-types left you redescribe a complementary coordination problem and a correlative one (with a type-switch): types break the symmetry when many pairs of individuals have to solve the same problem
-
-types are not strategies: they're just tags with no significance ("drive on right" isn't a type)
-
-gradient markers: if type value is continuous (like age or skin color), you can use "If my tag value is greater"
-
-categories provide the extra information needed to break symmetry, but precisely because people can't switch roles
-
-need to specialize in a skill long before you actually pair up and start producing (Steven Goldberg also made this point)
-
-the coordination problem of how much parental leave to offer could be different payoffs to men and women even with equal treatment
-
-one coordination problem can affect the conventionality of another: childcare being incompatible with big game hunting, shrinks the basin of attraction for women hunting big game
-
-Without types, everyone gets the same payoff: that's what it means to be at equilibrium! (If one strategy did better, people would switch to it until it didn't)
-
-bargaining with the Nash demand game: fair demands are the only ESS, but it's possible for 4/6 equilibria to emerge