10 ms·

I suppose it's a worthwhile concept. You can certainly look at professional politics, corporate messaging and the financial crises, basically all elite-preserv

I suppose it's a worthwhile concept. You can certainly look at professional politics, corporate messaging and the financial crises, basically all elite-preservation systems, through a kayfabe lens. On the other hand, I think everyone would be better off reading Propaganda, by Bernays. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book) It's short.

mirimir 7y ago
Yes, I ought to read that. From the Wikipedia article: > On the other hand, writers such as Marvin Olasky justify Bernays as killing democracy in order to save it. In this way, the presence of an elite, faceless persuasion constituted the only plausible way to prevent authoritarian control. That last sentence makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't authoritarian governments use propaganda?
- someguyorother 7y ago
  It appears to be saying "authoritarian governments can use both direct persuasion and faceless persuasion. Democracies can't use the former, and can't use the latter unless they allow themselves to by the methods shown here." Direct persuasion would be something akin to Weber's charismatic authority: the typical cult of personality stuff. A representative democracy, not having its identity tied to one singular leader, can't do that.
  - andrewprock 7y ago
    Democracies use direct persuasion extensively, typically on non-majority groups, for obvious reasons.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      You're using "direct persuasion" differently from parent. And I have no clue which is accepted. Parent seems to equate "direct persuasion" with "charismatic persuasion", but for you it seems more like coercion. Right?
      - andrewprock 7y ago
        I read "direct persuasion" as a reference to "authoritarian control" as quoted from the Wikipedia article.
        mirimir 7y ago
        OK, makes sense.
- hobs 7y ago
  He thought that they would, but that the smart west would out propagandize and that our better natures would be convinced to win out.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    He wanted us to think that. But of course the end state is necessarily authoritarian, regardless of anybody's apparent or expressed intentions. And Bernays really was fine with that. Anybody advocating affirmative use of propaganda will also be using it.
tryitnow 7y ago
I don't know. I just don't see it. Unlike in professional wrestling politicians, corporations, etc have real conflicts over zero sum games. Of course, there are situations where there's are incentives to cooperate. As for his critique of neoclassical economics' reliance on perfect information - that's already been addressed by many economists, Stiglitz, etc. It's frankly banal to even bring it up any longer. I just don't see this concept adding much value to a conceptual toolkit. Whenever I try to apply it, it feels forced and it seems simpler concepts do the job just fine. For example, it's easier to just assume that sometimes competitors finds situations where it makes sense to cooperate. And it's simpler to assume that even staunch enemies want to appear "gentlemanly" at times, either in public or behind the scenes. Kayfabe seems worst that useless to me. It seems to violate Occam's razor. It offers an elaborate explanation where a simply explanation would be just as good.
- DubiousPusher 7y ago
  I guess it kind of depends on how much you believe in the conspiracy of elites. But even in the weak form of that conspiracy, it seems to me the exchange of people and ideas between think tanks, journalism, lobbyists, campaigns, consultancies and financial imstitutions does operate a lot according to this concept. I guess regardless I think the idea is not to try to find exact examples of this but to understand that wrestling is a just a dramatic example of systems that operate more on fake information than real. I think the difference between this and economic models that incorporate misinformation is that those models tend to see misinformation as something distortionary and unwelcome in the system where this is considering systems that are basically predicated on false information. But I guess that's still a bit banal and wouldn't be my first answer to the question what scientific concept should people internalize to be better thinkers.
  - afarrell 7y ago
    What would help me is more illustration of the line between kayfabe and decency. It seems like the line is "The audience is misled about the actual social norms". When olympic wrestlers refuse to stab each other, it is not kayfabe because the audience doesn't expect that. The Christmas Truce and various anti-latrine-bombing truces were kayfabe because the audience was British and German high command and these were done behind their backs. If thats the right interpretation, then in this example: > Perhaps confusing battles between "freshwater" Chicago macro economists and Ivy league "Saltwater" theorists could be best understood as happening within a single "orthodox promotion" given that both groups suffered no injury from failing (equally) to predict the recent financial crisis. What injury would the audience expect? Who even is "the audience"?
alexandercrohde 7y ago
I think the distinction between Kayfabe and propaganda is that the audience knows and chooses to suspend disbelief of Kayfabe because it's engaging to them. I like this article because I think Kayfabe is a much better explanation of certain societal tribes' mock battles, than a lack of intellect. I think propaganda is a poor theory for widespread misinformation, because if it were simply a lack of information, then giving correct information to the uninformed (e.g. wikipedia) would immediately rectify the problem.
- gowld 7y ago
  If you give someone a complicated truth and a simple emotionally appealing lie, why would they immediately recognize and prefer the truth? Wikipedia happened, and then Conservapedia happened as a reaction.
- krnsll 7y ago
  I've always found the mutual knowledge vs common knowledge dichotomy to be a good way to conceptualize this distinction between kayfabe and propaganda (although it is not strictly speaking the perfect analogy here, it does offer some insight). The famous blue-eyed islanders puzzle is a great illustration of the concept (and perhaps something to occupy one's time with in quarantine).
pippy 7y ago
Ironically Eric used these techniques in his interview with Joe Rogan three days ago. Eric blamed the divergence of the income and production relation on the modern academic environment. Which is a bizarre conclusion to draw, instead of the more likely candidates of Neo-liberalisim and market forces of the employment sector. These conclusions wouldn't suit his world view, so he explained them away using jargon. His view on physics is equally as baffling. He claims he knows the secret that will revolutionise the field, at the same time, people in the field discredit his theory because they're arrogant and academically institutionalized. It's a bold claim to make, and I'll have to eat my hat if he's right, but I'll trust the people who are experts in the field. In short, Eric Weinstein is a crackpot. A very intelligent crackpot, but he really should stick to mathematics and investment.
- 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
  The richer this type of person gets, the more deranged and farther from reality they become. It seems that their material success has corrupted their egos to a point of deification.
- ajuc 7y ago
  I've seen the interview, and even watched his podcast for a while where he talked about his physic theory. I can't myself evaluate his theory with my understandig of physics (basically at one point I knew the math for quantum mechanic, but that was long ago and at no point I did understood it). But the way Eric sells his theory screams SCAM to me. He portraits himself as lone truthseeker against the established elites, uses every bit of confirmation he can get (talking at length about his speech in Oxford), but doesn't get that much into the falsifable predictions of the theory or how it differs from String theory mathemathically. And he spends much more time on parables and "what would it mean for economy" and everything surrounding the theory than on the theory itself. If your theory is good simply try to explain it as best you can, don't try to upsell it with all the marketing bullshit and conspiracy theories.

