Conversations and Incomplete Knowledge

Abstract

Conversations often involve an element of plan�ning and calculation of what to say to best achieve one’s interests. We investigate scenarios of incom�plete knowledge in strategic conversations, where the fundamental interests of the dialogue agents are opposed. For instance, a debate between two political candidates. Each candidate has a certain number of points she wants to convey to the au�dience, and each wants to promote her own posi�tion to the expense of the other’s. To achieve these goals each participant needs to plan for anticipated responses from the other. Debates are thus games; an agent may win, lose or draw. Similar strategic reasoning about what one says is a staple of board room or faculty meetings, bargaining sessions, etc. We show the importance of a certain form of un�awareness in strategic conversation.