Common Knowledge Theory

Why do we need to explain things so many times to each other?
A bit of practical philosophy for your feed: the beauty of Common Knowledge Theory 😉

When we’re not sure if everyone understands our idea, we repeat it. Then we try to check if it’s really understood by asking clarifying questions, mirroring etc. And then we repeat again until the loop of mutual understanding feels either complete, sufficient, or even failed.

Our desire to clarify and get the confirmation of understanding is studied by the Common Knowledge Theory (by Lewis, Aumann, and others), - "I know that you know, that I know that you know, that I know that you know that I know..."

These nested levels of mutual knowledge are essential for common agreement.

I like the Clumsy Waiter illustration:
A waiter accidentally spills gravy on a guest’s white dress. The guest looks angry, and the waiter says - “I’m sorry. It was my fault.” Why did he say that? The waiter knew he was to blame, and he could tell the guest knew it too. But by saying it out loud, he made sure the guest also knew that he knew he was at fault. This means the waiter’s words created at least three levels of mutual understanding.

If we don’t create enough knowledge loops, we may feel like something’s missing between the lines or in relationships. This leads to a strong urge to ensure everyone understands things equally and without any doubt.

And this is one of the explanations why communication and deep feedback loops are so important during any change process.

When we just send the letter once - it's not even a loop. If we request any kind of confirmation, it's the first one. But none of them would know all of them have had confirmed.

Aumann’s theory shows that if even a single level is missing in this knowledge recursion, collective action can stall. People may wait for further assurance of others’ commitment or readiness, and the change may fail to take hold. It's a very recognizable pattern, isn't it?

How many levels do we need?
Hard to tell, I tried to look it up, but didn't really succeed.
So I can speak only from my practice. It's clearly "as many as needed until nothing is missing" situation and concidering we normally work with big groups of people, so something around 5+ sounds like no one would be doubting everyone else is aligned.

So, it's not only "talk more" advice, but "check if you created enough mutual knowledge levels".