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.
“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
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.
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?
It creates false equivalences, blurs important distinctions, and doesn't help people understand the nature of these concepts - rather, it obscures that nature.
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?
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.
This applies to the Democratic and Republican parties in the US.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_repeal_the_Patient_...
Well, it is basically a Republican national healthcare program, which preserved the hugely profitable health insurance industry. Modeled on RomneyCare.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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