Steven Pinker

When the little boy said the emperor was naked, he wasn't telling them anything they didn't already know. But he added to their knowledge nonetheless. By blurting out what everyone could see within earshot of the others, he ensured that everyone else knew what they knew, that everyone knew that, and so on. And that changed their relationship with the emperor, from obsequious deference to ridicule and scorn.

Hans Christian Andersen ilmaista tarinaa meneillistä logiallista erottelua. Yksityisen tietojen kanssa tiedän jotain, ja sinä tiedät sen. Yksityisen tietojen kanssa tiedän sitä tietoa,

and you know it, but in addition, I know that you know it, and you know that I know it, and I know that you know that I know it ad infinitum. Of course, the reason that common knowledge is significant is that it is essential for coordination. In a classic example from Thomas Schelling, a couple is separated in Manhattan, incommunicado, and somehow must find each other.

Hän tietää, että hän ymmärtää, että hän ymmärtää, että hän ymmärtää, että hän ymmärtää, että hän ymmärtää, että hän ymmärtää, että hän ymmärtää, että hän ymmärtää, että hän ymmärtää, että hän ymmärtää,

Meanwhile, she is whipsawed by the same futile empathy. Nothing short of common knowledge can guarantee that they'll end up at the same place at the same time. Of course, no one can think an infinite Russian doll of I know that she knows that I know that she knows thoughts. Our heads start to spin with three or four layers, let alone an infinite number.

In a well-known episode of Friends, Phoebe says to Rachel, they don't know we know, they know we know. Joey, you can't say anything. And he replies, I couldn't even if I wanted to.

Yleensä yleinen tieto voidaan käsitellä yksinkertaisella mentaali-intuisialla, että jotkut asiat ovat yleisöllä, yksinkertaisilla tai ulkopuolella. Tämä voidaan käsitellä suoraan puheeseen, kuten meidän yksiköiden tapauksen tapauksessa, telefonin puheluun. Oikeastaan koordinoinnin ratkaiseminen voi olla syytä, miksi kielten käsitys alkoi ensimmäiseksi.

In the absence of a public event, the next best thing is conspicuous salience, or a focal point. Schelling suggests that our couple might gravitate toward the big clock in Grand Central Station, even if it wasn't particularly close to the point at which they'd been separated, simply because each might anticipate that it would pop into the mind of the other.

A third solution is a convention. A tacit agreement to do something in a certain way for no other reason than they have agreed to do it that way, which is reason enough. Our separated couple might agree that should they ever be separated in the future, they will adopt the convention of chivalry and go to the bookstore. Or patriarchy and go to the camera store.

or whimsy and go to a lost and found in a department store, or fairness and take turns or flip coins. At larger scales, common salience or focal points and conventions drive a lot of our legal and financial coordination. An everyday example is driving on the left.

tai toisella puolella. Se ei välttämättä välttämättä välttämättä, kun kaikki yrittävät mennä samalla puolella. Kuten jokaisella naisella, joka kutsuu isänsä huomenna päivänä ja sanoo, että ole varma, kaveri, radio kertoo, että on maniakki, joka käy väärällä puolella. Hän sanoo, että on yksi maniakki, jolla on kymmeniä.

Another everyday example is money. I accept a piece of paper in exchange for an old chair because I know that my grocer will accept it in exchange for some groceries because he knows his supplier will accept it, and so on. Now, not all the examples are this obvious.

Why are autocrats terrified of public protests? The basic reason was explained by Gandhi in the eponymous movie, when he said, 100,000 Englishmen cannot control 350 million Indians if the Indians refuse to cooperate. The problem is that the Indians can't refuse to cooperate if each one fears that no one will join him.

In a public demonstration, each protester can see the other protesters see the other protesters, and this common knowledge allows them to coordinate their resistance, whether by literally storming the palace or by bringing the apparatus of the state to a halt through boycotts and work stoppages.

This is the basis for a joke from the old Soviet Union, in which a man in Red Square is handing out leaflets to passers-by. Soon enough, the KGB arrest him, only to discover that the leaflets are blank sheets of paper. They say, what is the meaning of this? And the man says, what's there to say? It's so obvious.

Jokein tärkeintä oli se, että hän järjestäisi yksinkertaisen yksinkertaisen tiedon. Jokaisessa tapauksessa, kun elokuva imitellään jokaisen, ruotsalaiset poliitikot harjoittelivat monia ihmisiä, joilla oli, kyllä, sydäntöjä.

Another non-obvious example comes from the world of investing. John Maynard Keynes compared speculative investing to a newspaper beauty contest, in which the winner is not the woman with the prettiest face, but the contestant who chooses the face that is chosen by the greatest number of other contestants, each of whom is anticipating the choices of other contestants, and so on.

This can set off cycles of exuberant recursive mentalizing as investors desperately search for focal points, each one buying an investment not because of its inherent productive value, but because they hope to unload it at a profit on future investors, greater fools.

This can set everyone off in search of conspicuous focal points, such as Super Bowl ads. Everyone knows that everyone watches the Super Bowl. In 2022, cryptocurrency exchanges ran high-concept ads in which they tried to gin up a common expectation of rising prices, not by touting any of the advantages of cryptocurrency, but by warning, don't be like Larry, don't miss out.

Of course, it's only so long that an asset can levitate in midair, suspended by nothing but common expectation. Bubbles pop when the market runs out of greater fools who don't want to miss out on the next best thing, or when the doubt itself becomes common knowledge. This can send investors running for the exits, each desperate to sell a security out of fear that everyone else is desperate to sell it.