Half empty, half full and the possibility of agreeing to disagree
AbstractAumann (1976) derives his famous we cannot agree to disagree result under the assumption of rational Bayesian learning. Motivated by psychological evidence against this assumption, we develop formal models of optimistically, resp. pessimistically, biased Bayesian learning within the framework of Choquet expected utility theory. As a key feature of our approach the posterior subjective beliefs do, in general, not converge to "true" probabilities. Moreover, the posteriors of different people can converge to different beliefs even if these people receive the same information. As our main contribution we show that people may well agree to disagree if their Bayesian learning is psychologically biased in our sense. Remarkably, this finding holds regardless of whether people with identical priors apply the same psychologically biased Bayesian learning rule or not. A simple example about the possibility of ex-post trading in a financial asset illustrates our formal findings. Finally, our analysis settles a discussion in the no-trade literature (cf. Dow, Madrigal, and Werlang 1990, Halevy 1998) in that it clarifies that ex-post trade between agents with common priors and identical learning rules is only possible under asymmetric information.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Economic Research Southern Africa in its series Working Papers with number 58.
Length: 24 pages
Date of creation: Oct 2007
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Newlands on Main, F0301 3rd Floor Mariendahl House, cnr Campground and Main Rds, Claremont, 7700 Cape Town
Phone: 021 671-3980
Fax: +27 21 671 3912
Web page: http://www.econrsa.org/
More information through EDIRC
Common Knowledge; No-Trade Results; Rational Bayesian Learning; Bounded Rationality; Choquet Expected Utility Theory; Bayesian Updating; Dynamic Inconsistency;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
- G20 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - General
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Alexander Zimper & Alexander Ludwig, 2007.
MEA discussion paper series
07155, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Yoemna Mosaval).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.