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 most notably, the Prisoner's dilemma and the fact that coordination games are hard[0]).
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 might pretend something is real for the sake of not offending one another.
This segues into another of Weinstein's terms (originally from Timur Kuran) called "preference falsification": if no one has to falsify their beliefs, we might just _state_ things we don't actually believe in, since we don't know what other people actually believe, and we don't want to run the risk of being ostracized.
Overall, these two concepts explain how otherwise tenuous theories can be believed (or at least stated to be believed) by large groups of people.
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—"
> TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE
This has always stuck with me. I’m not well enough read to know if he borrowed it from somewhere, but I’m not sure Terry Pratchett ever wrote finer words than those. Beautifully concise and apt summary of the human condition.
> 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?
That's a rather broad use of the word "fiction." It ends up classifying e.g. "Harry Potter" as having the same ontological status as "justice," which seems of dubious utility except possibly as a bit of hyperbole to sell books or blow people's minds at Ted talks.
It creates false equivalences, blurs important distinctions, and doesn't help people understand the nature of these concepts - rather, it obscures that nature.
Don't start with the first one (Color of magic). Pratchett became a lot better over time.
Also, stick with it through one book. I found quite a few books childish in the beginning. It is often a journey from "this is silly" over "ok, it has its own logic" to the realization "our reality is just as weird".
> 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?
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....
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
My admittedly limited experience suggests otherwise.
Many years ago, I worked for a state-level legislator, as an environmental aide. Although Republican, he supported (and contributed to) many good environmental bills. And worked closely with Democratic colleagues.
So one night over beer, I asked why he was Republican. And while he did make some cogent points about social and economic issues, his primary reason was that he lived in a Republican area, and that he'd never be elected as a Democrat.
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.
There are often "symbolic votes" on issues, especially taken by the opposition party in a situation they know the bill could never become law. To take just one example, many Republicans ran for years on opposition to Obamacare and a promise to repeal it, even voting for repeal in the House and passing with wide margins. When finally Trump won the White House and the GOP controlled all 3 branches of gov't, they ultimately balked at voting to repeal[1].
In the reverse situation, it's understood that leadership in Congress often head counts up to the number of votes needed and then give a pass to members to symbolically vote against as long as it doesn't affect the outcome - e.g. the GOP impeachment votes.
> When finally Trump won the White House and the GOP controlled all 3 branches of gov't, they ultimately balked at voting to repeal.
Well, it is basically a Republican national healthcare program, which preserved the hugely profitable health insurance industry. Modeled on RomneyCare.
Which itself was modeled on the HEART act, the collaboration between literally Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation in the mid nineties created when they thought Hillarycare might gain steam.
All of the major pieces, including individual mandate and exchanges makes it's way back to that proposed plan.
It's some real wag the dog shit. Both that Obama's "compromise" plan was the far right position on the mid nineties, and that Republicans still characterized it as just left of Trotsky taking the major provisions that they championed all the way to the supreme court.
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.
> The whole thing is just a contest for who can get the most pithy soundbite for the day.
This is exactly it. The Rock isn't really going to dust anything off, turn it sideways, and ram it into anyone's candy ass. He's cutting a promo. It's kayfabe.
Similarly, the American process is entirely promotion. Are you a good fundraiser? Can you win popularity? Will you appoint the right cronies to the right positions? Can you cut a good soundclip? Then you've got a shot at the heavyweight title. Notice that at no point was anyone actually assessed on leadership capabilities. Professional Government. Politics Entertainment.
"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.
The current president is literally both a Democrat and a Republican.
The OP article was written in 2011. Not long before, maybe as recent as 2000, there was a lot more so called "civility" in government, where most of the debate was pork barrel negotiations, not major party line votes on major legal upheavals.
R and D worked together on things like handing ever more power to corporations and the military industrial complex, and diverting national wealth to the weathiest people.
"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.
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.
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.
It doesn't, I love Eric but sometimes he tends to overcomplicate things. Kayfabe is/was more of a respect thing. If I watch a movie I'm willing to suspend belief, same goes for wrestling. When WWE "revealed" that wrestling was fake, everybody already knew.
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 most notably, the Prisoner's dilemma and the fact that coordination games are hard[0]).
---
[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06580