The Weekend Zeitgeist – 3.30.2019

2+

Every morning, we run the Narrative Machine on the past 24 hours worth of financial media to find the most on-narrative (i.e. interconnected and central) stories. On the weekend, we leave finance to cover the last week or so in other shifting parts of the Zeitgeist – namely, politics and culture. It’s not a list of best articles or articles we think are most interesting … often far from it.

But these are articles that have struck a chord in narrative world. 


Satine Phoenix’s Rise From The Ashes: 5 Storytelling Lessons From A Top Dungeon Master [Forbes]

I loved this bit from our surprising most connected non-finance article this week.

It is also an unintentional repudiation of a pretty lame axiom proposed by usually-less-insipid tech founder / entrepreneur and thinker Naval Ravikant earlier this week:

This comment spawned a slightly modified response of a sort from another (otherwise usually insightful) serial founder of tech companies:

There is a well-known tendency in Silicon Valley to believe that its solutions are the solutions to everything, and that its answers are the answers to everything – that it’s just a matter of time before the rest of us idiots just embrace it. I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that this philosophy and belief would apply to art and performance, fields which have already yielded years of thought, writing and scholarship from philosophers, artists, historians and thinkers, too.

And I know what they’re saying: authentic creation can benefit from us being less beholden to the edge-smoothing, mushy consensus-driving influence of others’ opinions. Sure. There is art – both traditional and technological – for which that is true. AND there is great, authentic art and creative potential to be found in collaboration and connection, in what Ben calls reciprocity. Your collaborative production – you work, whatever it is – does not become non-art, it is not banished to the pejoratively created false world of ‘performance’ just because the audience is part of its creation. Far more often this choice causes it to become more powerful, more meta-stable.

I’ll put it another way: anyone who thinks that art which gives to and takes from an audience is less authentic or less art for that, is wrong. For those who care about protecting a functioning culture, too, the common knowledge we build together is far more likely to result in cooperative games than the Deadly Theatre of exquisitely designed set-pieces from the writer’s closet.

In the Russian tradition of Stanislavsky, the actor says, ‘I will tell you a story about me.’ In the German tradition of Brecht, the actor says, ‘I will tell you a story about them.’ In the Vietnamese tradition, the actor says, ‘You and I will tell each other a story about all of us.’

Le Hun

Douglas MacKinnon: Why Trump’s unconventional approach will help him win big in 2020 [FoxNews]

Look, I’m all for people expressing their opinions in support of their favored political candidate. But if the next year and a half is going to be dueling “Donald Trump will win because he has no ego or negative emotion” and “Joe Biden will win because he is not at all creepy” fan fiction, I think I’m going to need more whisky.


Media figures defend coverage of Trump and Russia [The Hill]

This is CNN’s depressing post hoc rationalization of its particular flavor of Fiat News, same as it ever was: “We didn’t run anything that was explicitly false. That means we did our jobs. It’s not our job to figure out if the facts are actually facts.”

I’m not sure if the Zuckers and Murdochs of the world truly think that we are all too stupid to see the spike in analysis journalism. Perhaps they think we don’t get how the quantity of coverage of different topics influences how people interpret the underlying issues, or that we don’t see how headlines, positioning of facts in a story, or the selection of quotes can influence the average person’s takeaway from the story.

Or maybe those gentlemen know as well as anyone that so long as we agree with the implicit conclusions a reasonable person would take from a selective presentation of facts, we just won’t care that it is Fiat News. When we write about Fiat News, you know what the most common email we get is? “Yes, but have you seen what this other publication is doing?”


Cory Booker says if elected president, he will bring fight against NRA like it ‘has never seen’ [Fox News]

And yes, like clockwork, we see the evidence that the right does Fiat News plenty too. It just controls fewer outlets, although the ones it does influence, like Fox, are enormously powerful. There is no false statement in this lede, but the intent is very plainly to diminish your view of the person whose quotes you are about to read.

Separately, both sides of this topic tend to be heavily cartoonified, not least because of broad knowledge gaps about guns AND current gun laws by all involved. Nearly every discussion is a discussion of ideas that are only vaguely related to current or hypothetical legislation, and even more loosely related to any reality of how any laws would influence the practical availability of weapons. This means that the best case scenario is usually to fuel either a mirroring or rage engagement. And in general, gun laws are rage engagement bait for the right more than they are mirroring opportunities for the left. To wit, plenty of left-leaning sites covered Booker’s remarks, but the most popular of them yielded just over 1% of the social engagement of this Fox article.

There is obviously no political harm to a Democratic candidate making gun control a plank in his or her platform. Making it a central identity issue, however, ignores that polls don’t always capture the intensity with which people are attached to ideas. Unlocking both the sources and evidence of that intensity is so much of why we are passionate about the potential of the narrative machine.


US Vessels Transit Through Taiwan Strait, Defying China [WSJ]

You’ll read a lot of takes telling you that sending a Coast Guard Cutter and a single Arleigh Burke-class destroyer through the Taiwan Strait is a shot across China’s bow and a show of support for Taiwan.

Meh. Maybe.

