This is excellent. Before reading this post in 2023, I had the confusion described. Roughly, that Aumann agreement is rationally correct, but this mostly doesn’t happen, showing that mostly people aren’t rational. After reading this post, I understood that Aumann agreement is extremely common, and the exceptions where it doesn’t work are best understood as exceptions. Coming back to read it in 2024, it seems obvious. This is a symptom of the post doing its job in 2023.
This is part of a general pattern. When I think that human behavior is irrational, I know nothing. When I see how human behavior can be modeled as rational, I have learned something. Another example is how people play The Ultimatum Game. When I was shown how turning down an “unfair” share can be modeled as a rational response to coercion, I had a better model with better predictions and a better appreciation of my fellow humans.
The post is short, clearly written, seeks to establish a single thing, establishes it, and moves on without drama. Perhaps this is why it didn’t get a lot of engagement when it was posted. The 2023 review is a chance to revisit this.
I could build on this post by describing how Aumann agreement occurs in prediction markets. On Manifold there are frequently markets where some group of people think “90% YES” and others think “90% NO” and there are big feelings. If this persists over a long enough period, with no new evidence coming in, the market settles at some small percentage range with people on both sides hiding behind walls of limit orders and scowling at each other. To some extent this is because both sides have built up whatever positions satisfy their risk tolerance. But a lot of it is the horrible feeling that the worst people in the world may be making great points. have great evidence.
This is excellent. Before reading this post in 2023, I had the confusion described. Roughly, that Aumann agreement is rationally correct, but this mostly doesn’t happen, showing that mostly people aren’t rational. After reading this post, I understood that Aumann agreement is extremely common, and the exceptions where it doesn’t work are best understood as exceptions. Coming back to read it in 2024, it seems obvious. This is a symptom of the post doing its job in 2023.
This is part of a general pattern. When I think that human behavior is irrational, I know nothing. When I see how human behavior can be modeled as rational, I have learned something. Another example is how people play The Ultimatum Game. When I was shown how turning down an “unfair” share can be modeled as a rational response to coercion, I had a better model with better predictions and a better appreciation of my fellow humans.
The post is short, clearly written, seeks to establish a single thing, establishes it, and moves on without drama. Perhaps this is why it didn’t get a lot of engagement when it was posted. The 2023 review is a chance to revisit this.
I could build on this post by describing how Aumann agreement occurs in prediction markets. On Manifold there are frequently markets where some group of people think “90% YES” and others think “90% NO” and there are big feelings. If this persists over a long enough period, with no new evidence coming in, the market settles at some small percentage range with people on both sides hiding behind walls of limit orders and scowling at each other. To some extent this is because both sides have built up whatever positions satisfy their risk tolerance. But a lot of it is the horrible feeling that the worst people in the world may
be making great points.have great evidence.