4 ms·

Eric 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 all

Eric 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 6y ago
Let's be specific. This applies to the Democratic and Republican parties in the US.
- narag 6y ago
  This applies to gossip shows more than anything else.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    Which means it's definitely not limited to US politics then.
    - narag 6y ago
      Not 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 6y ago
  I 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.
  - machinelearning 6y ago
    "The whole thing is just a contest" You just said it yourself. There's no contest if one refuses to partake. The reason they compete for the pithiest soundbite instead on actual progress is Kayfabe.
  - lhorie 6y ago
    I think one can view things through kayfabe lenses even if the parties are not consciously working together to achieve something: for example, in a wrestling match, the visuals are of "which of the two is strongest" but the reality is that the conflict is artificially created for the purpose of your entertainment. In politics the visuals are of "which policy is better" for a given topic, but the reality is more one of politicians acting in self-interest in a highly tribal environment.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    ...people who actually work in politics... On its face, this could be hundreds of thousands of people. All manner of legislative staffing, bureaucracy, public relations, media content production, etc. could be considered "in politics", when viewed through a hazy enough lens. As you say, none of these people admit knowledge of the kayfabe. OTOH, the lobbyists who actually write the bills and pull the strings? That's a much smaller group and yeah, they know it's largely kayfabe. As a relatively recent example, much has been made of the current president's suitability as "commander-in-chief" (or lack thereof). One might have had the impression that there was a disagreement over how much military power he should command. Yet, somehow both parties in both houses of Congress agreed that he should get $740B in military spending rather than the $600B he requested.
theonionknight 6y ago
"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." I feel as though this concept specifically isn't novel. Some would argue this situation could be applicable to the cold war--perhaps the soviet union didn't prop the United States up, but it certainly allowed us to foster and strengthen our sense of nationalism, which typically leads to a more robust state.

PaulHoule 6y ago

Let's be specific. This applies to the Democratic and Republican parties in the US.

narag 6y ago
This applies to gossip shows more than anything else.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Which means it's definitely not limited to US politics then.
  - narag 6y ago
    Not 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 6y ago
I 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.
- machinelearning 6y ago
  "The whole thing is just a contest" You just said it yourself. There's no contest if one refuses to partake. The reason they compete for the pithiest soundbite instead on actual progress is Kayfabe.
- lhorie 6y ago
  I think one can view things through kayfabe lenses even if the parties are not consciously working together to achieve something: for example, in a wrestling match, the visuals are of "which of the two is strongest" but the reality is that the conflict is artificially created for the purpose of your entertainment. In politics the visuals are of "which policy is better" for a given topic, but the reality is more one of politicians acting in self-interest in a highly tribal environment.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  ...people who actually work in politics... On its face, this could be hundreds of thousands of people. All manner of legislative staffing, bureaucracy, public relations, media content production, etc. could be considered "in politics", when viewed through a hazy enough lens. As you say, none of these people admit knowledge of the kayfabe. OTOH, the lobbyists who actually write the bills and pull the strings? That's a much smaller group and yeah, they know it's largely kayfabe. As a relatively recent example, much has been made of the current president's suitability as "commander-in-chief" (or lack thereof). One might have had the impression that there was a disagreement over how much military power he should command. Yet, somehow both parties in both houses of Congress agreed that he should get $740B in military spending rather than the $600B he requested.

theonionknight 6y ago

"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." I feel as though this concept specifically isn't novel. Some would argue this situation could be applicable to the cold war--perhaps the soviet union didn't prop the United States up, but it certainly allowed us to foster and strengthen our sense of nationalism, which typically leads to a more robust state.