• 00:01    |    
    Opening credits
  • 00:20    |    
    Robin Hanson's intervention
  • 00:56    |    
    We like to think we are honest
  • 01:33    |    
    Disagreements under honesty
  • 02:32    |    
    Proving dishonesty
  • Persuasion method: Math
  • 04:00    |    
    Outline of a technical argumentation
  • 04:35    |    
    What is meant by disagreement?
  • 05:06    |    
    Temporality in disagreements
  • 05:49    |    
    Philosophical literature
  • 06:48    |    
    Mathematics as a belief descriptor
  • Description of the method
  • 08:29    |    
    Possible worlds
  • 08:47    |    
    Robert Aumann: Theorem of disagreement (1976)
    • Assumptions and conclusions
      • Common knowledge
      • Bayesian common knowledge
      • The ideal situation
    • Response to the assumptions
    • You can't agree to disagree
    • Which of this assumptions is wrong?
      • Fragile versus robust results
      • Common knowledge
      • We need to know that we disagree
      • We have to know what you will say next
      • Anticipation
      • Opinion convergence
    • Mathematical theory's suggestion
    • Bayesians
      • What does a Bayesian wannabe thinks?
      • Irrelevance of information
    • Common priors
      • Prior definition
      • Why not let people believe different things if they know nothing?
      • Not all priors produce believes that you would endorse
      • The process to produce the prior
      • We are not special
      • Example: Two astronomers
    • Lying or misunderstanding?
    • The complications of the theory
    • We usually believe we are honest
    • Why do people disagree to the theory?
      • Ego
      • We have different goals than believing on the truth
        • We don't like to admit it
        • We can sense it on other people
        • "I am honest"
        • Rational honest people
          • How often do they meet?
          • Probabilities: you are not one of them
  • 36:01    |    
    Questions and answers
    • Do you think politicians agree on what is going to be acceptable in order his purpose to match the others?
    • How do you separate believingand knowing?
    • We choose to believe things, whether they are true or not. How could that explain disagreements?
    • What do time and effort relate with disagreements?
    • Is it better to reach a bad agreement than a great lawsuit?
    • I don't agree that we are supposed to know what people will say next. How am I supposed to predict future opinions?
  • 47:17    |    
    Final credits



Share

Video:

Embed:

Are Disagreements Honest?

23 de octubre de 2007   | Vistas: 1394 |  

About this video

Robin Hanson explains his point of view about disagreements. Hanson's mathematical orientation leads his opinions to a peculiar point of view: analyzing disagreements as a theorem. Hanson supports this idea using the Bayesian model, which he points out as a valuable tool for analyzing arguments.



Credits

Are Disagreements Honest?
Robin Hanson

Milton Friedman Auditorium
Universidad Francisco Marroquín
Guatemala, October 23, 2007

New Media - UFM production. Guatemala, November 2007
Camera: Manuel Alvarez; digital editing: Adrián Méndez; index: Richard Gandara; publication: Mario Pivaral


Robin Hanson is an associate professor at George Mason University and Research Associate in Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford…

IDEAS DE LA LIBERTAD

Nuestra misión es la enseñanza y difusión de los principios éticos, jurídicos y económicos de una sociedad de personas libres y responsables.

Universidad Francisco Marroquín