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.
What would help me is more illustration of the line between kayfabe and decency.
It seems like the line is "The audience is misled about the actual social norms". When olympic wrestlers refuse to stab each other, it is not kayfabe because the audience doesn't expect that. The Christmas Truce and various anti-latrine-bombing truces were kayfabe because the audience was British and German high command and these were done behind their backs.
If thats the right interpretation, then in this example:
> Perhaps confusing battles between "freshwater" Chicago macro economists and Ivy league "Saltwater" theorists could be best understood as happening within a single "orthodox promotion" given that both groups suffered no injury from failing (equally) to predict the recent financial crisis.
I think you're a little too hung up on the audience metaphor.
> Perhaps confusing battles between "freshwater" Chicago macro economists and Ivy league "Saltwater" theorists could be best understood as happening within a single "orthodox promotion" given that both groups suffered no injury from failing (equally) to predict the recent financial crisis.
The Kayfabe element is that two "competing" schools of thought are primarily concerned with protecting the shared status of "orthodox" economics over outside theories.
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.