Against Gratuitous Citations

Citations and references are the sine qua non of academic writing, which must be contextualized within a broader tradition. However, they can be counterproductive for mere persuasion or entertainment, unless the references have a clear organization to them.

Too many writers fail to make their points with sufficient force within the main body of their text. After all, Foucault makes the point much more forcefully in his work and the audience would do well to check it out! Taken to extremes, this parsimony and humility detracts from the force of otherwise good writing.

The disparate references haven't been stitched into a cohesive narrative. The reader is expected to flit between references, with not much to go on but a sort of vibe. Even if the reader has had experience with a cited author in the past, it might have been some time since their last encounter with the relevant part of what is often a huge corpus. As a result, the reader is led on a tortuous march through a succession of vibes and aphorisms that might best be described as a fever dream.

This can be an effective form of narrative -- or even of persuasion. Everyone has had the experience of waking up from a fevered dream, absolutely convinced of something that will come to pass in their real life. And streams of consciousness can be enjoyable in movies or TV shows. Too often, essays lack the self-awareness to really lean into this narrative mode, however -- robbing the fever dream of the playfulness and colorful language that is necessary to really bring it to life.

This might be more relatable with some examples. For an academic example, you can simply pick any poorly cited paper in the social sciences, like this one that I sort of found at random. Consider this article about Dimes Square, which sort of feels like what you'd feed a large language model to most efficiently convey a vibe (without an ounce of care given to coherence).
Or consider this tweet, where AI alarmist Eliezer Yudkowsky sort of gestures vaguely in the direction of some vibes that he spent a lot of time putting in writing -- rather than laying out his point explicitly for the benefit of the neanderthals on Twitter. It's even more important for AI ex-risk researchers to avoid doing this, as they claim they need to actually connect with people to save lives. At least the aforementioned Dimes Square piece needs only make money.

In other words, let's be honest about who we're writing for and why we're doing it. If we're trying to signal erudition, fine! At least give me some beautiful writing to wash it down with. If we're trying to create a stand-alone piece of persuasion or narrative, take the time to really make it stand-alone and paraphrase what you must from the originals. If we're trying to recreate the experience of flipping to the footnotes in a David Foster Wallace novel (which I doubt many of you are), do it with aplomb! Relish in recursive footnotes and send people on wild goose-chases!

But if we're just padding our numbers, then fine, ignore me and carry on.

To conclude, check out this lovely letter that Wittgenstein wrote to G.E. Moore who asked him for the references he used in preparing his thesis for his B.A.

Dear Moore,
Your letter annoyed me. When I wrote Logik I didn't consult the Regulations, and
therefore I think it would only be fair if you gave me my degree without consulting
them so much either! As to a Preface and Notes; I think my examiners will easily see
how much I have cribbed from Bosanquet. - If I'm not worth your making an
exception for me even in some STUPID details then I may as well go to Hell directly;
and if I am worth it and you don't do it then - by God - you might go there.
The whole business is too stupid and too beastly to go on writing about it so
L.W.

Can you imagine the horror he might have felt if he saw modern academic style (which is infecting everything) ? Not only are references absolutely required, but they are the bulk of the writing, holding style and content in thrall!