Then it seems like your definition is meaningless. Does your invented term mean something like “sharing information and collaboratively trying to reach the best answer?”
As above, I use “Aumann agreement” to mean “Agreement reached by, among other things, taking into account the Bayesian evidence the other’s testimony.” Vladimir is right that most of the work is done by convincing argument in most cases. However, there are many cases (e.g., “which sentence sounds better in this paragraph?”) where taking the evidence of the other’s opinion actually does change the alternative. Also, Anna and I (for example) have quite a lot of respect for the other’s opinion on many subjects, and so we update more heavily from each other’s testimony than most people would.
I don’t think Aumann agreement is a good term for this; there’s a huge difference between that mathematically precise procedure and the fuzzy process you’re describing.
Aumann agreement is already there, it’s a fact of a certain situation, not a procedure for getting to an agreement, unlike the practice of forming a common understanding Luke talked about. My comment was basically a pun on your use of the word “procedure”.
Agreed. This decision-making method is so common we normally don’t name it. E.g. “I was going to dye my hair, but my friend told me about the terrible experience she had, and now I think I’ll go to a salon instead of trying it at home.” I don’t see a need to make up jargon for “considering the advice of trusted people.”
It seems like the purpose of this post was mostly to share your enjoyment of how wise your coworkers are and how well you cooperate with each other. Which is fine, but let’s not technify it unnecessarily.
Then it seems like your definition is meaningless. Does your invented term mean something like “sharing information and collaboratively trying to reach the best answer?”
As above, I use “Aumann agreement” to mean “Agreement reached by, among other things, taking into account the Bayesian evidence the other’s testimony.” Vladimir is right that most of the work is done by convincing argument in most cases. However, there are many cases (e.g., “which sentence sounds better in this paragraph?”) where taking the evidence of the other’s opinion actually does change the alternative. Also, Anna and I (for example) have quite a lot of respect for the other’s opinion on many subjects, and so we update more heavily from each other’s testimony than most people would.
I don’t think Aumann agreement is a good term for this; there’s a huge difference between that mathematically precise procedure and the fuzzy process you’re describing.
The crucial point is that it’s not a procedure, it’s a property, an indicator and not a method.
I’m sorry, I don’t see what you’re getting at I’m afraid!
Aumann agreement is already there, it’s a fact of a certain situation, not a procedure for getting to an agreement, unlike the practice of forming a common understanding Luke talked about. My comment was basically a pun on your use of the word “procedure”.
Agreed. This decision-making method is so common we normally don’t name it. E.g. “I was going to dye my hair, but my friend told me about the terrible experience she had, and now I think I’ll go to a salon instead of trying it at home.” I don’t see a need to make up jargon for “considering the advice of trusted people.”
It seems like the purpose of this post was mostly to share your enjoyment of how wise your coworkers are and how well you cooperate with each other. Which is fine, but let’s not technify it unnecessarily.