介绍

Q4 Social Sciences Whitehall Papers Pub Date : 2021-07-02 DOI:10.1080/02681307.2021.2005888
J. Bronk, Jack Watling
{"title":"介绍","authors":"J. Bronk, Jack Watling","doi":"10.1080/02681307.2021.2005888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Humans are naturally drawn to stories, since we use narratives to make sense of a complex world, to order information into chains of causality, and to communicate and respond to ideas. Confronted with novel technologies or tactics, we are often drawn to narrative vignettes of how these capabilities could be employed in order to visualise their effects. However, narratives are not merely descriptive; they implicitly promote frameworks that prompt behaviour and judgement. It has long been recognised in economics that narratives shape expectations, stimulate imagination and guide investment decisions in ways that empirical analysis often struggles to match. Within Defence, the shaping influence of uncritically accepted narratives can have problematic consequences. In many areas of defence policy, such as cyber warfare, space or novel weapons systems, deep subject matter expertise is required to understand the potential benefits and limitations. The same is true of attempts to assess the policies and actions of strategic competitors with very different cultural and geopolitical viewpoints. Crucial nuances and practical constraints are almost unavoidably lost in translation as senior decision-makers shape policy and generalists rewrite doctrine and strategy documents based on their own understanding of briefings given by specialist practitioners and subject matter experts. This tendency is exacerbated by a natural inclination to over-hype the potential for novel technologies or strategies to provide transformative effects. Incompatible","PeriodicalId":37791,"journal":{"name":"Whitehall Papers","volume":"99 1","pages":"1 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introduction\",\"authors\":\"J. Bronk, Jack Watling\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02681307.2021.2005888\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Humans are naturally drawn to stories, since we use narratives to make sense of a complex world, to order information into chains of causality, and to communicate and respond to ideas. Confronted with novel technologies or tactics, we are often drawn to narrative vignettes of how these capabilities could be employed in order to visualise their effects. However, narratives are not merely descriptive; they implicitly promote frameworks that prompt behaviour and judgement. It has long been recognised in economics that narratives shape expectations, stimulate imagination and guide investment decisions in ways that empirical analysis often struggles to match. Within Defence, the shaping influence of uncritically accepted narratives can have problematic consequences. In many areas of defence policy, such as cyber warfare, space or novel weapons systems, deep subject matter expertise is required to understand the potential benefits and limitations. The same is true of attempts to assess the policies and actions of strategic competitors with very different cultural and geopolitical viewpoints. Crucial nuances and practical constraints are almost unavoidably lost in translation as senior decision-makers shape policy and generalists rewrite doctrine and strategy documents based on their own understanding of briefings given by specialist practitioners and subject matter experts. This tendency is exacerbated by a natural inclination to over-hype the potential for novel technologies or strategies to provide transformative effects. Incompatible\",\"PeriodicalId\":37791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Whitehall Papers\",\"volume\":\"99 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Whitehall Papers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02681307.2021.2005888\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Whitehall Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02681307.2021.2005888","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类天生就被故事所吸引,因为我们用叙事来理解一个复杂的世界,将信息排列成因果关系链,并对想法进行交流和回应。面对新的技术或战术,我们通常会被如何使用这些能力的叙事片段所吸引,以便将其效果可视化。然而,叙事并不仅仅是描述性的;它们隐含地促进了促进行为和判断的框架。经济学早就认识到,叙事塑造预期、激发想象力、引导投资决策的方式,往往是实证分析难以企及的。在国防领域,不加批判地接受叙事的塑造影响可能会产生问题后果。在国防政策的许多领域,如网络战、太空或新型武器系统,需要深入的主题专业知识来了解潜在的好处和局限性。试图评估具有非常不同文化和地缘政治观点的战略竞争对手的政策和行动也是如此。由于高级决策者制定政策,通才根据自己对专业从业人员和主题专家提供的简报的理解重写理论和战略文件,因此在翻译中几乎不可避免地丢失了关键的细微差别和实际限制。过度夸大新技术或战略带来变革影响的潜力的自然倾向加剧了这种趋势。不兼容的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Introduction
Humans are naturally drawn to stories, since we use narratives to make sense of a complex world, to order information into chains of causality, and to communicate and respond to ideas. Confronted with novel technologies or tactics, we are often drawn to narrative vignettes of how these capabilities could be employed in order to visualise their effects. However, narratives are not merely descriptive; they implicitly promote frameworks that prompt behaviour and judgement. It has long been recognised in economics that narratives shape expectations, stimulate imagination and guide investment decisions in ways that empirical analysis often struggles to match. Within Defence, the shaping influence of uncritically accepted narratives can have problematic consequences. In many areas of defence policy, such as cyber warfare, space or novel weapons systems, deep subject matter expertise is required to understand the potential benefits and limitations. The same is true of attempts to assess the policies and actions of strategic competitors with very different cultural and geopolitical viewpoints. Crucial nuances and practical constraints are almost unavoidably lost in translation as senior decision-makers shape policy and generalists rewrite doctrine and strategy documents based on their own understanding of briefings given by specialist practitioners and subject matter experts. This tendency is exacerbated by a natural inclination to over-hype the potential for novel technologies or strategies to provide transformative effects. Incompatible
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Whitehall Papers
Whitehall Papers Social Sciences-Archeology
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: The Whitehall Paper series provides in-depth studies of specific developments, issues or themes in the field of national and international defence and security. Published three times a year, Whitehall Papers reflect the highest standards of original research and analysis, and are invaluable background material for policy-makers and specialists alike.
期刊最新文献
Revision Surgery With Refixation After Mandibular Fractures. High-Order Language Processing Difficulties in Patients With Schizophrenia: Cross-linguistic and Cross-cultural Results From the Hindi Version of a Newly Developed Language Test. Chapter III: Russian and NATO Surface Capabilities in the High North Chapter I: The Strategic Context Appendix 2: Submarine ASW Interactions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1