Studies in Intelligence [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Studies in Intelligence [pdf]

#11

Post by navbaker » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 12:50 PM UTC

unishark wrote: post #8

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current US literary style clouds the message, instead of clarifying it.

I can't stand this kind of writing, communicating, and conveying of ideas, concepts, and points which tries to pack, cram, and insert too damn many variations, subtleties, and nuances into each point in a sentence. It seems like a military thing. Though I know other people that do it whenever they're trying to summarize anything tersely (and think they're succeeding when they failing terribly).

This is intended to convey meaning to anyone engaged in military planning activities and it is assumed that the reader has the relevant education in military planning so they can quickly understand what is being said. It’s no different than reading a scientific paper where a single sentence may be unpacked on multiple levels because the reader/audience for the paper is someone who has a deep background in the subject.

Re: Studies in Intelligence [pdf]

#12

Post by cyberbanjo » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 1:52 PM UTC

politicdone wrote: post #9

082349872349872 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dr. Strangelove : "we must not allow a mineshaft gap": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y A Boy and His Dog would continue the trope. for the serious original, see p11 of https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM2206.html

I wonder, is Dr Strangelove a parody of Wernher Von Braun?

The real Dr Strangelove, Frank Barnaby suggests that Dr Strangelove may have been based on Henry Kissinger

New Scientist › letter › The real Dr Strangelove | New Scientist

Re: Studies in Intelligence [pdf]

#13

Post by bryanrasmussen » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:08 PM UTC

navbaker wrote: post #11

unishark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't stand this kind of writing, communicating, and conveying of ideas, concepts, and points which tries to pack, cram, and insert too damn many variations, subtleties, and nuances into each point in a sentence. It seems like a military thing. Though I know other people that do it whenever they're trying to summarize anything tersely (and think they're succeeding when they failing terribly).

This is intended to convey meaning to anyone engaged in military planning activities and it is assumed that the reader has the relevant education in military planning so they can quickly understand what is being said. It’s no different than reading a scientific paper where a single sentence may be unpacked on multiple levels because the reader/audience for the paper is someone who has a deep background in the subject…

The intention may be such, but there is plenty of study on the mentally enervating effects of jargon that I can't help but feel the goal would be better achieved with shorter, more energetic phrasing.

on edit: better structure

Re: Studies in Intelligence [pdf]

#14

Post by neutronicus » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 2:38 PM UTC

navbaker wrote: post #11

unishark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't stand this kind of writing, communicating, and conveying of ideas, concepts, and points which tries to pack, cram, and insert too damn many variations, subtleties, and nuances into each point in a sentence. It seems like a military thing. Though I know other people that do it whenever they're trying to summarize anything tersely (and think they're succeeding when they failing terribly).

This is intended to convey meaning to anyone engaged in military planning activities and it is assumed that the reader has the relevant education in military planning so they can quickly understand what is being said. It’s no different than reading a scientific paper where a single sentence may be unpacked on multiple levels because the reader/audience for the paper is someone who has a deep background in the subject…

As someone who has become practiced in parsing scientific papers, I do not actually think the format is a very good one. If you are not a sub-domain expert it is IMO much easier to get up-to-speed by reading a tangentially-relevant PhD Thesis or two than by reading even Review papers.

> a single sentence may be unpacked on multiple levels because the reader/audience for the paper is someone who has a deep background in the subject.

This supposed information density is often a pretext for obfuscation, though. The author is essentially hostile to the reader, fighting a vicious obfuscatory rear-guard action against their comprehension of anything beyond the conclusion they're meant to cite or the technique they're meant to implement (and cite).

I often wonder whether I found student theses so much more helpful because they're long-form, or because either idealism or a less-developed sense of the threshold of acceptable bullshit they can get away with leads them to present their claims and process more clearly.

Re: Studies in Intelligence [pdf]

#15

Post by 082349872349872 » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

cyberbanjo wrote: post #12

politicdone wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder, is Dr Strangelove a parody of Wernher Von Braun?

The real Dr Strangelove, Frank Barnaby suggests that Dr Strangelove may have been based on Henry Kissinger New Scientist › letter › The real Dr Strangelove | New Scientist

https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg18224505-100-the-real-... argues for a composite persona. Note that Khan was the author of the RAND paper linked above.

Re: Studies in Intelligence [pdf]

#16

Post by twirlock » Thu, Jul 02, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

unishark wrote: post #8

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current US literary style clouds the message, instead of clarifying it.

I can't stand this kind of writing, communicating, and conveying of ideas, concepts, and points which tries to pack, cram, and insert too damn many variations, subtleties, and nuances into each point in a sentence. It seems like a military thing. Though I know other people that do it whenever they're trying to summarize anything tersely (and think they're succeeding when they failing terribly).

Maybe you just can't read very well.