Aug 2026· Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America· Vol 123· 0 citations· 35 references
Medicine
Abstract
Significance Coordinating actions requires common knowledge: not just knowing something, but knowing that others know it, and so on. This seems impossible for finite minds, yet humans coordinate on scales from couples to countries. We propose people achieve coordination by tracking a few layers of who knows what who else knows and by treating publicly witnessed events as licensing implicit common knowledge. In two studies, participants inferred that public events justified arbitrarily deep mutual understanding, though they sometimes overextended or confused knowledge states. This mix of valid and faulty reasoning helps explain how humans achieve large-scale coordination while also being prone to missteps, from everyday faux pas to collective dilemmas such as bubbles, bank runs, panic buying, and strategic miscalculations.
Throughout life, we accumulate knowledge of how typical certain events are. We use this knowledge in daily conversation, often interpreting meaning beyond what has been said explicitly. In this work, we take steps to better understand this meaning recovery, investigating both atypicality and typicality inferences. Firs...
Alison Chi, Sanghyeok Choi, Hannah Rohde et al.· 0 citations
Effective collaboration requires language models to understand what others know and believe, and to act accordingly. Models that assume others share their information may omit necessary communication and undermine coordination. Many theory-of-mind (ToM) benchmarks assess mental-state inference through story questions,...
Zhen-Shuai Yin, Yong-Xin Guo, Ming-Da Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Preparing for the asymmetric understanding scenario calls for segmented markets that preserve a human fallback, simpler and more robust central bank rules, and less strategic ambiguity.
M. Brunnermeier, Sylvain Chassang, Martin Chorzempa et al.· 0 citations
We all know someone who will not change their mind, no matter what evidence you show them. This article explains why—and why the problem is structural, not personal. Our minds filter information through a sequence of checkpoints that determines what we accept as true, and when. Once misinformation passes through thos...
Syed Umer Ahmad Qadri· Public Humanities· 0 citations
In their provocative paper, Shiffrin, Stigler, and Keil (SSK) declare that scientists have illusions of understanding the phenomena they study “more deeply” than they really do. In this comment I grant their claim a degree of truth and focus on the nature of illusions of understanding. These are a form of meta-ignoranc...
M. Smithson· Computational Brain & Behavi...· 0 citations
The book presents a novel, abductivist theory of knowledge and argues for it over its two main rivals: safety theory and causal explanationism. According to abductivism, a belief constitutes knowledge when, given the way it is formed or maintained, the best explanation of its being true rather than false lies in the...
Sven Bernecker· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.