UNDERSTANDING

THE AUMANN’S AGREEMENT THEOREM

HAFSA JAHAN
DISPUTES CAN BE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS OR IDEAS, AND
DISAGREEMENTS ARE A SORT OF CONFLICT.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IF YOUR NOTION OR

PERSPECTIVE CONFLICTS WITH THE EVIDENCE. CLAIMS,
OPINIONS, AND ASSERTIONS MAY ALSO CONFLICT.

AN AGREEMENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS A SIGN

OF TWO OR MORE PEOPLE'S CONSENT TO ONE
ANOTHER. IT OCCURS THROUGH AN OFFER AND
AN ACCEPTANCE AND REPRESENTS A COMING
TOGETHER OF THE MINDS WITH A SHARED GOAL.
WORDS, BEHAVIOR, AND IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
EVEN SILENCE CAN ALL BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE AN
AGREEMENT.

THESE KINDS OF AGREEMENTS ARE BASED ON TRUST

AND AREN'T LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE IN COURT OR
THROUGH ARBITRATION; AS A RESULT, IF ONE PARTY
DOESN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON THEIR PROMISES (FOR
INSTANCE, IF A GUEST DIDN'T SHOW UP TO THE
WEDDING DESPITE HAVING PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO
DO SO), THE OTHER PARTY IS UNLIKELY TO BE ABLE TO
SEEK REDRESS OR ENFORCEMENT IN COURT.

 PEOPLE TEND TO USE THE TERMS 'AGREEMENT' AND

'CONTRACT' INTERCHANGEABLY. BUT IN FACT, WHILE
ALL CONTRACTS ARE AGREEMENTS, NOT ALL
AGREEMENTS ARE CONTRACTS. TAKE MASTER SERVICES
AGREEMENTS FOR EXAMPLE – DESPITE BEING CALLED
AGREEMENTS, THEY’RE OFTEN ACTUALLY BINDING
CONTRACTS.

 EXAMPLE OF A DISAGREEMENT:

CONSIDER A SCENARIO WHERE TWO PERSONS WENT TO

THE CINEMA. JONAH AND SARAH ARE THEIR NAMES.
JONAH NOW WANTS TO WATCH HARRY POTTER WHILE
SARAH WANTS TO WATCH THE AVENGERS. AFTER A
WHILE, SARAH DECLARED THAT SHE WOULD LEAVE AND
RETURN TO HER HOUSE IF JONAH DIDN'T WANT TO
WATCH THE AVENGERS WITH HER. JONAH, ON THE
OTHER HAND, THREATENED TO RETURN TO HIS OFFICE
IF SARAH DIDN'T WATCH HARRY POTTER WITH HIM.

 THE TWO PARTIES ARE ADAMANT

ABOUT THIS ISSUE, THUS IT WOULD BE
QUITE DIFFICULT TO PERSUADE THEM
BOTH. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY
BOTH HAD TO TAKE TIME OUT OF THEIR
BUSY SCHEDULES TO SET A SCHEDULE
AND GO OUT TOGETHER, THIS
ULTIMATELY LEADS TO A VERY SERIOUS
QUARREL.

 JONAH AND SARAH GOT INTO A FIGHT OVER IT, AND

THEY BOTH LEFT WITHOUT VIEWING THE MOVIES.
THERE WERE DIVERGENT POINTS OF VIEW, WHICH IS
WHY THERE WAS A DEBATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

EXAMPLE OF AN AGREEMENT:

LET'S IMAGINE THERE WERE TWO KIDS THAT VISITED

THE THEME PARK TOGETHER. JULIAN AND TOM ARE
THEIR NAMES. JULIAN WANTS TO GO ON THE
ROLLERCOASTER FIRST RIGHT NOW. TOM, THOUGH,
INSISTED ON RIDING THE BUMPER CARS FIRST.

 THEY TALKED ABOUT THE ADVANTAGES AND

DISADVANTAGES OF IT AFTER A SHORT WHILE.
TOM THEN MADE THE DECISION TO SUGGEST
TO JULIAN THAT THEY TRY A COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT RIDE. BOTH OF THEM OPTED TO
TRY THE FERRIS WHEEL FIRST AFTER A LITTLE
CONVERSATION. THEY CAN PICK WHICH ONE
TO RIDE NEXT AFTER SPENDING SOME TIME IN
THE FERRIS WHEEL. TOM AND JULIAN CAME
TO AN ARRANGEMENT IN THIS MANNER.

