4 ms·

I said as much: it's not inapplicable, just insensitive. TL;DR: I am letting you know how this example made me feel. Take it any way you want. It's so much e

I said as much: it's not inapplicable, just insensitive. TL;DR: I am letting you know how this example made me feel. Take it any way you want. It's so much easier for me to process any realist take on something that may have concerned my own health or my parents' health (we've all had serious health conditions), but shouts of the crowd "hey, we are empathizing" when it comes to premature babies makes me gulp (and my kid is doing great: what about those whose isn't?). Why don't we use kids with serious, life threatening conditions as examples too? Because those examples are too emotionally taxing. It exactly feels like coming from someone who has not had a premature baby (or had a low risk one, as >80% of them are: babies coming out at 36 or even 33 weeks of gestation have a very low risk of any developmental issues and have high chances of survival, yet are still called "premature" — their parents are unlikely to have heard phrases like "it's so-and-so, you probably understand what this means" or "may become blind in a matter of days/hours", even though they've experienced a lot of psychological stress too). If the goal is to trigger an emotional response, I think this is the wrong one. If the goal is to trigger a rational response, then anybody with a first-hand experience is going to have a hard time. I am simply calling it out as I see it: find a better example, please.

ahtihn 5y ago
To be blunt, your feelings are your problem. There is nothing wrong with that analogy. All yohr comment does is discourage people from trying to relate anything to common life experiences because someone might've had a bad one.
- necovek 5y ago
  Analogies are a tool used to describe a situation by relating to something more familiar: are premature babies really something all of you "dissenting" voices have experienced? Analogies can trigger all sorts of responses (intellectual and emotional). Whether you care about the responses of your audience is your choice. I am not disagreeing that my feelings are my own (though they are not a "problem" for me), but I am sharing them for the benefit of those who might care. If you don't, that's "your problem".
kashyapc 5y ago
Hi, With all due respect, and not taking anything away from your painful experience, I don't think a "better example" needs to be found. Why? The incubator analogy works precisely because it is so relatable—even to those who do not have kids. We should not rob people of such powerful analogies. People shouldn't feel like they have to carefully walk on eggshells to use such analogies, all in the fear of offending someone. I hope you don't parse me wrong.
- necovek 5y ago
  What I am saying is that it is not relatable. It's obvious from some other comments in the thread (there is someone saying things like "we'll lose some" — I am not saying they are not right, just that they are not relating to it). Sure, some people will empathize, but most won't. I know I wouldn't before going through the experience. To be honest, I don't even understand what's the need for an analogy here? Is it not clear to everyone that something can be both "bad" and becoming less bad ("better" or simply improving) at the same time? Does the analogy really help communicate that? I mean, when I get a regular cold, when my nose starts being heavily congested (instead of leaking), I know I am bad, but improving. When you just get a job out of college, your financial situation might be "bad" (large student debt), but you've finally started paying it off ("bad and better"). Or your house is flooded ("bad"), but you've just arranged for the insurance to send someone to fix it up ("bad and better"). It's really trivial to come up with examples. None of these has any potential to trigger an emotional response the way (non-empathically, to me) talking of premature babies does. It was used as a superfluous tool to attempt to trigger those "think of the children" emotions in people that the next commenter mentions (though they attempt to attribute that to me: I was actually saying "think of the parents" ;-)). To me, an unnecessary analogy that does not consider how it will be perceived is anything but "powerful", but I also think it's fine for us to agree to disagree. > People shouldn't feel like they have to carefully walk on eggshells to use such analogies I totally agree. I don't see how that relates to me sharing how this particular analogy has made me feel: when we get to all the overly-politically-correct talk, it's usually people jumping to protect someone else who they think might be offended — here, I am sharing my own lived experience. That's a data point, and anyone can decide on their own whether that will influence their choice of analogy or not. Is it really not valuable sharing these "data points" (all the replies I've gotten are surely making me second guess myself)? How do people learn about how people feel if they are not willing to listen to them? Do you change anything when you learn how you made people feel?

ahtihn 5y ago

To be blunt, your feelings are your problem. There is nothing wrong with that analogy. All yohr comment does is discourage people from trying to relate anything to common life experiences because someone might've had a bad one.

necovek 5y ago
Analogies are a tool used to describe a situation by relating to something more familiar: are premature babies really something all of you "dissenting" voices have experienced? Analogies can trigger all sorts of responses (intellectual and emotional). Whether you care about the responses of your audience is your choice. I am not disagreeing that my feelings are my own (though they are not a "problem" for me), but I am sharing them for the benefit of those who might care. If you don't, that's "your problem".

kashyapc 5y ago

Hi, With all due respect, and not taking anything away from your painful experience, I don't think a "better example" needs to be found. Why? The incubator analogy works precisely because it is so relatable—even to those who do not have kids. We should not rob people of such powerful analogies. People shouldn't feel like they have to carefully walk on eggshells to use such analogies, all in the fear of offending someone. I hope you don't parse me wrong.

necovek 5y ago
What I am saying is that it is not relatable. It's obvious from some other comments in the thread (there is someone saying things like "we'll lose some" — I am not saying they are not right, just that they are not relating to it). Sure, some people will empathize, but most won't. I know I wouldn't before going through the experience. To be honest, I don't even understand what's the need for an analogy here? Is it not clear to everyone that something can be both "bad" and becoming less bad ("better" or simply improving) at the same time? Does the analogy really help communicate that? I mean, when I get a regular cold, when my nose starts being heavily congested (instead of leaking), I know I am bad, but improving. When you just get a job out of college, your financial situation might be "bad" (large student debt), but you've finally started paying it off ("bad and better"). Or your house is flooded ("bad"), but you've just arranged for the insurance to send someone to fix it up ("bad and better"). It's really trivial to come up with examples. None of these has any potential to trigger an emotional response the way (non-empathically, to me) talking of premature babies does. It was used as a superfluous tool to attempt to trigger those "think of the children" emotions in people that the next commenter mentions (though they attempt to attribute that to me: I was actually saying "think of the parents" ;-)). To me, an unnecessary analogy that does not consider how it will be perceived is anything but "powerful", but I also think it's fine for us to agree to disagree. > People shouldn't feel like they have to carefully walk on eggshells to use such analogies I totally agree. I don't see how that relates to me sharing how this particular analogy has made me feel: when we get to all the overly-politically-correct talk, it's usually people jumping to protect someone else who they think might be offended — here, I am sharing my own lived experience. That's a data point, and anyone can decide on their own whether that will influence their choice of analogy or not. Is it really not valuable sharing these "data points" (all the replies I've gotten are surely making me second guess myself)? How do people learn about how people feel if they are not willing to listen to them? Do you change anything when you learn how you made people feel?