#there are different versions of the exam. memorize the six-digit version number and copy it to your answer sheet

[quantummindclassicalheart]

Some thoughts on what makes this genre compelling: one simple framework for thinking of rules (and their more muscular cousins, laws) is as a set of guidelines for action determined by an individual or institution with the power to enforce the rules.

Implicit in this is the idea that disobeying the rules may lead to you coming to harm (either becuase the rulemaker cannot protect you from external harm, or because the rulemaker will cause the harm itself), but also the converse promise of safety if you do follow the rules.

In short: "if you follow the rules you will be safe."

Rules horror turns this on its head by asking questions like the following:

What are the rules keeping us safe from?

What if the rules contradict each other, so there is no way to consistently follow all the rules?

Who or what came up with the rules? How were they determined, and why were they made?

What if the rules were made by a force that is either malevolent or largely apathetic to your wellbeing?

What if the rules were never meant to keep you safe to begin with?

These questions are relevant in our real-world systems too-- laws and regulations, of course, but also codes of conduct, classroom policies, organizational bylaws, social media moderation policies, and so on. (One could also extend this to religious laws, but that's a whole can of worms.)

And there are different ways to answer the questions to promote trust. Community-generated agreements, for instance, ask for every member of a group to contribute to and approve the agreements of how they want to be in relationship with one another.

More broadly, in the systems of power we live under, what agreements are made between those who wield more power and those who wield less? How are those agreements negotiated, and by whom, and how are they enforced? Can those agreements promise safety? Can they promote flourishing?

Depending on how we answer these questions, this might lead us to contractualism and social contract theory or to anarchism or any other number of political and philosophical destinations.

In any case, rules horror (in the form presented above) invites us to consider what we give up when we follow the rules, whether the promise of safety through obedience is worth it (and even achievable at all!), and which consequence of disobedience is scarier: the wrath of a known authority or the threat of an unknowable danger.

...might've discovered a new genre to lose my mind about, hold please