mirimir 7y ago

Yes, I ought to read that. From the Wikipedia article: > On the other hand, writers such as Marvin Olasky justify Bernays as killing democracy in order to save it. In this way, the presence of an elite, faceless persuasion constituted the only plausible way to prevent authoritarian control. That last sentence makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't authoritarian governments use propaganda?

someguyorother 7y ago
It appears to be saying "authoritarian governments can use both direct persuasion and faceless persuasion. Democracies can't use the former, and can't use the latter unless they allow themselves to by the methods shown here." Direct persuasion would be something akin to Weber's charismatic authority: the typical cult of personality stuff. A representative democracy, not having its identity tied to one singular leader, can't do that.
- andrewprock 7y ago
  Democracies use direct persuasion extensively, typically on non-majority groups, for obvious reasons.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    You're using "direct persuasion" differently from parent. And I have no clue which is accepted. Parent seems to equate "direct persuasion" with "charismatic persuasion", but for you it seems more like coercion. Right?
    - andrewprock 7y ago
      I read "direct persuasion" as a reference to "authoritarian control" as quoted from the Wikipedia article.
      - mirimir 7y ago
        OK, makes sense.
hobs 7y ago
He thought that they would, but that the smart west would out propagandize and that our better natures would be convinced to win out.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  He wanted us to think that. But of course the end state is necessarily authoritarian, regardless of anybody's apparent or expressed intentions. And Bernays really was fine with that. Anybody advocating affirmative use of propaganda will also be using it.

tryitnow 7y ago

I don't know. I just don't see it. Unlike in professional wrestling politicians, corporations, etc have real conflicts over zero sum games. Of course, there are situations where there's are incentives to cooperate. As for his critique of neoclassical economics' reliance on perfect information - that's already been addressed by many economists, Stiglitz, etc. It's frankly banal to even bring it up any longer. I just don't see this concept adding much value to a conceptual toolkit. Whenever I try to apply it, it feels forced and it seems simpler concepts do the job just fine. For example, it's easier to just assume that sometimes competitors finds situations where it makes sense to cooperate. And it's simpler to assume that even staunch enemies want to appear "gentlemanly" at times, either in public or behind the scenes. Kayfabe seems worst that useless to me. It seems to violate Occam's razor. It offers an elaborate explanation where a simply explanation would be just as good.

