What concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? Kayfabe (2011) • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by __s » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 11:14 AM UTC

neilshah29 wrote: post #130

core-questions wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "zero sum" is a hateful philosophy. It means I'd kill your children because if that's terrible for you it must be oppositely great for me If you managed to simplify the equation down to "kill their children or die yourself" through some desert-island scenario, then yeah, sure. Normally problems involve more variables than this.

Zero sum means there is only one apple, and either your kid gets it or mine does. Not everything is zero sum.

Not only that, but it means the apple can't be destroyed. Zero sum excludes both win-win & lose-lose. There's no concept of waste

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

#132

Post by finnthehuman » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 11:56 AM UTC

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…

If you think it’s complicated, you’re overthinking it. Using Kayfabe as a lens on the world doesn't mean assuming mass collaboration of seeming opponents, it means assuming self-centered organizations are working an audience for their own gain (and that interpretation checks out with Occam's razor better than many publicly accepted narratives of events).

This might be a better description than the linked article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/magazine/is-everything-wr...

>Pro wrestling, unexpectedly, gave me a real insight into how the public is "worked" by celebrities, politicians, and so on. I often find myself being the first to see through these facades and explaining them to others, pointing out how individuals benefit from portraying a "character" of sorts. For instance, MMA fans that were never involved in pro wrestling are baffled by individuals like Chael Sonnen and Connor McGregor, when to us it is very clear what these individuals are doing months and years in advance of them simply being labeled as "liars and exaggerators" by the community at large.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/4laat6/is_ev...

>Politics and Public Relations certainly correlate with booking in wrestling. Anything does when you have to "work a crowd". During the 2012 election, the group of people I was with was amused when I was able to correctly "book" the Democratic Convention, predicting some "spots and promos" from the speakers, who was coming out when and why.

>After President Obama gave his speech, I said, "Obama is struggling to get over with the liberals this cycle and his convention speech had to play to the center, so they're going to send Bill out there to give him the rub." Right on cue, out walks Bill and the crowd pops.

>I couldn't help it. The convention felt booked like a WWE PPV. I spoke like I would gathered around the sofa watching WWE with some friends. That wasn't a reassuring feeling, realizing the world is a work, booked to pop a crowd. Since then, the correlation is only more apparent, just like this article describes. The next time someone criticizes wrestling for being fake, I want them to show me something that isn't.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/4laat6/is_ev...

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

#133

Post by darkerside » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 1:08 PM UTC

trevyn wrote: post #72

darkerside wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you think about it, how our mind works is fundamentally the only actual problem. Everything else is just an artifact of it. I think this nails it and is really the main thrust of the kayfabe analogy. It's also something I came to understand a few years ago, and have since had a lot of trouble getting others to understand the concept.

A bit of both obviously, but is this more “how our mind works” or “how our mind works while running the software loaded into it since birth”? (Where the range of easily available software options is surprisingly non-diverse in practice.)

Yeah... This is missing the point completely. It's a bit of a nihilistic point to understand, but essentially it's that, nothing matters except what a consensus of humans decides matters. And that consensus can be achieved by an entire country, or by a single human.

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

#134

Post by motohagiography » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

ctchocula wrote: post #120

motohagiography wrote: post #54

The writer was a guest on Rogan this weekend, and he was very engaging, he did wander a bit. He has a particular kind of breadth-first associative intelligence that can cause listeners to become almost hypnotized by all the open cognitive loops his conversation creates, not unlike the kayfabe concept he's touting. Similar things come up in the theory of musical composition where you create and resolve "tension," and…

> If you learn to play any Bach, you can begin to see and articulate how he discovered it. Can you elaborate some more about how Bach ties into this? I can see how sonata-allegro form goes back to the tonic key in the recapitulation, but I'm interested in hearing some more about Bach and these concepts.

Still a beginner, but in the two preludes I'm playing the phenomenon I'm using as an analogy is called "resolution," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_(music)). It happens most notably 8 bars from the end of BWV 999, and in every every 4th bar in BWV 846. We sense it as a kind of "relief." Everyone uses it, but I used Bach as an example (instead of say, pentatonic blues or jazz) because he stacks a bunch of variation in before the resolution.

The rhetorical analogue is creating tension in the listener by adding parenthetical ideas (open loops), and then making them agreeable by providing relief by "resolving," them to your theme. The link to "kayfabe," is that the stacked story lines in the wrestling narrative create the same tension and consequent audience and participant submission by overloading our ability to track the individual threads.

Eric Weinstein said on Rogan that he thinks this is what the current president did to win the last election, and that he picked it up literally from his time in the professional wrestling world. I tend to agree with him on that one, and am sympathetic to his idea because it reflects dynamics in other areas.

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

#135

Post by User23 » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

I had a similar experience when I read Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit. It's one of those concepts that is obvious in retrospect, but really helps clarify understanding. His conceptual framework of bullshit as communication that is intended to persuade with no regard either way for truth has certainly helped me read this article.

