Download
1 / 9
110 likes | 238 Views
Are Disagreements Honest?. Robin Hanson Tyler Cowen George Mason University. We Disagree, Knowingly. Can predict direction of their next opinion verified in controlled experiment Esp. regarding ability, politics, morality Less on “There’s another tree”
E N D
Are Disagreements Honest? Robin Hanson Tyler Cowen George Mason University
We Disagree, Knowingly • Can predict direction of their next opinion • verified in controlled experiment • Esp. regarding ability, politics, morality • Less on “There’s another tree” • Dismiss dumber, but not defer to smarter • Disagree not embarrass, its absence can • Given any pair, find many disagree topics • Even people who think rationals not disagree
Aumann in ‘76 Common knowledge Of exact E1[x], E2[x] That would say next On matter of fact Bayesians With common priors Truth-seeker, not lie Since generalized to Common Belief Of who max, a f(•, •) Of last E1[x] - E1[E2[x]] Possible world (morals) Wannabe, rational core But We Can’t Agree to Disagree
Which Priors Are Rational? Prior = counterfactual belief if same min info • Extremes: all priors rational, vs. only one is • Common to say these should have same prior • Different mental modules in your mind now • You today and you yesterday (update via Bayes’ rule) • Simple beliefs re prior causal origins => priors same • Common to criticize self-favoring priors in others • E.g., coach favors his kid, manager favors himself • “I (John) beat Mary, but if I were Mary, Mary beats John”
Theory or data wrong? Few know theory? We lie? We not seek truth? All-topic birth-priors? Each have prior that I reason better? They seem robust Big change coming? We usually think not We usually think not Too big for DNA? But we complain of this in others Why Do We Disagree? • We self-deceived non-truth-seeking hypocrites?!
How Few Meta-Rationals (MR)? Meta-Rational = Seek truth, not lie, not self-favoring-prior, know disagree theory basics • Rational beliefs linear in chance other is MR • MR who meet, talk long, should see are MR • Joint opinion path becomes random walk • We see no virtually such pairs, so few MR! • N each talk 2T others, see ~N*T*(%MR)2 pairs • 2 billion ea. talk to 100, if 1/10,000 MR, get 1000 pairs • None even among accept rationals not disagree
When Justified In Disagree? When others disagree so must you • Key: relative MR/self-deception, not IQ/info • Psych. lit. self-deception clues: • Less in skin response, harder re own overt behaviors, older kids hide better, self-deceivers have more self-esteem, less psychopathology/depression • Clues?: IQ/idiocy, self-interest, emotional arousal, formality, unwilling to analyze/consider, ... • But self-deceptive selectivity in which clues use?
Implications • Facts will not resolve poli-econ disputes • Even if we share basic values • Academia models should be of non-truth-seekers • New info institution goal: reduce self-deception • Why speculative markets do well? Use them more? • Self-doubt for supposed truth-seekers • “First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” Matthew 7:5
A gets clue on X A1 = A’s guess of X A told Sign(B2-B1) A2 = A’s guess of X Loss (A1-X)2, (A2-X)2 B gets clue on X B told A1 B1 = B’s guess of X B2 = B’s guess of A2 Loss (B1-X)2, (B2-A2)2 Experiment Shows We Disagree time
