Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I agree with Mr. Dawson.

Argument by analogy is weak.

Communication containing analogies is powerful.

I do not find it useful to say "If A is like B, then all the things about B must apply to A." This forces us to find perfect analogies, and encourages too much bickering over how well the analogy applies.

But I do find it useful to use an imperfect analogy to illustrate something that you have already established directly. So establish that mergers between #2 and #3 rarely end up beating #1 directly, and then say "It's like..."

Our minds are not cold calculating machines. Colourful, humorous, and/or emotionally laden analogies do help us learn things and remember things.

I have found a similar thing going on with illustrations in blog posts. If you have a section about cascading failures in a digital service, and you include an illustration of dominos falling down, it does help people grasp and remember your point.

Even though obviously, cascading service failures are entirely unlike dominos, and it would be quixotic to attempt to reason about services from the things we know about dominos.



This is what I always try to tell people but I like the way you worded it: analogies are for communicative understanding, not argumentation.

All analogies are approximations. Even though they may not be argumentative, picking out flaws in analogies often presents as attacking a strawman.


If I can dynamically alter the spacing between the services ... or take a service out of the fall path before the crush comes. :)

Welcome back! I very much enjoy your meta cognitive viewpoint.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: