″ Similarly, this argument for averaging could only make sense if the other person would consider averaging beliefs with you for the same reason. ”
No. This is exactly the situation where it would not make sense. If the person has already averaged his belief with others they met, you will end up with a distorted belief. It is percisely when you have two “natural” beliefs that averaging them offers some potential gain.
Ah, what I meant to say was that if Alice and Bob’s “natural” beliefs disagree, and this makes Alice consider averaging her beliefs toward Bob, but Bob isn’t thinking about doing that, then the TDT-type argument can’t be justifying Alice. Even though the TDT argument is about “selfish” gains, its conditions must not be met if Bob isn’t thinking in the same way. I’ll try to edit for clarity.
″ Similarly, this argument for averaging could only make sense if the other person would consider averaging beliefs with you for the same reason. ”
No. This is exactly the situation where it would not make sense. If the person has already averaged his belief with others they met, you will end up with a distorted belief. It is percisely when you have two “natural” beliefs that averaging them offers some potential gain.
Ah, what I meant to say was that if Alice and Bob’s “natural” beliefs disagree, and this makes Alice consider averaging her beliefs toward Bob, but Bob isn’t thinking about doing that, then the TDT-type argument can’t be justifying Alice. Even though the TDT argument is about “selfish” gains, its conditions must not be met if Bob isn’t thinking in the same way. I’ll try to edit for clarity.