Literary theory’s triangle of canon, worldview, and mimesis implies a tight, interlocked relationship between what people consume (canon), the way they see the world (worldview), and the kinds of cultural objects they produce (mimesis). Access to any one corner sheds light on the others, a sort of psychocultural trigonometry. Reading alongside someone else isn’t just a way to pick up recommendations for one’s own overburdened reading lists: it’s a method of better understanding, even in a state of lossy, limited informational access, different ways of seeing and understanding the world, of noticing the priors and influences that inform modes of thinking.

Ways of seeing belong not just to individuals but to fields and subcultures. The best way to understand the state of a discipline can be to pay attention to what its practitioners are paying attention to. Are.na is already partially a record-in-real-time of design and tech thinking, of the essays and thinkpieces that made an impact, of the weblogs and publications that serve as disciplinary watering holes.