At larger scales, common salience or focal points and conventions, drive a lot of our legal and financial coordination. An everyday example is driving on the left, or on the right. It doesn't matter as long as everyone agrees to drive on the same side, as in the joke about the woman who calls her husband during his morning commute and says, "Be careful, honey. The radio says that there's a maniac driving on the wrong side of the freeway."在更大的范围内，共同的显著性（焦点）和约定，驱动了我们大量的法律与金融协作。一个日常例子是——在左侧行驶还是在右侧行驶。只要大家一致，选哪一边都无所谓。这就像那个笑话：一位女士在丈夫的早高峰通勤途中打电话对他说：“小心点，亲爱的，广播里说高速公路上有个疯子在逆行。”

And he says, "One maniac? There are hundreds of them."丈夫回答：“一个疯子？有几百个呢。”

Another everyday example is money. I accept a piece of paper in exchange for an old chair, because I know that my grocer will accept it in exchange for some groceries because he knows his supplier will accept it, and so on.另一个日常例子是货币。我愿意用一张纸来交换一把旧椅子，因为我知道杂货商会接受它换取食品，而他也知道他的供货商会接受它，如此循环。

Now not all the examples are this obvious. Why are autocrats terrified of public protests? Well the basic reason was explained by Gandhi in the eponymous movie when he said, "100,000 Englishmen cannot control 350 million Indians if the Indians refuse to cooperate." The problem is that the Indians can't refuse to cooperate if each one fears that no one will join him.当然，并非所有例子都这么显而易见。为什么独裁者会害怕公众示威？根本原因在《甘地》这部电影中就有解释——甘地说：“如果印度人拒绝合作，十万英国人无法统治三亿五千万印度人。”问题在于，如果每个印度人都担心没有人会和自己一起行动，他们就不可能拒绝合作。

In a public demonstration, each protester can see the other protesters see the other protesters, and this common knowledge allows them to coordinate their resistance, whether by literally storming the palace or by bringing the apparatus of the state to a halt through boycotts and work stoppages.在一次公开示威中，每个抗议者都能看到其他抗议者看到其他抗议者的存在，这种“公共知识”让他们得以协调抵抗——无论是直接冲击王宫，还是通过抵制与罢工让国家机器停摆。

This is the basis for a joke from the old Soviet Union, in which a man in Red Square is handing out leaflets to passersby. Soon enough, the KGB arrest him, only to discover that the leaflets are blanksheetsof paper. They say, "What is the meaning of this?"这就是一个来自前苏联笑话的逻辑基础：一个人在红场向路人发传单，很快就被克格勃逮捕。但当他们查看传单时，发现全是白纸。他们问：“这是什么意思？”

And the man says, "What's there to say? It's so obvious."那人答道：“还用说吗？这不是显而易见吗？”
The point of the joke is the man was generating subversive common knowledge. And in a case of life imitating a joke, in recent years, Russian police have arrested several people for holding, yes, blank signs.这个笑话的重点是——那个人在制造颠覆性的“公共知识”。而在现实生活模仿笑话的案例中，近年来俄罗斯警方确实逮捕了几名举着……对，空白标语牌的人。

Another non-obvious example comes from the world of investing. John Maynard Keynes compared speculative investing to a newspaper beauty contest, in which the winner is not the woman with the prettiest face but the contestant who chooses the face that is chosen by the greatest number of other contestants, each of whom is anticipating the choices of other contestants, and so on.另一个不那么显而易见的例子来自投资领域。约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯将投机投资比作报纸上的选美比赛，比赛的赢家并不是选出最美面孔的人，而是选出最多其他参赛者会选的面孔的人——而每个参赛者都在推测其他参赛者的选择，如此往复。