Transcript
  • 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


Are Disagreements Honest?

New Media  | 23 de octubre de 2007  | Vistas: 1413

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


Conferencista

Robin Hanson is an associate professor at George Mason University and…

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