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....
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.