I think it’s fairer to say that the audience for this theater is you and me, folks. The White House wishes us to see Chinese trade and tariff disputes as national security issues. As initially unpopular as the tariffs were, I think this common knowledge is setting in. The fact that some of the trade issues are national security issues just serves to assist in the conflation of the broader association. That’s the power of abstraction. Once you demonstrate the risk of an unchecked Huawei, once you’ve got stories of the U.S. Navy steaming fleets through the Taiwan Strait, it’s much easier to use the gravity of those issues as a proxy for every other perfunctory element of a US-China trade deal.


The ending of ‘Us’: Jordan Peele on who the real villains are [LA Times]

I doubt if Jordan Peele and I would agree very much on politics, but he is a gifted filmmaker and someone who I think understands one of the root causes of the widening gyre in all of us.

I make it a point to watch everything he makes, even if it makes me mad or confused.


2+

The Daily Zeitgeist

We Didn’t Say it WASN’T a Press Release

By Rusty Guinn | June 24, 2019 | 1 Comment

It isn’t just that cannabis always seems to make the top of the Zeitgeist. It’s why – and sometimes the answer is, “Because people are paying for it to be at the top.”

Read more

The ANDs of Asylum

By Rusty Guinn | June 23, 2019 | 0 Comments

In the midst of a complicated issue, an article from a small regional outlet manages to remind us of the power of AND in storytelling and connecting the understanding of those across the widening gyre.

Read more

Zeitgeist Narrative Map – Week of June 16 in Review

By Rusty Guinn | June 22, 2019 | 0 Comments

This is our graph of the narrative structure of the last full week in financial markets news.

Read more


That Time I Bought Blockbuster Debt

By Ben Hunt | June 20, 2019 | 0 Comments

Management is not lying to you. It’s probably a really good turn-around plan. It could probably work out fine … IF they are given enough time. But they won’t be. Particularly when it’s the second turn-around plan.

Secularly declining companies ALWAYS run out of time.

It was one of the most expensive lessons of my investing career. And worth every penny.

Read more

Democracy Dies with Dancing

By Rusty Guinn | June 18, 2019 | 0 Comments

There’s a critical, indispensable feature of a free nation we call a free press. And then there’s the meme of free press!. The latter is a pure narrative construction, and a thing well supplied in the DC market.

Read more

The Not-So-Much War

By Rusty Guinn | June 17, 2019 | 0 Comments

A tug-of-war is only a tug-of-war if both sides, y’know, are capable of pulling on the rope.

Read more

9
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Mark Kahn
Member
Mark Kahn

I didn’t vote for Trump or Hillary as (and I know many hate this view / call it a copout) the message I was sending to both parties was you won’t get my vote until you put up a respectable candidate. Okay, so hopefully, you get I’m not a blind pro- or anti-Trump guy. I try (and know I fail) to just call them as I see them and I see the CNN justification as insulting. Even if I take it at face value, wouldn’t the then or now interesting thing for a “we are journalists” organization to pursue the what, when, why, how and who that sparked an unprecedented Justice Department investigation of a rival party’s presidential campaign? To emphasize, if evidence comes out that Trump colluded with Russia – prosecute him to the full extant of the law; but if a sitting president used his Justice Department to aid his party in an upcoming election, then that, too, should also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Maybe it’s the result and not the cause, but that each side is only interested in pursuing the parts of any story that advance its political agenda is widening the gyre. I get it was never perfect, but we seem to have lost the cultural norm that when candidates become elected officials they tone down their partisanship when executing the responsibilities of their office – just like we’ve lost the cultural norm (which was never perfect) of journalists putting… Read more »

Demonetized
Member
Demonetized

The commentary on collaboration really resonated with me here. I’ve had some experience producing “collaborative art” in several different contexts:

-Writing & editing articles and fiction

-Writing for a couple (pretty amateurish) stage productions

-Writing and performing sketch comedy (with some light improv) back in my college days

-Producing investment research

-Sitting on investment committees

The best experiences have always emerged out of atmospheres of mutual trust and opennness. The two go hand-in-hand. You have to trust one another’s ability and instincts, as well as your full-hearted commitment to the success of whatever project or performance you’re working on. You have to be open with ideas and critical feedback. And it’s a two-way street. (Reflexivity again!) You can’t build trust without openness and vice versa.

When I think about failed projects in art, politics (lol) and business, there always seems to be a decisive lack of trust and openness. A zero-sum worldview dominates. Which makes sense, right? It’s an essential difference between cooperative and competitive games.

0
Redcat
Member
Redcat

“There is a well-known tendency in Silicon Valley to believe that its solutions …” Hey, there – is Silicon Valley a place (“in Silicon Valley”) … where a hugely diverse population of several million live? Or is it Goggle/AppApp/Fakebook/Generic-Entrepreneur/Stanford_Grad_Scammer (“its solutions”) ??? I’ve lived and worked here since 1972 in software development and as a math instructor in community college, and none of your simplistic uses of the term Silicon Valley holds any water (and we’ve had lots of water this winter – hooray!). Couldn’t you find more useful terms to characterize your favorite villains? Knock that Silicon Chip off your shoulder and stop using generic characterizations when more precise names are more to the point. Clear Eyes, even from CT to CA and back again.

0
DISCLOSURES

This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.