Rereading your comment, I think you’re saying that legibility will arise by itself well enough so long as someone is on Simulacrum level 1, caring only about the truth, and if their writing is not legible, they probably have an agenda and you’d better focus on finding out what that is, or just ignore what they said.
But
This feels unactionable—it’s just a rephrasing of old critical reading advice “find out the writer’s agenda and biases so you know where they’re coming from”. Which is so vague—even having that info, how do I debias just the right amount?? How do I avoid overcorrecting and falling prey to my own confirmation bias?
My experience writing legibly actually flagged areas in my belief system I didn’t realize was so weak—a huge boon for myself here—and in retrospect, if I’d published illegible writings about those topics I’d now want to take down those posts, as it’s both embarrassing to me as well as a disservice to readers. This is despite me being on Simulacrum 1 (or so I think I was).
Rereading your comment, I think you’re saying that legibility will arise by itself well enough so long as someone is on Simulacrum level 1, caring only about the truth, and if their writing is not legible, they probably have an agenda and you’d better focus on finding out what that is, or just ignore what they said.
But
This feels unactionable—it’s just a rephrasing of old critical reading advice “find out the writer’s agenda and biases so you know where they’re coming from”. Which is so vague—even having that info, how do I debias just the right amount?? How do I avoid overcorrecting and falling prey to my own confirmation bias?
My experience writing legibly actually flagged areas in my belief system I didn’t realize was so weak—a huge boon for myself here—and in retrospect, if I’d published illegible writings about those topics I’d now want to take down those posts, as it’s both embarrassing to me as well as a disservice to readers. This is despite me being on Simulacrum 1 (or so I think I was).