solution concept that is capable of identifying a unique choice for every player in an arbitrary game. However, given the large variety of games, it is not at all certain whether it is possible to device a solution concept with such universal capability. Alternatively, interactive epistemology provides an epistemic approach to game theory of descriptive character. This rather recent discipline analyzes the relation between knowledge, belief and choice of game-playing agents in an epistemic framework. The description of the players' choices in a given game relative to various epistemic assumptions constitutes the fundamental problem addressed by an epistemic approach to game theory. In a general sense, the objective of interactive epistemology consists in characterizing existing game-theoretic solution concepts in terms of epistemic assumptions as well as in proposing novel solution concepts by studying the game-theoretic implications of refined or new epistemic hypotheses. Intuitively, an epistemic model of a game can be interpreted as representing the reasoning of the players. Indeed, before making a decision in a game, the players reason about the game and their respective opponents, given their knowledge and beliefs. Precisely these epistemic mental states on which players base their decisions are explicitly expressible in an epistemic framework. In this PhD thesis, we consider an epistemic approach to game theory from a foundational point of view. In Chapter 1, basic game-theoretic notions as well as Aumann's epistemic framework for games are expounded and illustrated. Also, Aumann's sufficient conditions for backward induction are presented and his conceptual views discussed. In Chapter 2, Aumann's interactive epistemology is conceptually analyzed. In Chapter 3, which is based on joint work with Conrad Heilmann, a three-stage account for dynamic games is introduced and a type-based epistemic model is extended with a notion of agent connectedness. Then, sufficient conditions for backward induction are derived. In Chapter 4, which is based on joint work with Jérémie Cabessa, a topological approach to interactive epistemology is initiated. In particular, the epistemic-topological operator limit knowledge is defined and some implications for games considered. In Chapter 5, which is based on joint work with Jérémie Cabessa and Andrés Perea, Aumann's impossibility theorem on agreeing to disagree is revisited and weakened in the sense that possible contexts are provided in which agents can indeed agree to disagree.

Une approche psychanalytique de la notion de dangerosité. Violence et subjectivation : le risque de la rencontre

Après avoir situé la question de la dangerosité dans les perspectives psychiatriques actuelles, l'auteur propose de penser cette notion complexe dans un renversement du paradigme couramment admis : ainsi la référence à la dangerosité témoignerait-elle, au premier plan, de la part non symbolisée de la rencontre de la violence. Cette proposition prend appui dans un premier temps sur les propositions esquissées par M. Foucault dans sa compréhension du rapport à la violence et à la dangerosité. Puis, le recours au concept psychanalytique d'identification projective permet de proposer une modélisation clinique de la dangerosité, qui sera discutée à partir de deux observatoires dans le champ des violences sexuelles : celui d'une recherche menée auprès d'adolescents engagés dans des agirs sexuels violents et celui d'une pratique d'expertise judiciaire. First the author proposes to situate dangerousness's question in actual psychiatric field. Then, he proposes to think this complex notion into a reversal of dangerousness's paradigm: the reference to dangerousness will be thought as the expression of non-symbolized part through violence's meeting. This proposition relies in a first time on M. Foucault's propositions about a comprehension of the relation with violence and dangerousness. In a second time, the psychoanalytic concept of projective identification allows to propose clinical comprehension of dangerousness's notion. Two clinical situations about sexual violences will be asked in this plan: a research with Young sexual offenders and practice of judiciary evaluation.

Are relationship patterns with significant others reenacted with the therapist?: a study of early transference reactions.

This study examines how patients' relationship patterns are reenacted with the therapist during the first sessions of psychotherapy. Forty (N = 40) outpatients treated with a Brief Psychodynamic Intervention were included in the study. Their narratives of relationship episodes with significant others (e.g., mother, father, romantic partner, colleagues) were compared with relationship episodes with their therapist using the Core Conflictual Relationship Theme method. The Core Conflictual Relationship Theme focuses on 3 aspects of patients' relationship narratives: what the patient wants from others or from self; how others react to his/her wish; and how the patient consequently reacts. Results showed that 60% of patients display similar relationship patterns with their therapist and with significant others. The patterns that were reenacted with the therapist were not the most pervasive ones but were similar to those found in relationship episodes involving parents or romantic partners. These findings provide some support for the clinical concept of repetition of internalized relational patterns with the therapist very early in psychotherapy. Clinical implications are discussed.