Society agreement

The Tinkerbell Effect

Our society has evolved through agreements.

Human existence itself has developed significantly, to the point where a belief system enabled Homo sapiens to evolve in comparison to other hominids.

The Tinkerbell Effect is when something becomes true simply because people believe it to be ~~valuable~~ true.

Take the monetary system, for example.
Humanity assigns value to banknotes—a piece of paper with certain security features—which has an associated monetary value. This value is transferable and can be used to acquire goods or services in exchange for handing over that piece of paper.

These days, we don’t even end up exchanging the physical bills themselves. Payments are made without any physical contact between a card linked to an account, which in turn holds a value of x “credits.” All of this—this small miracle—happens because we have all collectively agreed that there is intrinsic value in holding a special piece of paper, or even that the numbers representing x tokens in a bank account, or even in a digital wallet, correspond to something “real.” It is created and used only as long as we all believe in it.

If, in the next moment, we were to stop believing in it, it would lose its value.

Just as happens with the currencies of some countries facing severe financial difficulties, where the total value of all the banknotes in circulation in no way corresponds to the reality of the country’s resources or its financial capacity.

Countries that go bankrupt and use their own national currency see the unit value of each coin or bill fall relative to those of other, more prosperous nations.

This principle of the “Tinkerbell” effect also applies, for example, to borders, or even to laws, stock prices, and so many other institutions that we treat as solid.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in 1651, posited that this effect or concept is also applicable to any political authority. The king, for example, has power only because his subjects believe in it. The moment that belief ceases to exist, what was once his throne becomes nothing more than a more ornate chair, devoid of any symbolic value representing a nation or region.

For Hobbes, therefore, governments are a story we tell ourselves, and when we stop telling that story and stop believing in it, governments collapse.

In the 20th century, John Searle applied this principle to what he called “institutional facts.” These institutional facts exist because people have believed that they exist. As I mentioned earlier, in the example of borders between two regions, two cities, or two nations, these are not physical barriers. Marriage is not a chemical bond that cannot be broken. And even a college degree has value only as long as the institution that grants it has associated value. What John Searle argues is that any fact that exists in social terms, at the social level, exists only because it was invented. They are not false, but they are created, invented.

And what both Hobbes and, more recently, Searle have come to understand is that this is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. The problem arises, however, when this shared belief fades. Because, in that case, our institutions can collapse or fail.

Society, then, depends on trust and belief, but these ultimately break down—for better or for worse—when someone initially casts doubt on that very trust and belief and questions why we are acting in a certain way or following a certain rule.

This effect also reminds me of one of the best books I’ve ever read, which I first encountered during high school in my philosophy class. The book—or rather, the essay written by Plato in his work titled The Republic, known as The Allegory of the Cave — was written around the year 520.

In this allegory, or essay, Plato compares the impact of education with the impact of its absence on our existence.

In this book, Plato describes people who are chained by the neck and ankles, unable to move, and who are thus forced to look only at a wall at the back of a cave.

The people cannot see themselves, nor can they see the others who are also chained to them.

Behind these prisoners is a large fire, separated from them by a low wall. Behind this low wall, there are people carrying objects that take the form of people or living beings; these objects cast only their shadows onto the wall at the back of the cave, and not the shadows of the people’s own bodies, which the low wall prevents from being cast.

The prisoners, who are chained and unable to see what is happening behind them, look only at the back wall and see only the shadows cast upon it. Since the only sound the prisoners hear is what echoes from outside the cave, they end up associating that sound with the shadows they see, thereby creating a reality.

Plato then posits the following hypothesis:

If a prisoner were released and managed to look at the bonfire behind the small wall at his back, just the mere sight of that intense light would hurt his eyes, and he would be unable to face this “new reality.” He would therefore be unable to see clearly the reality that was being presented to him. If, at that moment, he were told that the people behind the low wall were reality, and that he was merely seeing the shadows of the objects they were carrying, he would not believe it. In the midst of his situation—overwhelmed by so much information—nothing would make sense to him. And at that moment, he would beg to be chained up again, so he could go back to staring at the wall at the back of the cave. Back to the reality he thought he knew, the one he was used to seeing and hearing.

On the other hand, if that same prisoner who had been set free had understood and looked upon the light of the fire, and the people carrying the objects as the truth and reality, and if he wished to return to the cave to tell the other prisoners what he had seen; upon arriving there, the darkness of the cave would make it difficult for him to perceive where he was, for the darkness would prevent him from judging distances accurately. His eyes, which had once been blinded by staring at the light, would now be blinded—but by the extreme darkness. The other prisoners would assume that their former cave companion had gone blind because he had left the cave, and therefore, they would never dare to venture out of the cave, for fear that they too might go blind!

And when confronted with someone who challenges the value system they all shared, it could lead them to rise up against him—and even kill him if he tried to lead them out of the cave to see the supposed reality.

Today, our societies face an enormous challenge. The dictatorships that exist in various parts of the globe are, in essence, a cave. They dictate and impose their ideas, causing their prisoners—now referred to as “their people”—to believe in a system of ideas that do not correspond to reality; but since they have always seen it as such, it is impossible for someone from “outside” or someone who has been outside the cave to convince them that they are being deceived.

For me, the cave today is perfectly represented by a country called the Russian Federation.

~~The~~ (not all of course) Some Russians, held captive and forced to stare at the cave’s wall (state-controlled media), are shown only the shadows of what the authorities want them to see. Only certain images and sounds are allowed through.

There is nothing and no one who can convince them that this is not a “special military operation,” but rather an open war with a neighboring country. In this war, thousands upon thousands of young Russians are being thrown onto the front lines, causing the destruction of civilian infrastructure—such as the attack that took place yesterday in Kyiv, where at least 20 Ukrainian civilians died. Thirty locations in the city were bombed in one of the largest Russian attacks on Kyiv since the start of the conflict. More than 70 missiles and nearly 500 drones were launched at the city, striking a fitness center with a swimming pool in the city center. The story they’re peddling is that it was a response—an act of retaliation. The story they’re selling “at home” is that these were surgical strikes against military institutions and infrastructure.

A belief system created and maintained solely for the delight and benefit of the Moscow elites.

A belief and a agreement that was created for the best of few...