According to Nature, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker’s new book “When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows” explores how common knowledge—the recursive awareness that “I know that you know that I know”—drives social coordination, revolutions, and cancel culture. Pinker argues that this phenomenon explains everything from financial bubbles to social media shaming mobs, with public signals enabling coordination that private knowledge cannot achieve. This research provides crucial insights into how societies function and sometimes fracture.
Table of Contents
The Cognitive Architecture of Shared Understanding
What makes Pinker’s approach particularly compelling is how it bridges cognitive science with real-world social dynamics. The concept of common knowledge isn’t merely academic—it’s the invisible infrastructure that enables human cooperation at scale. While Pinker focuses on the psychological mechanisms, the broader implication is that societies function through layered networks of mutual awareness that operate far beyond individual consciousness. This explains why seemingly minor public events can trigger massive social shifts—they create instant common knowledge that bypasses the slow accumulation of private beliefs.
The Double-Edged Sword of Public Knowledge
Pinker’s research reveals a critical vulnerability in social systems: the fragility of coordination equilibria. When common knowledge breaks down—whether through censorship, misinformation, or social fragmentation—the entire edifice of cooperation can collapse rapidly. This explains why authoritarian regimes instinctively target public assembly and free speech—not merely to suppress dissent, but to prevent private grievances from becoming coordination-enabling common knowledge. The real danger isn’t that people know the regime is oppressive, but that they know everyone else knows, creating the conditions for collective action.
This dynamic also illuminates modern phenomena like cancel culture and deplatforming movements. These aren’t merely about suppressing unpopular views—they’re strategic efforts to control what becomes common knowledge within a community. When certain ideas or facts are removed from public discourse, they cannot achieve the recursive awareness necessary to coordinate opposition or challenge existing norms. This creates an inherent tension between social harmony and intellectual freedom that Pinker only begins to address.
Implications for Digital Society and Governance
The digital age has fundamentally transformed how common knowledge forms and spreads. Social media platforms have become unprecedented common knowledge generators, capable of creating global awareness almost instantaneously. However, this comes with significant risks—the same mechanisms that enable beneficial social coordination also facilitate financial panics, misinformation cascades, and moral panics. The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent bank runs demonstrated how digital communication can accelerate the transition from private doubt to public panic.
Furthermore, the fragmentation of media ecosystems means we increasingly lack shared common knowledge foundations. Different political and social groups operate with entirely different sets of “public facts,” making national coordination nearly impossible. This explains the current polarization crisis better than theories focusing merely on differing opinions—the problem isn’t that we disagree, but that we lack common knowledge about what we disagree about.
Navigating the Common Knowledge Economy
Looking forward, societies will need to develop new institutions and norms to manage common knowledge in an increasingly digital world. The challenge isn’t merely preserving free speech, but ensuring that diverse perspectives can achieve common knowledge status without triggering coordination breakdowns. This requires designing digital platforms and public spaces that facilitate the gradual, thoughtful development of shared understanding rather than instant outrage cascades.
Pinker’s work suggests that the health of any society depends on maintaining a delicate balance—enough common knowledge to enable cooperation and trust, but sufficient diversity of private knowledge to foster innovation and prevent groupthink. As we move deeper into the digital age, understanding and consciously managing these dynamics may become one of our most crucial social challenges. The institutions that succeed will be those that recognize common knowledge not as a static state to be controlled, but as a dynamic process to be cultivated.
