Use it as a talking point, sure, but I couldn’t bring myself to say the movie is infused with enough thought to possess a meaningful thesis.

Certainly this world would also favor people who are naturally gifted but not good at lying/seeing through lies. High functioning autistics might be better off. But how do you convince people who benefit from lying who stand to lose out from a more honest, transparent world/ If pretty much all of us are good at lying, does this confer some good benefits–maybe people are nice to a broader group of people because they’re not exactly sure what people’s status is, whereas if everything were transparent, one could be a beast to one’s inferiors and a suck up to one’s superiors.

Also, wouldn’t a world of perfect transparency favor people who were good chess player types, who can work well with perfect information, and hurt people who are better at acting under uncertainty–and so the most powerful maybe would be the chess players who could calculate the moves in a world of transparent people, and not the people who are good at gaining power in an uncertain world with lots of guesswork about other people and their motives, which seems potentially a better sort to have in power because the world seems more about guess work than about chess game calculations, at least in the political realm. I guess this is basically a Nassim-Taleb-esque point, not to say NT would endorse it.