It seems to apply strongly enough that OP is dissatisfied with dynamics like:
But unfortunately, their misinterpretations can anchor others and skew the conversation, and a dangling unanswered “Cite specific examples?” comment accrues upvotes pretty quickly, and generates oft-undeserved skepticism through sheer representativeness.
… where a person has a huge effects on people’s beliefs just by saying a few things.
(I often get frustrated at the “pop culture” understanding of Aumann, which is about as wrong as the pop culture understanding of Dunning-Kruger or the pop culture understanding of Freud. I agree the above is about the pop culture understanding of Aumann.)
By-default, people would Aumann-agree towards the original post. However, if someone raises doubt, they may Aumann-agree that doubts are plausible, which un-updates them from the original post.
I believe that Aumann agreement doesn’t apply to humans because, among other things, we do not have common priors.
It seems to apply strongly enough that OP is dissatisfied with dynamics like:
… where a person has a huge effects on people’s beliefs just by saying a few things.
That’s … not [really/quite] about Aumann.
(I often get frustrated at the “pop culture” understanding of Aumann, which is about as wrong as the pop culture understanding of Dunning-Kruger or the pop culture understanding of Freud. I agree the above is about the pop culture understanding of Aumann.)
The way I interpret it as being about Aumann:
By-default, people would Aumann-agree towards the original post. However, if someone raises doubt, they may Aumann-agree that doubts are plausible, which un-updates them from the original post.