| I've grown used to being corrected, to the point that it's a pleasant surprise to be told I might be right. What I notice more and more, is the "you're wrong" is used to buttress opinion masquerading as fact. If you preface "I think that.." to asserts it doesn't stop the "you're wrong" but it at least puts the discussion into the realms of conjecture about things, including facts, rather than simple asserts of facts which are often not as factual as they seem. I also notice that argument by analogy is being over-used. Because you want to compare your large single CPU to a multi CPU doesn't mean it actually is a Bull compared to a herd of chickens. Or that cat-herding is actually much harder than it looks: you need the right kind of cream. Wait.. that analogy might not work here.. |
This one seems especially pernicious, not because of extremely over-wrought comparisons, but because sometimes the analogy fits really well on the surface. But beyond the structural fit, it does not really help prove anything.
Too often I'll encounter an analogy wielded as if it proves the underlying point, when the reality is that it breaks down quickly if you dive into the details.
Analogies can be great to help establish new mental models, or to try out an idea with terminology that people already understand, but can be quite misleading. Better used for learning than trying to prove things.