[klodolph]

I wonder how many HN conversations would be cut short if we simply accepted that analogies are imperfect yet useful. They provide a very limited amount of insight into any topic—so yes, let’s use them, and let’s stop arguing about whether an analogy is the “right analogy”. A analogy will have some element of truth that transfers from one situation to another, and in a good analogy, it will be easy for readers to discover that element of truth.

You’ll find ways in which the analogy is “wrong”, but that’s just noise.

[bcrosby95]

Analogies are like children. If its your own they're a brilliant, cute, funny, unique individual. If they're other people's they're loud, annoying, stinky little pests and oh god they're swarming you.

[dalbasal]

Actually they're more like teenagers.

[dotancohen]

I wonder how many HN conversations would be cut short if we simply accepted that analogies are imperfect yet useful.

[dalbasal]

I chuckled, but let's not. I apologize.

[dalbasal]

IDK... I do see you point, but I'd like to think both I and the commenter I responded to were using analogies in an ok way.

Analogies are a pretty good rhetorical device, IMO because we kind of think in abstract analogies anyway. We could have both made our points without analogy, but I don't think much content is lost.

His point is that Bankers are the professionals. This is true. I "complicated" the analogy/comment to highlight the tension between "bankers are knowledgeable professionals" and "bankers are an interested party."

In any case, I feel that analogies are ok. The problem with my comment might have been an overly combative or nitpicky tone, especially given that we probably agree of most of it.

[coffeebeqn]

Analogies are good as long as they’re good. If they’re not good they just leave people more confused / argumentative

[fijiaarone]

Most people can’t understand analogies. They are literally literal.