Salience reasoning in coordination games

Salience reasoning, many have argued, can help solve coordination problems, but only if such reasoning is supplemented by higher-order predictions, e.g. beliefs about what others believe yet will choose. In this paper, I argue that line of self-undermining. Higher-order behavioral predictions defeat salience-based predictions. To anchor my argument in the philosophical literature, develop it response and opposition to popular Lewisian model salience games. This imports problematic way a ‘symmetric reasoning’ constraint. second part player may employ she suspends judgment do.