This is an important misnomer! If you say something is “narrative syncing” as opposed to “information sharing”, the implication is that the statement contains a “narrative” as opposed to “information”—whereas a “coordinating statement” can include only factual information but is for social purposes what you call “narrative syncing.” I don’t know how else to say this. To quote the author directly: “narrative syncing disguised as information sharing”—why use such language? “Disguised” implies that one isn’t the other, except it clearly is? “Narrative syncing” or, as I would label it, “coordination” is why we communicate. “Information sharing” is how we achieve our goals? If we didn’t havea goal behind a sharing information, unless the goal is sharing information for its own sake, why would we bother spending the energy and effort at all?
In short, I largely agree with AllAmericanBreakfast—it’s “leadership language”, but it’s also just—language, meant to influence the behaviours and beliefs of others (which extends beyond leaders to every coordinative activity even from a subordinate’s position). The confusion is almost academic—OP seems to be interested in how and why they are used is social contexts, and what effects result from it—which means that of course it depends on social context and culture. How the OP would argue about sentences being (linguistically) “narrative syncing” in say, a Chinese context, with (to make it more difficult for the OP) say tone and body language, as opposed to understanding it as speech-act (socially/politically) would be interesting to me.
Even shorter—“narrative syncing” is speech-act contingent on social context and not much else. “information sharing” is a property of a given sentences given syntax and semantics independent of social context. Pitting the two against each other is a confusing way of doing philosophy.
I find this a useful concept, but the term itself is a horrible misnomer? “Narrative syncing” is a poor way of describing what I would call “coordination” (as an activity—“he’s in charge of coordination”) or as speech-act (maybe “coordinative statement”) - as in the “coordination problem”: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095637587#:~:text=A%20situation%20in%20which%20the,with%20what%20the%20others%20do.
This is an important misnomer! If you say something is “narrative syncing” as opposed to “information sharing”, the implication is that the statement contains a “narrative” as opposed to “information”—whereas a “coordinating statement” can include only factual information but is for social purposes what you call “narrative syncing.” I don’t know how else to say this. To quote the author directly: “narrative syncing disguised as information sharing”—why use such language? “Disguised” implies that one isn’t the other, except it clearly is? “Narrative syncing” or, as I would label it, “coordination” is why we communicate. “Information sharing” is how we achieve our goals? If we didn’t have a goal behind a sharing information, unless the goal is sharing information for its own sake, why would we bother spending the energy and effort at all?
In short, I largely agree with AllAmericanBreakfast—it’s “leadership language”, but it’s also just—language, meant to influence the behaviours and beliefs of others (which extends beyond leaders to every coordinative activity even from a subordinate’s position). The confusion is almost academic—OP seems to be interested in how and why they are used is social contexts, and what effects result from it—which means that of course it depends on social context and culture. How the OP would argue about sentences being (linguistically) “narrative syncing” in say, a Chinese context, with (to make it more difficult for the OP) say tone and body language, as opposed to understanding it as speech-act (socially/politically) would be interesting to me.
Even shorter—“narrative syncing” is speech-act contingent on social context and not much else. “information sharing” is a property of a given sentences given syntax and semantics independent of social context. Pitting the two against each other is a confusing way of doing philosophy.