The paper is bad and incoherent. For a supposedly data driven paper it's mostly about the authors' subjective experiences and a selection of anecdotal-grade posts. The few graphs they do choose are unintelligible and aren't even used to support any particular arguments. It'd be a sweet gig to work for a think tank like this where you can just write garbage and collect your NED/oligarch-backed check, but I have a little bit of self-respect.
In some of the war oriented think tanks, you literally just play board games with a bunch of non military business people and call it “war simulation/ war gaming” lol. As if a bunch of lanyards have more meaningful insight into war and logistics than billionaire dollar military exercises and tactics, most of which are already delusional nonsense to begin with.
The paper is bad and incoherent. For a supposedly data driven paper it's mostly about the authors' subjective experiences and a selection of anecdotal-grade posts. The few graphs they do choose are unintelligible and aren't even used to support any particular arguments. It'd be a sweet gig to work for a think tank like this where you can just write garbage and collect your NED/oligarch-backed check, but I have a little bit of self-respect.
I thought papers were bad in my field but boy does political science produce some absolute slop
So far, it feels like every poli sci hack I've ever met is really just a failed sociologist
In some of the war oriented think tanks, you literally just play board games with a bunch of non military business people and call it “war simulation/ war gaming” lol. As if a bunch of lanyards have more meaningful insight into war and logistics than billionaire dollar military exercises and tactics, most of which are already delusional nonsense to begin with.
The authors probably started their paper after they saw pigpoopballs.
I am not upset: a data-driven analysis