Calling for more nuance in sociological theories *seems* unambiguously good, but what if - hear me out here - f@#$ it.- Links for the Curious -Fuck Nuance (H...
A lot of writers (Borges, Umberto Eco, Lewis Carroll, and others) talk about this problem through an analogy, of a map that is so big and detailed that it represents its territory 1:1. Thus being useless.
Those calls for additional nuance are a lot like asking for more details in a map. Eventually you need to prioritise, considering the scope and the purpose of the theory.
Regarding aesthetics, mentioned around 5:00 - cue to the concept of elegance often involving things like “trying to do the most with the least”.
Nota bene: the author of the article is not proposing turning everything into spherical cows, and ditching necessary complexity. The youtuber neither, nor me. 50 is still 50, even if “it’s either 0 or 100 lol lmao” would be simpler.
A lot of writers (Borges, Umberto Eco, Lewis Carroll, and others) talk about this problem through an analogy, of a map that is so big and detailed that it represents its territory 1:1. Thus being useless.
Those calls for additional nuance are a lot like asking for more details in a map. Eventually you need to prioritise, considering the scope and the purpose of the theory.
Regarding aesthetics, mentioned around 5:00 - cue to the concept of elegance often involving things like “trying to do the most with the least”.
Nota bene: the author of the article is not proposing turning everything into spherical cows, and ditching necessary complexity. The youtuber neither, nor me. 50 is still 50, even if “it’s either 0 or 100 lol lmao” would be simpler.