Anyway, I'm not knowledgeable enough to dispute the other part of what you say - that game theorists have this diachronic model of rationality. That is interesting, and a bit surprising to me (because I share D^2's sense that most economists see sunk costs as sunk).

Now maybe there's a middle ground here: if there is some kind of generic reason against the reconsideration of a plan in motion, does that already mean that the norms of rationality have a diachronic element? I tend to think No, because I think it is a substantive rather than structural reason.

I think that this kind of reason against reconsideration gives them (most of?) what they want. But if it's just a reason, then it's defeasible; and this seems intuitive, in that blindly proceeding with my existing plan does not seem rationally required if the plan suddenly appears unwise to me.

Ok, I guess there's a debate about how the Bratman/Holton line really works. Perhaps there are generic reasons against reconsideration. When I choose to play, I commit to playing Up, and I have a reason not to reconsider this commitment (and maybe the strength of this reason is time-sensitive).

Of course there is some pressure towards maintaining a kind of coherence in one's planning over time (the literature on intention is full of this), so maybe there is a (good) heuristic according to which rational inconsistency with past choices is to be avoided - but it can only be a heuristic.

It is true that if I play down then my overall pattern of choices is irrational. But is there some rule which says that it is irrational to choose in such a way that my overall pattern of choices is irrational? I don't think there is: isn't it often rational to repudiate one's past choices?

If I understand the case correctly, I'm not convinced this is really true. Let's agree that choosing to play and then choosing to play Down is irrational. Does this mean that once I have chosen to play, it is then irrational to play Down? Not so obvious.

And also, has she never wondered about the phrase "bread and circuses"?

Without such evidence, you just have the speculation that if the Soviets had been involved, the Commission would have suppressed this (because that's what LBJ told them to do). Maybe you think this is likely, based on what you know of the people and institutions involved, but you can't be sure.

The calls you reference cast some doubt on the good faith of the inquiry. But to be confident that it wasn't a good faith inquiry I would want some evidence about how the inquiry was actually conducted, e.g. that Soviet involvement was not properly investigated.

What did they think when they got these calls? Did they intend to comply with LBJ's request or not? They might simply have hoped that the Soviets were not involved, and so they would not need to choose between honesty and realpolitik - maybe they put off such a choice until it was forced on them.

I think that you exaggerate when you say that it definitely wasn't a good faith exercise. LBJ leant on them to avoid blaming the Soviets. But the fact that people have been leant on does not mean that they fail to investigate in good faith. We can distinguish between LBJ's good faith and Warren's.

Only Nick Riggle is cool enough.

She did her job as an investigative reporter very well - what more do we want? I don't think she got the job because of who her husband is, and I don't think she pulled any punches in her coverage. Doubtless it created problems for her, but is there any reason to be suspicious?

It's an interesting example because it seems the conflict of interest was handled successfully. The journalist was instrumental in exposing the scandal, so saying e.g. "she shouldn't be allowed to cover government policy because her husband is a government MP" would be problematic.

There are people who think this is the natural state of affairs, so that anyone who holds some cross-cutting mixture of opinions must be confused or naive.

Maybe this is even the point - to tie potential rivals into the strategy so they have to sink or swim together. But probably just makes cabinet resignations more likely.

One theory is that it is a sacrificial lamb for internal horse-trading. The jewellery policy gets abandoned to placate the party, and in return they get through other harsh policies. Still terrible of course. And that theory may be wrong given that the policy was actually enacted in Denmark.