WE HAVE ALL ENGAGED IN CONFLICTS IN THE

PAST, AND IN THE MAJORITY OF SITUATIONS,
WE HAVE ALL WITNESSED HOW THEY TURNED
OUT.

ACCORDING TO THE EXAMPLE OF THE

CONFLICT WE PROVIDED ABOVE, WE
DISCOVERED THAT BOTH SIDES WERE
IRRITATED WITH THE FACT THAT THEY
COULDN'T AGREE ON ONE SPECIFIC
ALTERNATIVE AND DIDN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO
SETTLE IT.

THERE ARE A FEW EXCEPTIONS, THOUGH.

DISAGREEMENTS DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO END
POORLY OR CAUSE MORE HARM. PEOPLE OCCASIONALLY
START OFF BY RESPECTFULLY DEBATING VARIOUS
POINTS OF VIEW. THEY CAN DISCUSS ABOUT TOPICS
THAT BOTH THE PARTIES DISAGREE ON IN A CALM
MANNER IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THEIR
PERSPECTIVE. THIS MIGHT ULTIMATELY RESULT IN A
BETTER EXPERIENCE THAN WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED.

 WE FREQUENTLY RECOGNIZE OUR BIAS TOWARD A

PARTICULAR PRODUCT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE
APPRECIATE IT. WE CAN ALSO SHARE OUR VERY VARIED
PERSPECTIVES AND VIEWPOINTS. NOT EVERY ONE OF
THOSE OPINIONS IS RATIONAL. BIASES CAN FORM FOR
OR AGAINST A PERSON, A GROUP, OR A VIEWPOINT.
FURTHERMORE, INDIVIDUALS MAY ACQUIRE OPINIONS
BASED ON EMOTION, INCLINATION, EXPERIENCE, OR A
VARIETY OF OTHER FACTORS. STEREOTYPING CAN
RESULT FROM PREJUDICE AS WELL AS BIAS.

A PERSON'S OPINION, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS THEIR

ATTITUDE TOWARD A SPECIFIC CLAIM, SUPPORTED BY A
QUANTIFIABLE BODY OF FACTUAL INFORMATION AND
ENTAILING SOME LEVEL OF THOUGHT, ANALYSIS, AND
REASONING. PEOPLE WILL FREQUENTLY HOLD
OPPOSING VIEWS BECAUSE OF THIS.

 IT DOES NOT IMPLY THAT ONE

PERSON IS CORRECT AND THE OTHER
IS INCORRECT. COMING TO AN
UNDERSTANDING WITH SOMEONE
YOU DISAGREE WITH MEANS THAT
YOU HAVE AGREED TO DISAGREE.

 YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NEITHER OF YOU WILL

PERSUADE THE OTHER TO CHANGE THEIR OPINION
WHEN YOU COME TO AN AGREEMENT TO DISAGREE.
BECAUSE HUMANS ARE FALLIBLE RATIONAL BEINGS
WITH COGNITIVE MEMORY AND PROCESSING
LIMITATIONS, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR US TO COMPREHEND
NEW FACTS AND CHANGE OUR IDEAS.

 GIVEN THAT BOTH AGENTS FUNCTION UNDER THE

ASSUMPTIONS OF BAYESIAN RATIONALISM, AUMANN'S
AGREEMENT THEOREM IS PERTINENT FOR A
DISCUSSION OF SOME PROPOSITION BETWEEN TWO
AGENTS. FOR EXAMPLE: IMAGINE THAT BEST FRIENDS
RONALD AND FIONA ARE DEBATING WHO THE BEST
MASTERCHEF CONTENDER IS FOR THE UPCOMING
SEASON.

 NO ONE OPINION IS OBVIOUSLY RIGHT OR WRONG.

JUST CHOOSE WHAT YOU DESIRE. IT'S PREFERABLE IN
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO COME TO AN
UNDERSTANDING. FIGHTING AND ARGUING MAY LEAD
TO WOUNDED FEELINGS. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE
BEHAVE FURIOUSLY AND HURT SOMEONE ELSE? THE
MAJORITY OF THE TIME, HOWEVER, THAT PERSON NOT
ONLY LASHES OUT IN RETALIATION, BUT THEY ALSO
PASS IT ON TO THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL, CREATING
A NEVER-ENDING DOMINO EFFECT.

