If I understand correctly, you say that two people’s probabilities can fail to converge because they differ in whether they trust the source of some new information.
But to me, that seems like it only pushes the paradox back one step. Shouldn’t everyone’s estimates of how trustworthy each person is also tend to converge? Or maybe most people just don’t think that far?
Your example also doesn’t explain the backfire effect. You assume that everyone moves in the direction of the information that they’re given, just perhaps by different amounts. But can you explain why people might update their beliefs in opposite directions?
If I understand correctly, you say that two people’s probabilities can fail to converge because they differ in whether they trust the source of some new information.
But to me, that seems like it only pushes the paradox back one step. Shouldn’t everyone’s estimates of how trustworthy each person is also tend to converge? Or maybe most people just don’t think that far?
Your example also doesn’t explain the backfire effect. You assume that everyone moves in the direction of the information that they’re given, just perhaps by different amounts. But can you explain why people might update their beliefs in opposite directions?