I kinda lost track of what made me thin about it but one of the conditions for Aumann is that you think the other actor is rational. Then it seemed that it might be rational to not agree if you well-foundedly think the other party is irrational. I think the idea was that if both parties rely on public information and they compete to accomplish something based on that then the difference must come from how they process that information. If they were to process the information in the same way they would need to come to the same conclusion.
So in a way assuming Aumann agreement might secretly assume that everybody “deep down” has the same base policy which might be better warranted if one is looking at information access differences but for genuine opinion differences it becomes much more doubtful.
I kinda lost track of what made me thin about it but one of the conditions for Aumann is that you think the other actor is rational. Then it seemed that it might be rational to not agree if you well-foundedly think the other party is irrational. I think the idea was that if both parties rely on public information and they compete to accomplish something based on that then the difference must come from how they process that information. If they were to process the information in the same way they would need to come to the same conclusion.
So in a way assuming Aumann agreement might secretly assume that everybody “deep down” has the same base policy which might be better warranted if one is looking at information access differences but for genuine opinion differences it becomes much more doubtful.