From Pluralistic Ignorance to Common Knowledge with Social Assurance Contracts
Matthew Cashman

TL;DR
This paper introduces social assurance contracts that reveal latent consensus safely, encouraging honest public discourse by making private beliefs publicly known only when a threshold is met.
Contribution
It develops a formal model for social assurance contracts, providing rules for threshold selection and demonstrating how they promote truthful expression and reveal hidden agreement.
Findings
Mechanism induces participation from willing speakers with social assurance.
Threshold setting can optimize success probability or public coalition revelation.
Reveals hidden agreement and broadens expression in public discourse.
Abstract
Societies and organizations often fail to surface latent consensus because individuals fear social censure. A manager might suspect a silent majority would offer a criticism, support a change, report a risk, or endorse a policy -- if only it were safe. Likewise, individuals with beliefs they think are rare and controversial might stay quiet for fear of consequences at work or an online mob. In both cases pluralistic ignorance produces a public discourse misaligned with privately-held beliefs. Social assurance contracts unlock latent consensus, making the public discussion more accurately reflect the underlying distribution of actual beliefs. They are akin to an open letter that publishes only when a stated threshold number of private signatures is reached. If it is not reached, nothing is revealed and no one is exposed. Whereas a single hand raised in dissent might get cut off, a…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