 PEOPLE CAN CONSIDER HOW THE OTHER

PERSON WOULD RESPOND TO WHAT THEY SAY
TO THEM IF THEY CONSIDER WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO SAY TO THEM BEFORE EXPRESSING
IT. AGREEING TO DISAGREE DOESN’T MEAN
YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP YOUR OPINION.

 INSTEAD, YOU JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PEOPLE

HAVE THE FREEDOM TO HAVE DIFFERING
OPINIONS. SIMPLY AGREE NOT TO DISAGREE ABOUT
IT. AUMANN'S AGREEMENT THEOREM, A TENET OF
GAME THEORY, FORETELLS THE RESULTS OF
CLOSED-FORM GAMES IN WHICH PLAYERS MUST
CHOOSE BETWEEN POSSIBLE OUTCOMES.

 THE PHRASE "AGREE TO DISAGREE" HAS OFTEN

BEEN USED TO CONCLUDE TENSE DISCUSSIONS,
AND ON THE SURFACE IT APPEARS TO BE A POLITE
CONCLUSION TO A FRUITFUL, INTERESTING
DISCUSSION. WHEN YOU AGREE TO DISAGREE,
YOU BUILD PEACEFUL AND HARMONIOUS
RELATIONSHIPS.
THE ROAD THAT SMARTER PEOPLE CHOOSE IS ONE OF
PEACE AND HARMONY IN ORDER TO PROMOTE
PROGRESS AND SUCCESS IN A SOCIETY. NUMEROUS
CONCEPTS, SUCH AS HANDLING CONFLICTS,
REMAINING COMPOSED AND FOCUSED, RESOLVING
DISAGREEMENTS, ADJUSTING, ADAPTING,
NEUTRALIZING, ADHERING TO THE "MIDDLE WAY"
PRINCIPLE, ETC., SUPPORT THE LOGIC OF PEACE AND
HARMONY.

 THERE WILL ALWAYS BE DISAGREEMENTS. BUT IT

DOESN'T HAVE TO ESCALATE INTO A SERIOUS ISSUE.
RESPECTING OTHER PEOPLE'S VIEWPOINTS DOES NOT
ENTAIL BETRAYING OUR OWN.

DEPENDING ON WHERE WE ARE, WHO WE ARE WITH,

AND WHAT WE ARE DOING, OUR RESPONSE TO
DISAGREEMENT VARIES. WE MAY RESPECT PEOPLE BY
ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE OPINIONS THAT DIFFER
FROM OUR OWN.

 REFERENCES:

AUMANN, R.J. (1976), “AGREEING TO DISAGREE”, ANNALS OF STATISTICS 4, 1236–1239.

AUMANN, R.J. (1995), “INTERACTIVE EPISTEMOLOGY”, DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 67,
CENTER FOR RATIONALITY AND INTERACTIVE DECISION THEORY, THE HEBREW
UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM.
AARONSON, S. (2015) ‘COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND AUMANN’S AGREEMENT THEOREM’,
HTTPS://WWW.SCOTTAARONSON.COM/BLOG/?P=2410
COWEN, T., & HANSON, R. (2002). ARE DISAGREEMENTS HONEST. JOURNAL OF
ECONOMIC METHODOLOGY.
COWEN, T. (2018) ‘WHAT TO MAKE OF ROBERT AUMANN’S “AGREEMENT THEOREM”?’,
MARGINAL REVOLUTION,
HTTPS://MARGINALREVOLUTION.COM/MARGINALREVOLUTION/2018/05/MAKE-
ROBERT-AUMANNS-AGREEMENT-THEOREM.HTML
DAI, W. (2009) ‘PROBABILITY SPACE & AUMANN AGREEMENT’, LESSWRONG,
HTTPS://WWW.LESSWRONG.COM/POSTS/JDK3KR4UG9KJVKZGY/PROBABILITY-SPACE-
AND-AUMANN-AGREEMENT
HELLMAN, ZIV (2013). "ALMOST COMMON PRIORS". INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GAME
THEORY. 42 (2): 399–410.
AUMANN'S AGREEMENT THEOREM, THE URBAN ENGINE:
HTTP://THEURBANENGINE.COM/BLOG//AUMANNS-AGREEMENT-THEOREM
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO AGREE TO DISAGREE? WONDEROPOLIS,
HTTPS://WONDEROPOLIS.ORG/WONDER/WHAT-DOES-IT-MEAN-TO-AGREE-TO-
DISAGREE