Curious: I often hear illegibility associated to the post-rat community. What are the canonical refs? I'm asking specifically for canonical within the post-rat community, not the much broader literature.
Maybe: ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-b
Conversation
In the same sense as, say, "Meditations on Moloch" is canon within the rationality community. Of course, the ideas in it come out of (IIRC) Hobbes, Rousseau, Olson, and many others - ideas about collective action and its difficulty, about systems, and so on.
1
17
I'm not asking to be pointed to "Seeing Like a State". I assumed this was obvious, but I guess not
I asking which post-rat writing on legibility is canon within the post-rat community, & which non-post-rat writing (apart from SLaS) is canon for the post-rats.
2
1
25
I'm using "canon" here very loosely, to mean something like "very widely read, enough that it wouldn't surprise you if a post-rat you'd never met had read it".
2
12
A highly entertaining answer:
Quote Tweet
Replying to @michael_nielsen
it would hardly be appropriate if it were a legible source instead of just like, something that people think and talk about
1
52
Someone saying the essay I linked is the conventional reference (+Scott, of course) twitter.com/The_Lagrangian
It's a lovely essay, but I'm surprised there's not more.
(Yes, yes, everyone can now fill in self-reference jokes. Funny the first time, after that it's a high bar...)
Quote Tweet
Replying to @michael_nielsen
I think that is accurate as the canonical source, or at least was a couple years ago
2
14
A curious thing is the _personal value_ that many post-rats seem to place on personal illegibility - as something desirable. This is (mostly) absent from both 's essay and Scott's book, at least in my reading. So I'm curious how it arose!!??
10
3
32
Quote Tweet
noticing the internet has taught me that being described is the prelude to being attacked
Show this thread