Robison Crusoe Fallacy

I am new to this answer feature so I wonder if this is actually an AI generated response. If it is, it fells like what I would expect as a submission by a talented freshman who had no idea what a proper answer could be to an essay exam question but had, at some time, read the novel.  The prose is entertaining but the content nonexistent. Grade: D -

PS: I now know more about this fallacy from my own research. Would anyone want to learn more?

Yes, that answer is generated by an actual chat bot. It's very hit or miss as to whether it gives good answers.

I would be interested to learn more.

I found this. It's a decent explanation from the looks of it.

Mistaking the actions of a rational opponent as a given fact or as “nature” is termed as a Robinson Crusoe Fallacy by George Tsebelis. Robinson Crusoe’s actions depended on the predictable nature he was pitted against on the lonely island. However, his discovery of an alien footprint on the sand resulted in a momentous change in his strategy. He now had to face a rational opponent- one whose actions are conditional on that of Crusoe. This fallacy can be amended by the adoption of a game theoretic model to determine optimum actions. However, when decision theory is abandoned and game theory is adopted for models opposing rational agents, counterintuitive results arise. The change in the incentives of a player needn’t modify their actions but could impact the actions of the opponent instead.