I read a RibbonFarm article for the first time in a long while... https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/ … takeaway:
-
Show this thread
-
It's easy to conflate "things don't make sense to us" with "things don't make sense [full stop]". Often enough things make sense for many purposes while not making sense /to/ observers (planners, critics, theorists).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
When things don't make sense to observers, they tend to groundlessly take that to mean those things don't make sense [full stop]. So the observers suppose that the things have to be replaced with things that do make sense both /to/ the them and /for/ those many purposes.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
But in reality, it was a groundless conflation, those things already made sense /for/ those many purposes, they just didn't make sense /to/ them.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
In reality, they'll be replacing the old things with new things that make more sense /to/ them but less sense /for/ those many purposes. They'll reliably make more sense /to/ the observers, but they won't reliably make any sense (mildly or catastrophically) /for/ those purposes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
"making sense to observers" is what they mean by "Legibility"... "Effectiveness" might be the counterpart "making sense [full stop]". i wonder if id've gotten something meatier if i actually read the book
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Meatier takeaway: it's Chesterton's fence with much heavier constraints. Social & ecological systems are the result of at least thousands of years of evolution, and evolution is likely to produce systems that are very effective in very illegible ways.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
So by default, we should expect that significant interventions in these systems that undermine evolved processes will result in poorer outcomes, and wherever the bar for intervention is, it ought to be correspondingly higher.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Wonder how right this sentiment is, though.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
It's quite wrong actually. Illegibility/authoritarian high modernism is a critical-analytical lens, not a normative one. I think Chesterton's Fence (which is basically what you're talking about with 'higher bar') is basically wrong.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Andre Retweeted Andre
But the opposition to high modernism you describe has to be justified by Chesterton's Fence (or this stronger version of it) doesn't it?https://twitter.com/androgynandre/status/1078177845610979329 …
Andre added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @androgynandre @vgr
Otherwise, why trust that the system as it is (i.e. its natural status quo) is more reliable for your purpose (e.g. welfare, stability) than some legible alternative a planner comes up with?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.