A Big Idea Called Legibility

Anthony Heman

Here's the original Article: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-called-legibility/

Just slightly interesting stuff that I would like to share. The summary is basically in that first "recipe" section:

• Look at a complex and confusing reality, such as the social dynamics of an old city
• Fail to understand all the subtleties of how the complex reality works
• Attribute that failure to the irrationality of what you are looking at, rather than your own limitations
• Come up with an idealized blank-slate vision of what that reality ought to look like
• Argue that the relative simplicity and platonic orderliness of the vision represents rationality
• Use authoritarian power to impose that vision, by demolishing the old reality if necessary
• Watch your rational Utopia fail horribly

I admittedly liked the article, and I'm potentially interested in pursuing some of the books the author mentions.

Having that system presented as such has informed my perspective lately, wherein I've started to look at a lot of problems I'm solving in work and life from that perspective. Which is me recursively using that recipe to prescribe motives to things and then willfully ignoring possible underlying problems. The irony of that is not lost on me.

The biggest area this hits me is in the study of Economics. From my perspective, every economic system proposed has, at it's core, some motive. It has a goal, typically to increase or maximize welfare or productivity, but essentially they all hinge on willfully obscuring the detail in order to create an ordered system. And subscribing to those systems blindly seems to often lead to incredible failure.

I should say that it's also obvious that the premises of the recipe do not inherently lead to those failures. They could very well lead to success. Science is one part observation and another part constructing representations and theories that account for those observations. And those hypothesis then get tested, which is key. And those that are successful bubble up to the top and then get involved in further hypothesis. In actuality, the "rational utopia's that fail horribly" may as well be failed experiments. And failed experiments yield data, which is something useful for further hypothesis.

johndis

Pretty cool article, it's like a more scientific take on post-modernism basically. Calling society (and govt) postmodern seems pretty off, though, cause I can think of a bajillion ways it still seem stuck in "authoritarian high modernism" mode. And calling Obama postmodern seems especially off..

Anthony Heman

Another similar article that grabs me, although I disagree on some of the finer details and specific arguments. Either way, apparently this guy reads some awesome books.

http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/05/03/rediscovering-literacy/#more-3238

TheEvilTwin

This guy is clearly very well-read, but he doesn't do too good a job of supporting his very strong assertions. His article on legibility kind of required the reader to be familiar with EVERY SINGLE BOOK he mentioned in order to actually be able to follow his argument. The article on literacy provides nothing to convince me of the accuracy of his hypothesis. Interesting ideas, maybe, but I don't see any reason to act for one second as though any of them are true or accurate.

Anthony Heman

This guy is clearly very well-read, but he doesn't do too good a job of supporting his very strong assertions. His article on legibility kind of required the reader to be familiar with EVERY SINGLE BOOK he mentioned in order to actually be able to follow his argument. The article on literacy provides nothing to convince me of the accuracy of his hypothesis. Interesting ideas, maybe, but I don't see any reason to act for one second as though any of them are true or accurate.

That seems to be part of the problem. I mean, his articles (that I've read) would take a ton of research to support and even more work to actually articulate to the common reader. But it is interesting. At this point, it's conjecture that gets me thinking about some subjects in ways that I hadn't been considering, which is useful and interesting. I can't fault that, so long as nobody is taking his word as doctrine and running with it. I wish I had the time to read the library of stuff he has.

That's the big gap I find where I really wish I had persued philosophy as my subject of study. It wouldn't have probably paid as well... but I will always have that incredible desire to spend more time reading more awesome things that I don't have time to.