4 ms·

Thank you, I appreciate this. It drives me crazy when someone dismisses an analogy because some other attribute than what’s actually being compared doesn’t matc

Thank you, I appreciate this. It drives me crazy when someone dismisses an analogy because some other attribute than what’s actually being compared doesn’t match. Yes, you’re right, they’re not the same! If what you compared were exactly the same in every way, they would be the same thing! I think it’s part dishonesty, part emotional attachment to the things being compared (you should probably rarely bring Hitler into the mix, even if technically it works), and partly that some people just don’t understand analogies.

lliamander 5y ago
I think it's partly that it is easy, especially for technical people, to get hung up on details. And there is a good reason for this. It is often the case, especially with very technical topics, that the use of analogies can actually hinder understanding, because of the tendency to take the analogy too far[1]. Usually you just have to communicate a bit more on what the scope of the analogy is, and then it will make sense. There's also a subjective element in terms of what analog will be salient. Using the phrase "glass jaw" isn't going to have the same effect for someone who first thinks of Pyrex or bullet-proof glass. > Yes, you’re right, they’re not the same! If what you compared were exactly the same in every way, they would be the same thing! LOL! I've had that conversation almost word-for-word. [1]https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuition-and-the-monad-tutorial-fallacy/ https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuiti...
- conductr 5y ago
  I remember the first time I heard the phrase “glass jaw”, by then I was early college age and it pretty much just made sense without requiring much thought. The only context I needed was that it’s a boxing term. If I contrast that with the difficulty I had understanding the hammer factory analogy having just read the linked article , I’d say there is some value in creating better analogies. Not all analogies are made equal. That said, I finished the article and didn’t feel completely connected with the analogy other than, true frameworks do make me jump through a bunch of hoops sometimes. Is that what he means with this analogy? If an analogy is a tool to aid comprehension, or make a point, I can’t follow what this is supposed to mean. Also FWIW, glassjaw is a great band if anyone likes 00s screamo
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    I agree, it’s of course also possible for analogies to be strained or unclear. You need to keep the audience in mind as well.
  - lliamander 5y ago
    The analogy is that the hardware store represents framework, and the hammer represents a piece of functionality the framework is supposed to provide. The point is that frameworks of the era rarely provided a simple, direct API for performing some task. Rather, there was often a whole bunch of "Abstract Factory Factory" patterns, which would require a bunch of ceremony before you actually had and object that did the work you needed to do.

lliamander 5y ago

I think it's partly that it is easy, especially for technical people, to get hung up on details. And there is a good reason for this. It is often the case, especially with very technical topics, that the use of analogies can actually hinder understanding, because of the tendency to take the analogy too far[1]. Usually you just have to communicate a bit more on what the scope of the analogy is, and then it will make sense. There's also a subjective element in terms of what analog will be salient. Using the phrase "glass jaw" isn't going to have the same effect for someone who first thinks of Pyrex or bullet-proof glass. > Yes, you’re right, they’re not the same! If what you compared were exactly the same in every way, they would be the same thing! LOL! I've had that conversation almost word-for-word. [1]https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuition-and-the-monad-tutorial-fallacy/ https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuiti...

conductr 5y ago
I remember the first time I heard the phrase “glass jaw”, by then I was early college age and it pretty much just made sense without requiring much thought. The only context I needed was that it’s a boxing term. If I contrast that with the difficulty I had understanding the hammer factory analogy having just read the linked article , I’d say there is some value in creating better analogies. Not all analogies are made equal. That said, I finished the article and didn’t feel completely connected with the analogy other than, true frameworks do make me jump through a bunch of hoops sometimes. Is that what he means with this analogy? If an analogy is a tool to aid comprehension, or make a point, I can’t follow what this is supposed to mean. Also FWIW, glassjaw is a great band if anyone likes 00s screamo
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  I agree, it’s of course also possible for analogies to be strained or unclear. You need to keep the audience in mind as well.
- lliamander 5y ago
  The analogy is that the hardware store represents framework, and the hammer represents a piece of functionality the framework is supposed to provide. The point is that frameworks of the era rarely provided a simple, direct API for performing some task. Rather, there was often a whole bunch of "Abstract Factory Factory" patterns, which would require a bunch of ceremony before you actually had and object that did the work you needed to do.