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

#136

Post by appleshore » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

antonvs wrote: post #123

appleshore wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless if he’s wrong, what he’s saying sounds interesting even to a physics PhD I’d imagine. The scientific community doesn’t know why there’s 3 generations of particles, heck I’ve barely heard anyone in my life even mention the fact. It’s a curious thing and his theory was at least infinitely better than 99% of the content on the Internet. I don’t really understand what he said (and a paper won’t help me) but it…

> what he’s saying sounds interesting even to a physics PhD I’d imagine Why would you imagine that? > The scientific community doesn’t know why there’s 3 generations of particles, heck I’ve barely heard anyone in my life even mention the fact. Your random encounters with information are not a good guide here. The generatation issue is often described as one of the main open problems in particle physics. Here are some…

Physicists want to forbid people from exploring ‘philosophies of sciences’ in public? You can only discuss official ideas codified by peer review?

And of course it’s one of the main open problems. Obviously people in the community discuss it and it’s widely known. I meant in general, all the people talking sports, politics, business, finance, technology and reality TV, you know 99% of human communication, never ever discuss any ideas interesting in physics. Maybe because the authoritarians motivate normal people to avoid it thus only charlatans and a few science popularizers drive public awareness.

And I meant some of the math and physics he’s describing are true. I’m not saying his theories are true but not all his perspectives on them are unfounded. He’s had highly intellectual conversations with physicists on his podcast. Including Penrose. And Lisi, whom he strongly criticized.

My point is, he doesn’t need a license to talk and the criticism towards new ideas is wrong. Plus we need more cool ideas in the public sphere, right or wrong.

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

#137

Post by appleshore » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #100

appleshore wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless if he’s wrong, what he’s saying sounds interesting even to a physics PhD I’d imagine. The scientific community doesn’t know why there’s 3 generations of particles, heck I’ve barely heard anyone in my life even mention the fact. It’s a curious thing and his theory was at least infinitely better than 99% of the content on the Internet. I don’t really understand what he said (and a paper won’t help me) but it…

Well, let me assume you're a software engineer. Suppose that one day you heard of some smooth talker who was going around pushing their vision of an AI-powered cloud blockchain as a service, or whatever. And everything they were saying just seemed empty: they would deliver the same polished, mindblowing speech about how this would revolutionize the world and topple all other software companies, but they hadn't writte…

Ok but he’s held very intellectual conversations with physicists so I can only infer he has a basic fundamental knowledge — despite the ego and fantastical colorful language.

And I heard about the 3 generations when I was a freshman in HS in AP physics and I wrote a sci-fi story on it. Obviously it’s a widely known problem, I assumed people would understand me.

I’m defending the public sphere, promoting thoughtful ideas and intellectual adventures. Most people still don’t know who Elon Musk is yet it seems like they would. I want the average person to know the great open questions in physics.

Other professionals, hackers and those with PhDs in mathematical physics can contribute something novel and true to the future of understanding physics. No one owns mystery or the right to explore it.

Even if it’s just an artist or mathematician inspiring a physicist to understand an idea that could lead to something unrelated but true. Or public support to increase scientific funding.

I also work with a physicist who probably would criticize my perspective here. He has analyzed and critiqued pseudoscientific claims for national security reasons. So my experience here isn’t non-existent.

And I’m not a software engineer. I was a hacker. I like to reverse engineer things and understand the world through first principles...

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

#138

Post by antonvs » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

qznc wrote: post #31

alexpetralia wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

That's very naively materialist. Once you notice that, it becomes clear that the concepts mentioned are not "lies".

The passage may be trying to say something serious about those concepts not being universal, objective ones, but if it's intending to make a serious point it misses the mark.

But then again, it may not be intended to be taken seriously at all. Perhaps Pratchett assumed the weaknesses in this position would be obvious.

> Likewise, paper money

If someone writes an IOU to you, is that a lie? How about a check?

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

#139

Post by Zeebrommer » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 6:53 AM UTC

antonvs wrote: post #138

qznc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. That's very naively materialist. Once you notice that, it becomes clear that the concepts mentioned are not "lies". The passage may be trying to say something serious about those concepts not being universal, objective ones, but if it's intending to make a…

'lie' is too strong a word perhaps, but 'story', in the sense that Harari uses it in Sapiens, is exactly what it is. A fiction, but not less real.

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

#140

Post by qnsi » Wed, Apr 08, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #9

Before reading TFA, I was thinking "What's their agenda?" / "What's in it for them?" / "What's their bias?" etc. But this is a deeper cut. However, in looking for kayfabe, there's the risk of conspiracy thinking.

I used to follow him on Twitter but got a conspiracy vibes from him. Got the same in this post. After other noted here that he has some kind of Grand theory of physics, that sadly experts dont agree with, I mentally classify him as a crackpot from now on