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

31–40 of 144 posts

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

#31

Post by qznc »

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…

We 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

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

#32

Post by DubiousPusher »

tryitnow wrote: post #14
vearwhershuh wrote: post #6

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) It's short.

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 d…

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.

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

#33

Post by TylerE »

tryitnow wrote: post #14
vearwhershuh wrote: post #6

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) It's short.

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 d…

> Unlike in professional wrestling politicians, corporations, etc have real conflicts over zero sum games.

That's where wrestling can be so brilliant though. Often much of that heat and intrigue was more than a little informed by what was actually going on back stage.

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

#34

Post by battery_cowboy »

gameswithgo wrote: post #4
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…

As 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.

The more academic form of trolling?

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

#35

Post by sushisource »

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.

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.

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

#37

Post by mirimir »

andrewprock wrote: post #29
mirimir wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OK, makes sense.

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

#38

Post by remarkEon »

narag wrote: post #24
PaulHoule wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This applies to gossip shows more than anything else.

Which means it's definitely not limited to US politics then.

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

#39

Post by mrfusion »

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…

Maybe a job interview is a good example? You both are pretending this one company is your highest priority and you have noble reasons for wanting to work there. Not just exchanging labor for currency....

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-08-17

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

#40

Post by machinelearning »

sushisource wrote: post #35
PaulHoule wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

"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.
Post reply on HN