Aumann's agreement theorem

The purpose of my personal wiki is Cruxiness,

No two rationalists can agree to disagree.

EY proposes a norm that allows asking "is that your true rejection?" (be careful though because publicly psychoanalyzing someone can degenerate the conversation fast)

Ideal disagreers ask themselves what is their true rejection – they seek out their cruxes (perhaps with a technique such as Internal Double Crux). Or disagreers can play Double Crux with each other. They have learned to ask themselves how and where they got a belief in the first place and skip arguments that sound good today, and can feel the difference between their true rejection and an argument they came up with just now.

Disagreement can often be traced back to one of the following or other reasons:

• Uncommon, but well-supported, scientific knowledge or math;
• Long inferential distances;
• Hard-to-verbalize intuitions, perhaps stemming from specific visualizations;
• Zeitgeists inherited from a profession (that may have good reason for it);
• Patterns perceptually recognized from experience;
• Sheer habits of thought;
• Emotional commitments to believing in a particular outcome;
• Fear that a past mistake could be disproved;
• Deep self-deception for the sake of pride or other personal benefits.

People may find it embarrassing to talk about some of these in the moment, which is partly why you can't expect to resolve every disagreement in the moment – they also need alone time to sort themselves out. But you can at least ask about some of them, e.g. like this: "is that simple straightforward-sounding reason your true rejection, or does it come from intuition-X or professional-zeigeist-Y?"

www.greaterwrong.com/posts/TGux5Fhcd7GmTfNGC/is-that-your-true-rejection

What links here

• *Is That Your True Rejection?