Tremendously insightful and valuable content. Sure hope this reaches more.

Topic of his next book. Looking forward...

The concept of common knowledge is such an ambiguous and complex area :( For example in a larger social group when an incorrect idea is openly stated as common knowledge without any base in reality. > I do very much enjoy and appreciate your presentations :)

A reduction in "friction" for coordination I would add - where "friction" includes violence. If I know thing [A] but I don't know if you know thing [A], and thing [A] illicits deliterious responses from people who don't know the truth of thing [A] then violence can ensue (among other things).

I find that it would be so much easier if we could speak out and just be direct. I've heard that in some cultures, like Germany, that's how they are about things. This is an interesting way of naming this concept, by distinguishing between common knowledge (honesty blurted out), versus perhaps ambiguous knowledge or ambiguous ideas (using indirect language). I feel like I would prefer to be clear all the time, but the reason why I can't is because there are restrictions in our society. In the emperor story, the people were afraid, because the emperor was the authority, and they couldn't say it. Or they didn't see it, because they had been indoctrinated into thinking it was normal for the emperor to do what ever they wanted. They could have come to the realization of the emperor's lack of clothes in their own, if freedom of thought and expression had been allowable, perhaps. The stag hunt story might be more about two hunters wanting to be anonymous, and perhaps not wanting the other hunter to sabotage their hunt. There are different reasons why people doing an activity or conducting a business, might want to keep things to themselves. Although, I don't see why they can't talk things out and work together as partners to both hunt the stag for a deal. When dealing with social interactions with friends, I only feel the restriction of common knowledge, in the context of work or when dealing with strangers or acquaintances where I don't know if they'll be offended by what I'm saying or not. If you're at a workplace, there might be rules of engagement, where you can't offend people, so that means you have to be very vague, until you can build up to a friendship. Normally, if you're interacting in the streets with someone you can be more honest. I think in the past, where there was more undiscovered lands and frontiers, there were times in history where you could be honest and perhaps that's why we admire the pioneers and explorers that were free and unrestricted. Usually there are societal and wider cultural codes of conduct that are enforced and prevent anyone from just asserting themselves, except those in authority, like in a workplace. I guess, maybe the reason why people don't want common knowledge to be commonly said out loud is because they don't want everyone just coming up to you and declaring that the emperor has no clothes. They want people to stay quiet most of the time. It's similar to if everyone had confidence to talk to you, then you'd never make it across the street without interruption. So maybe keeping people knowing that you know that they know that they should not be direct and assertive, is a way of having society move on, and minimizing actual moments of honesty between people. I still prefer directness and honesty when dealing with friends and dating relationships, because otherwise it just seems like you're being deceptive (saying things you don't mean) or you're afraid to take action, when that might not be your intent. I guess, what I'm saying is I wish we could all just be honest. It would be so much easier. In fact, you'll find that with most older people, that's exactly the discovery they make! That's why senior citizens tend to be more honest about eschewing cultural norms. Thanks Stephen, for another interesting topic, about things we often think about, but don't always say out loud.

Well I came back for another episode and the audio is still not fixed, weeks later.

“Symphony”? What do you know about music?

nice hair :)

lol I had that very date scenario in reverse. My blind-date asked if I wanted to go back to her place to watch movies. I totally went through the whole thought process like you described. I was like wait did that just mean what I thought it meant? Then my quick knee-jerk reaction of no wasn't about watching videos. lol Then I'm left second guessing myself until my stepbrother confirmed what Captain Obvious already knew... lol

Punctuation error in the caption

Maybe Sally thinks Harry means sex when he asks her over to watch Netflix, but in actuality, Harry really means watch Netflix because there's a show he really doesn't want to miss. Maybe it was a topic of conversation, and sally said she had never seen the show. Common knowledge seems like a lot of assumptions. If i ask a female if she'd like to get a cup of coffee or a bite to eat, and she assumes im asking her on a date, she assumed wrong. I like coffee and i like to talk, but i don't date. Common knowledge seems to require a direct interchange of information. Maybe that's just me. Peace and Ahev

Common knowledge says that you need to correct "it's" to "its" in your title. It's always means 'it is.'

i know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that i know that you know that Ekaterina Schulmann knows that Smeshariki is the bets tv show ever

*its

So, you are characterized as a Neurotypical "genuis," while I am a diagnosed Autistic savant. I am aware of your many takes on language -- especially universal grammar, and I have often thought you are wrong. I am also aware of your credentials, but I still think that ultimately you are wrong. The flaw that makes you wrong is a Neurotypical assumption that there is only one kind of human. But, there is more than one kind of human, since there are at least two: Neurotypical humans and Autistic humans. This video could be called "Neurotypical 101," because everything you are talking about requires you to have a social brain with installation of a theory of mind component. Autistic people have a different brain without all the social fluff or theory of mind. Your description of the Neurotypical hive mind use of "common sense" to signal and coordinate Neurotypical actions is very interesting because in the Florida State Courts system's Title II Americans With Disabilities Act Guidelines, judges are instructed to use their "common sense" as to how they interact with Autistic people. Similarly, in Federal Courts, the United States Supreme Court has stated that in applying Twombly-Icqbal to determine the language of a complaint and its 'plausibility," judges can rely on their "common sense." I don't know if you ever inhabit Autistic spaces on the internet or have immersed yourself in the Autistic World, but I can tell you for an evolutionary fact that Autistic people and Neurotypical people experience the World in totally different ways. And, so, because of this, the common sense or common knowledge you speak of in this video is part of the Neurotypical lived experience. Autistic lived experience is very different. This means there is no unifying "common knowledge" that spans both population groups. What this means is that if Neurotypical common knowledge rooted in Neurotypical lived experience is applied to Autistic people, it could be very wrong and very flawed, And I don't think your work is complete without embracing and accounting for these differences. You may well be very right about Neurotypical humans, but they are not the only type of humans who live in this World.

First ;)