I just finished reading Rules: A Short History of What We Live By, by Lorraine Daston, published in 2022. If you want to know what you’re in for with this book, check this (brief) review in Foreign Affairs.
Five stars! This was an excellent book; S-tier oddball history. Erudite, funny, challenging, wide-ranging, deep, and well structured. I have gained a new lens for looking at the world, a toolkit for excavating situations with peculiar properties, and a better grasp on the range of possible ways and places that rules press upon us. I’ve even gotten a better appreciation for the firmness, or lack, that rules have or that we should think they have. The book and some of its lessons have already made a difference in my professional life, something I was not expecting to happen at all. So, the book is surprising too. If you are at all interested, this is a text worth seeking out.
Lin-Manuel Miranda, if you are reading this, I suggest you take a look at Rules for your next musical. Really.
I have only read the book once, yet. There is much more to plumb out of this rich text. I have captured a few anchors, re-entry points, for future visits. To be honest, it’s only a sampling. I’m sure I will gain more such footholds in future readings too.
Rule, as in straight edge. A cane plant used in ancient masonry. Rule, as in tape measure, or as in the rules of multiplication. Basically geometry and by extension all math and other algorithms.
Rule, as in WWJD. Models, paradigms, singular examples to imitate (but not ape). This definition of rule has gone out of fashion lately, so I’m struggling to find an X to put in that X.1
Rule, as in legal code. Laws, regulations, norms, and customs. These are pretty familiar.
Rules can fall somewhere along these three opposites. There are historical combinations that are quite uncommon today, which makes it hard for me to wrap my head around. Fun to think about though.
Rules formulated thickly or thinly. Thick with examples and exception and clarification. Thin if all those crunchily specific details can be ignored or handled elsewhere, and they are simply stated.
Rules applied flexibly or rigidly. “They’re more like guidelines” or “death and taxes.”
Rules with a general or specific domain. General, like Einstein’s theory of relativity, or specific like “only 2 hours of TV per week in this house.”
The application of rules always, unavoidably, inevitably, infallibly, requires the use of judgement and interpretation. The use of judgement may be shifted around, as in the rule only applies when certain conditions are met, or there may be carefully worded exceptions to the rule. It may be assumed that a certain system is being used in the application of the rule. Some intelligence must judge if the conditions are met or not. Blind application of the rules will result in errors. Using rules means also making careful interpretation [p125].
On the one hand, rules are a tool for addressing the chaos of the world, and the chaos that we humans are so good at adding. The predictability gained by some small success with rules can become addictive [p185].
The advancement of mathematical calculation from the domain of learned experts to human computers to modern digital computers has not relieved us of either the toil or the intrinsic judgement required. We are able to get a lot more numbers pushed through this specific formulation [p105].
The goal of free markets is not to make people behave virtuously, but to make them calculable (predictable), which is a very useful property for them to have [p182].
We have yet to construct a system of rules that is completely free of exceptions. This is one of the roles of the executive or sovereign [p265].
I bought a used copy and it came with an inscription in both the front and end flaps. This is one of the things that I hope for when getting used books: little mysteries of history, secret surprises hidden in the covers, more than I bargained for. Sometimes I get the wrong book (online orders) and that can go either way, a dud or an unexpected gift.
It took quite a bit of staring and questioning to extract a reasonable interpretation of this handwriting.
learning skills to switch jobs
A way to provide college degrees–
require skills but not college degrees
and on the back
able to to get a job the return / which
did not allow repayment
anyone in world – get skills to
= oppor[tunity] to learn.
2 trillion/year spent on college degree to get an educ[ation]
RE–INVENTING
educ[ation]
&
access to earning
Well, that’s my interpretation. See for yourself here: front endpapers / back endpapers. The “Francis Bacon” is my note, the other hand is some earlier owner.
The other traces left by the former owner are about 3 pages of quite intense underlining and margin noting: p1, p2-3, p4. That’s it, no other markings anywhere else in the book. It doesn’t appear to be directly connected to the note in the end papers, nor do I get any insights into what all the heavy underlining meant to them. Your guess is as good as mine.
Note: I added the ❶, ❷, etc, so I could link my paper written notes back to specific paragraphs. It’s an experiment, since I expect to find relevant ideas or facts in every paragraph of this book.
The parentheses, e.g. ❪main body text❫, and asterisk, ✱, in the margin are mine too–I’ve been doing that for a few years now. It’s served as a good way to find a specific passage later, and easy to refer to.
It’s kind of a bummer that paradigms are not still in use. There are a lot of useful skills related to applying this type of rule. We may need to bring it back. I might examine this more later. ↑
To Reply: Email me your favorite oddball histories.
Posted: in Reading.
Other categories: book-notes.
Back references: none.
Tags that connect: [[Lorraine Daston]] The Mixed Diversions 50; [[Rules]] The Mixed Diversions 50.
Tags only on this post: none.