DubiousPusher 7y ago
I guess it kind of depends on how much you believe in the conspiracy of elites. But even in the weak form of that conspiracy, it seems to me the exchange of people and ideas between think tanks, journalism, lobbyists, campaigns, consultancies and financial imstitutions does operate a lot according to this concept. I guess regardless I think the idea is not to try to find exact examples of this but to understand that wrestling is a just a dramatic example of systems that operate more on fake information than real. I think the difference between this and economic models that incorporate misinformation is that those models tend to see misinformation as something distortionary and unwelcome in the system where this is considering systems that are basically predicated on false information. But I guess that's still a bit banal and wouldn't be my first answer to the question what scientific concept should people internalize to be better thinkers.
- afarrell 7y ago
  What would help me is more illustration of the line between kayfabe and decency. It seems like the line is "The audience is misled about the actual social norms". When olympic wrestlers refuse to stab each other, it is not kayfabe because the audience doesn't expect that. The Christmas Truce and various anti-latrine-bombing truces were kayfabe because the audience was British and German high command and these were done behind their backs. If thats the right interpretation, then in this example: > Perhaps confusing battles between "freshwater" Chicago macro economists and Ivy league "Saltwater" theorists could be best understood as happening within a single "orthodox promotion" given that both groups suffered no injury from failing (equally) to predict the recent financial crisis. What injury would the audience expect? Who even is "the audience"?

alexandercrohde 7y ago

I think the distinction between Kayfabe and propaganda is that the audience knows and chooses to suspend disbelief of Kayfabe because it's engaging to them. I like this article because I think Kayfabe is a much better explanation of certain societal tribes' mock battles, than a lack of intellect. I think propaganda is a poor theory for widespread misinformation, because if it were simply a lack of information, then giving correct information to the uninformed (e.g. wikipedia) would immediately rectify the problem.

gowld 7y ago
If you give someone a complicated truth and a simple emotionally appealing lie, why would they immediately recognize and prefer the truth? Wikipedia happened, and then Conservapedia happened as a reaction.
krnsll 7y ago
I've always found the mutual knowledge vs common knowledge dichotomy to be a good way to conceptualize this distinction between kayfabe and propaganda (although it is not strictly speaking the perfect analogy here, it does offer some insight). The famous blue-eyed islanders puzzle is a great illustration of the concept (and perhaps something to occupy one's time with in quarantine).

pippy 7y ago

Ironically Eric used these techniques in his interview with Joe Rogan three days ago. Eric blamed the divergence of the income and production relation on the modern academic environment. Which is a bizarre conclusion to draw, instead of the more likely candidates of Neo-liberalisim and market forces of the employment sector. These conclusions wouldn't suit his world view, so he explained them away using jargon. His view on physics is equally as baffling. He claims he knows the secret that will revolutionise the field, at the same time, people in the field discredit his theory because they're arrogant and academically institutionalized. It's a bold claim to make, and I'll have to eat my hat if he's right, but I'll trust the people who are experts in the field. In short, Eric Weinstein is a crackpot. A very intelligent crackpot, but he really should stick to mathematics and investment.

0x8BADF00D 7y ago
The richer this type of person gets, the more deranged and farther from reality they become. It seems that their material success has corrupted their egos to a point of deification.
ajuc 7y ago
I've seen the interview, and even watched his podcast for a while where he talked about his physic theory. I can't myself evaluate his theory with my understandig of physics (basically at one point I knew the math for quantum mechanic, but that was long ago and at no point I did understood it). But the way Eric sells his theory screams SCAM to me. He portraits himself as lone truthseeker against the established elites, uses every bit of confirmation he can get (talking at length about his speech in Oxford), but doesn't get that much into the falsifable predictions of the theory or how it differs from String theory mathemathically. And he spends much more time on parables and "what would it mean for economy" and everything surrounding the theory than on the theory itself. If your theory is good simply try to explain it as best you can, don't try to upsell it with all the marketing bullshit and conspiracy theories.