5 ms·

For those who don't know, the title is a reference to the book "Seeing Like a State", by James C. Scott. "Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve t

For those who don't know, the title is a reference to the book "Seeing Like a State", by James C. Scott. "Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed is a book by James C. Scott critical of a system of beliefs he calls high modernism, that centers around confidence in the ability to design and operate society in accordance with scientific laws. It was released in March 1998, with a paperback version in February 1999. The book catalogues schemes which states impose upon populaces that are convenient for the state since they make societies 'legible', but are not necessarily good for the people. For example, census data, standardized weights and measures, and uniform languages make it easier to tax and control the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State

exolymph 6y ago
This becomes pretty damn obvious if you actually click on the link. But to be fair, who does that?
Nasrudith 6y ago
The reason they "See Like a State" is because it works better on average essentially. Despite the romanticism of "local community in tune with their needs". Just look at small town corruption for one. The actual practice is more Feudalism-lite of alliegences and fiedoms. It is why bureaucracy was an improvement. Even with all of its pain in the ass inanities, rigidities the fiefdom seeking is lessened as they have less discretion to abuse it with defined rules. The agenda of Scott echoes bad ideas been seen many times before. It seems to be an "anti-practical so they can call it intellectually pure" pseudo-intellectualism legacy of philosophers idolizing the Greeks who were largely essentially being "paid" (even if technically slaves their lifestyle was supported without toil) to kiss up to aristocracy and promote their prestiege and looking down upon anything practical. That toxic anti-practical attitude just keeps on showing up in history. The "southern aristocrats" and old money distancing itself from the new in the industrial revolution. Because aristocracy defined themselves as not working but fighting and owning. The split of natural philosophy from philosophy and into science was a good but it implicitly left a "but not emperical thinking as it has become too lowly and practical!" to philosophy leaving it frankly tending towards the delusional. Yes there is "philosophy of science" but the need for the qualifier is a hint that it isn't an implicit norm with respect to empiricism. The article also misses the mark in claiming a reversion from machine learning - even if it loses legibility the fact it is still based upon the data instead of direct personal whims is still a net perk even if the rules it operates end up Garbage In Garbage Out. The judgement of it may still be evaluated and adjusted - just like every other rule based system.
- nickff 6y ago
  Have you read the book? It's not about showing that states are 'wrong' or 'bad', it's about how measurement and standardization force changes that affect people, and what those changes are.

exolymph 6y ago

This becomes pretty damn obvious if you actually click on the link. But to be fair, who does that?

Nasrudith 6y ago

The reason they "See Like a State" is because it works better on average essentially. Despite the romanticism of "local community in tune with their needs". Just look at small town corruption for one. The actual practice is more Feudalism-lite of alliegences and fiedoms. It is why bureaucracy was an improvement. Even with all of its pain in the ass inanities, rigidities the fiefdom seeking is lessened as they have less discretion to abuse it with defined rules. The agenda of Scott echoes bad ideas been seen many times before. It seems to be an "anti-practical so they can call it intellectually pure" pseudo-intellectualism legacy of philosophers idolizing the Greeks who were largely essentially being "paid" (even if technically slaves their lifestyle was supported without toil) to kiss up to aristocracy and promote their prestiege and looking down upon anything practical. That toxic anti-practical attitude just keeps on showing up in history. The "southern aristocrats" and old money distancing itself from the new in the industrial revolution. Because aristocracy defined themselves as not working but fighting and owning. The split of natural philosophy from philosophy and into science was a good but it implicitly left a "but not emperical thinking as it has become too lowly and practical!" to philosophy leaving it frankly tending towards the delusional. Yes there is "philosophy of science" but the need for the qualifier is a hint that it isn't an implicit norm with respect to empiricism. The article also misses the mark in claiming a reversion from machine learning - even if it loses legibility the fact it is still based upon the data instead of direct personal whims is still a net perk even if the rules it operates end up Garbage In Garbage Out. The judgement of it may still be evaluated and adjusted - just like every other rule based system.

nickff 6y ago
Have you read the book? It's not about showing that states are 'wrong' or 'bad', it's about how measurement and standardization force changes that affect people, and what those changes are.