6 ms·
Upvoted due to the interesting story, but the point is conceptually unclear (at least to me, but I'm quite slow) how would this improve my cognitive toolkit? I
by LolWolf 7y ago
Upvoted due to the interesting story, but the point is conceptually unclear (at least to me, but I'm quite slow) how would this improve my cognitive toolkit?
I understand the (one) example presented apart from wrestling, but it is not quite obvious that the actual framework of Kayfabe immediately maps to it. It feels like there are easier constructions that would explain this exactly as well, if not better (perhaps most notably, the Prisoner's dilemma and the fact that coordination games are hard[0]).
---
[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06580 https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06580
- gazelle21 7y agoIt doesn't, I love Eric but sometimes he tends to overcomplicate things. Kayfabe is/was more of a respect thing. If I watch a movie I'm willing to suspend belief, same goes for wrestling. When WWE "revealed" that wrestling was fake, everybody already knew.
- gameswithgo 7y agoAs an example, when you hear a politician say something outrages, insane, or crazy. Instead of thinking "oh my, what a fool this person is", consider that they may be performing, in a way agreed upon by his or her follow politicians. They know it isn't true, but that doesn't matter, because the audience doesn't care.
- battery_cowboy 7y agoThe more academic form of trolling?
- gowld 7y agoNot "academic" , just less Internetty.
- andrewprock 7y agoGiven how muddled this essay it, it appears that whatever this author is talking about has not improved his own cognitive toolkit to the point where he is able to express his thoughts clearly.
- itsArtur 7y agoI am not a native english speaker and it was really difficult for me to read this essay and understand its purpose. Is this writing style considered "good"?
- andrewprock 7y agoIn my experience, this writing style is indicative of the author speaking to an ongoing conversation where people are writing about the topic in many places. As a stand-alone essay, this is very bad. As a contribution to a conversation, as you might see in an online forum, this probably makes more sense.
- argonaut 7y agoAs a native speaker, I found the essay to be long-winded and over-complicated. It uses twice as many words as it needs to convey the same point.
- alexpetralia 7y agoPut simply, one might think of kayfabe as a consensus on the agreement of illusion; a suspension of reality. Why would anyone do this? For one, suspended reality allows us to be creative and simulate outcomes that otherwise would not occur in real life. But also, it can occur under information asymmetry. If something seems fake to me, but I am not sure if _you_ believe it is fake or not (and vice versa), we both might pretend something is real for the sake of not offending one another. This segues into another of Weinstein's terms (originally from Timur Kuran) called "preference falsification": if no one has to falsify their beliefs, we might just _state_ things we don't actually believe in, since we don't know what other people actually believe, and we don't want to run the risk of being ostracized. Overall, these two concepts explain how otherwise tenuous theories can be believed (or at least stated to be believed) by large groups of people.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- LolWolf 7y agoThanks! > If something seems fake to me, but I am not sure if _you_ believe it is fake or not (and vice versa), we both might pretend something is real for the sake of not offending one another. Yeah, I guess this is why I was referring to slightly cleaner game-theoretic formulations, but perhaps missed the main point because I didn't quite find it clear. In some sense, though, the piece calls for "active collusion" with rehearsed point and counterpoints (as in, e.g., wrestling) which seems distinct than preference falsification, which is the part I'm having a hard time squaring with the article?
- qznc 7y agoWe have much bigger illusions than wrestling. Ironically, a piece of fiction made the point much clearer to me: “All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable." REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE. "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—" YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES. "So we can believe the big ones?" YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING. "They're not the same at all!" YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED. "Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—" MY POINT EXACTLY.” ― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather Likewise, paper money: https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Paper_Money https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Paper_Money
- machinelearning 7y agoEric is describing an emergent phenomenon in a particular system of politics that is often invisible to an outsider. It upgrades one's cognitive toolkit by allowing someone reason in the second order (Assuming Kayfabe) vs. the first order (Taking things at face value). If you can spot Kayfabe and realize that certain rivalries exist for the sole purpose of propping each other up, you realize that the degrees of freedom are far greater than it seems.
- PaulHoule 7y agoLet's be specific. This applies to the Democratic and Republican parties in the US.
- narag 7y agoThis applies to gossip shows more than anything else.
- remarkEon 7y agoWhich means it's definitely not limited to US politics then.
- narag 7y agoNot at all. Actually, observing how it works for realities or the gossipverse, you can spot the same patterns in politics: multiple (in USA "both") sides on some topic cluster their statements around some event, like passing of some act or relevant news. Setting the conversation agenda is specially useful to hide inconvenient topics from public scrutiny. Sex regulation, religion and other "social" controversial discussions are very effective to create noise and put in the background the economic problems, that have often more direct and severe consequences for most people.
- sushisource 7y agoI think that's partly why some commenters think the article isn't all that valuable. IMO, it really does not at all apply to the Dems/Republicans fight. If you've spent any amount of time with people who actually work in politics, it's readily apparent there's no kind of mutual collusion between the parties. They can barely even "collude" internally to advance their agendas. The whole thing is just a contest for who can get the most pithy soundbite for the day. It's horrible and ineffective and stupid but there's no "Republicans and democrats are working together to.... do exactly what?" conspiracy.