I think that this is similar to the prisoner’s dilemma. If A is in an argument with B over some issue, then a contract for them to each update their probability estimates to the average would benefit the group. But each side would have an incentive to cheat by not updating his/her probability estimates. Given A’s priors the group would benefit more if only B updates (and vice versa). Unfortunately it would be very difficult to enforce a belief contract.
This does not require them to be selfish. Even if they were perfect altruists they would each believe that it would help both of them the most if only the other’s probability estimate was changed.
I think that this is similar to the prisoner’s dilemma. If A is in an argument with B over some issue, then a contract for them to each update their probability estimates to the average would benefit the group. But each side would have an incentive to cheat by not updating his/her probability estimates. Given A’s priors the group would benefit more if only B updates (and vice versa). Unfortunately it would be very difficult to enforce a belief contract.
This does not require them to be selfish. Even if they were perfect altruists they would each believe that it would help both of them the most if only the other’s probability estimate was changed.