Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

edge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 144 posts

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#21

Post by ncmncm »

hobs wrote: post #18
mirimir wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He thought that they would, but that the smart west would out propagandize and that our better natures would be convinced to win out.

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.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#22

Post by andrewprock »

someguyorother wrote: post #17
mirimir wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

Democracies use direct persuasion extensively, typically on non-majority groups, for obvious reasons.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#24

Post by narag »

PaulHoule wrote: post #15
machinelearning wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 freed…

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

This applies to gossip shows more than anything else.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#25

Post by allemagne »

Kayfabe is also apparently a convenient method for sidestepping an entire discipline for ideological purposes.

>Perhaps confusing battles between "quantum" and "classical" physicists could be best understood as happening within a single "orthodox promotion" given that both groups suffered no injury from failing (equally) to develop a unified theory of gravity.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#26

Post by itsArtur »

andrewprock wrote: post #7
LolWolf wrote: post #2

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 m…

Given 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.

I 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"?

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#27

Post by mirimir »

andrewprock wrote: post #22
someguyorother wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Democracies use direct persuasion extensively, typically on non-majority groups, for obvious reasons.

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?

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#28

Post by andrewprock »

itsArtur wrote: post #26
andrewprock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given 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.

I 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"?

In 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.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#29

Post by andrewprock »

mirimir wrote: post #27
andrewprock wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracies use direct persuasion extensively, typically on non-majority groups, for obvious reasons.

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?

I read "direct persuasion" as a reference to "authoritarian control" as quoted from the Wikipedia article.

Re: What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011)

#30

Post by LolWolf »

alexpetralia wrote: post #8
LolWolf wrote: post #2

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 m…

Put 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 migh…

Thanks!

> 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?

Post reply on HN