In a stylized strategic situation, two individuals form consistent (self-confirming) assessments as classical statisticians. In equilibrium, where individuals are rational and sophisticated, there are two outcomes: (i) disagreement bears no idiosyncratic risks, minimizes aggregate welfare, individuals cannot recover the truth, and may hold different assessments; (ii) agreement is robust, maximizes welfare, and assessments coincide with the truth. A subjective Pareto criterion compares outcomes based on assessments that players may hold. Whereas agreement is Pareto efficient, disagreement subjectively Pareto- dominates agreement. Under equilibrium assessments, individuals disagree on redistribution. The example relates to “agreeing to disagree” (Aumann 1976), trade and information (Milgrom and Stokey 1982), and a toy macroeconomic example.