Aleph Peace Prize

Hello and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast, brought to you by Aleph Insights and produced by me, Fraser McGruer. I’m here with Nick Hare and Peter Coghill of Aleph Insights. On this podcast, we take a look at a wide range of topics from an analytical viewpoint.

Today we’re discussing prizes.

Nick, go for it.

urse, established way back in: 2025

It was designed, according to FIFA — who, by the way, are a football organisation — to reward individuals who’ve taken exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace and, by doing so, have united people across the world.

Now, the first recipient — and really there’s only one person it could have been — was Donald Trump.

You might be interested to know what the gruelling selection process was.

Yes, please.

According to FIFA, the prize is awarded on the recommendation of an independent committee, but so far they haven’t released any details about nomination procedures or evaluation criteria. Apparently it wasn’t discussed at the FIFA Council. We don’t know if there were any other nominees. We don’t know who the judges were.

The head of the selection committee is a man called Zaw Zaw, a Burmese businessman with ties to the former Myanmar junta and who has been linked to human rights abuses against the Rohingya.

But let’s not detract from the fact that this is quite a significant recognition being given to Donald Trump. Looking at that picture of Gianni Infantino, the head of FIFA, handing Trump the prize, Trump is beaming like a toddler being given a gold star for good behaviour that’s just been made up to keep him quiet.

Even if it’s worthless, it still somehow feels embarrassing.

If I were American, even if I hadn’t voted for him, I think I would have died of shame looking at it. The prize itself is a kind of gold globe with these strange zombie hands reaching up from the grave to grasp it.

I’ve not seen it.

It’s gruesome. It’s like some sort of parody of the hyper-real world we’re living in — a prize that’s effectively been made up on the spot as a kind of bribe for Donald Trump, who, as you might remember, was very upset about not being given another prize — less well-known and less prestigious, but still relevant — the Nobel Peace Prize.

He was so upset about not receiving that that he even complained to the Norwegian Prime Minister, who has no say in it.

Right.

So I thought we might take a look at the Nobel Peace Prize instead, since that has a bit more pedigree.

Before you do — why do we want to talk about prizes at all?

Well, I think the key question is: what are they for? And once we’ve decided what they’re for, do they actually work? Do they achieve what they’re trying to achieve?

So I’ll have a quick look at the Nobel Peace Prize — who gets nominated, who wins it, and whether it actually does its job of promoting peace.

That’s their stated aim, right?

Actually, not quite. The Nobel Peace Prize isn’t explicitly designed to create more peace.

According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the prize is awarded to those who have done the most or best work for three things: fraternity between nations, disarmament, and peace.

It was set up in: 1900

Fair enough.

, for example, received it in: 1973

Barack Obama received it in: 2009

If you look at the winners more broadly, they tend to fall into a few categories.

First, peace processes — people involved in ending conflicts. Then advocacy — individuals or organisations promoting human rights, like Martin Luther King or Amnesty International. Then institution building — setting up organisations designed to foster cooperation. And finally, humanitarian relief — organisations like the Red Cross.

Those all sound fairly reasonable.

They do. But when you look at trends over time, it’s interesting.

ilding. Then, from around the: 1930

So the question is: does it work?

Well, interestingly, the rate of death from conflict in the 20th century is actually lower than in earlier centuries. So if you wanted to, you could claim the Nobel Peace Prize contributed to that.

But it’s probably more realistic to say that’s just coincidence.

Right.

So that’s the Nobel Peace Prize.

One thing you mentioned was promoting dialogue. I mean, look at us — we’re doing that right now. Where’s our Nobel Peace Prize?

Exactly.

But more seriously, I think we want to get into the broader concept of prizes — what they are, why they exist.

Peter, what do you think?

I think it’s interesting to ask why a prize has value in the first place. Where does its prestige come from?

There are probably four main factors.

First, age — older prizes tend to carry more weight. Second, continuity — whether the prize has been consistently awarded over time. Third, scarcity — how many people receive it. And fourth, the list of previous winners.

If the prize has been awarded to respected individuals, that builds its prestige. But if questionable recipients are included, that can undermine it.

But that doesn’t address what the prize is actually for.

True — but if you’re comparing two prizes for the same thing, those factors determine which one carries more prestige.

I still feel like we’re missing something — the psychological side of it.

Let me give an example.

When I was about 13, I’d dropped down through the academic sets at school and ended up near the bottom. But that year, something clicked and I did really well. I ended up winning several school prizes.

It was a big deal for me. It gave me confidence and made me feel good about myself.

So in that sense, the prize worked.

How much did you get?

Books, mainly. I still have them. Slightly militaristic selection, in hindsight — but that’s beside the point.

The key thing is that it boosted my confidence.

I never got prizes at school.

Really?

No. And I never really understood how they were awarded. It seemed arbitrary.

But I did win a philosophy prize at university. I didn’t even know it existed until I got it.

And that felt different. It made me think, “Maybe I’m actually good at this.”

That’s interesting — because it suggests prizes can influence behaviour after the fact as well.

Exactly.

So maybe prizes serve multiple functions: they incentivise behaviour, they recognise achievement, they signal status, and they reward effort.

And maybe the best prizes are those given to people who weren’t trying to win them in the first place.

Yes — because then they’re recognising genuine commitment rather than ambition for the prize itself.

And that leads us nicely to a question: do we even need more prizes?

Exactly. Because if you create too many, you dilute their value.

Right — like having a “World Day” for everything.

Exactly.

Which brings us to a new prize…

Yes — the Aleph Peace Prize.

And what does that reward?

Actual peace. The absence of conflict.

So rather than vague advocacy, it would recognise people or institutions that have plausibly reduced the likelihood of conflict.

That might include things like economic development, international cooperation, or even specific moments where catastrophe was avoided.

So who’s your nominee?

Stanislav Petrov.

lear false alarm in the early: 1980

If he’d made a different decision, there’s a chance it could have led to nuclear war.

So plausibly, he saved millions — perhaps hundreds of millions — of lives.

That’s a strong candidate.

Yes. So he gets the inaugural Aleph Peace Prize.

What does he win?

A £10 book token.

Perfect.

And on that note, we’ll wrap up.

You’ve been listening to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast, brought to you by Aleph Insights and produced by me, Fraser McGruer. If you haven’t already, please like and subscribe. We release episodes every week or two.

If there are any topics you’d like us to cover, please email us at podcast@alephinsights.com

.

Thanks for listening. Until next time — goodbye.