2 ms·

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 a

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?

kashyapc 5y ago
I don't want belabor the point here. But yes, we have to agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong with you sharing your difficult experience, of course. What I'm saying is that how the analogy will be "perceived" is irrelevant; that's the eggshells part I was referring to. What counts here is the effectiveness of it. You're essentially saying "regardless of how useful it is, we should ban this analogy because it might offend someone". If you go down that route, you would've been robbed of many of the greatest books and insights. The incubator analogy is perfectly "relatable" (i.e. understandable) to many of us. Though, of course, not in the finest resolution that someone who has experienced the unfortunate situation. But all the same, it can be appreciated without losing the critical insights. Evolution has "programmed" us to understand these kind of analogies. Rosling was a doctor, and an extremely sensible man. There's a reason he picked that analogy; he knew what he was doing. > [...] I don't even understand what's the need for an analogy here? Yes, an analogy is required—that's how our minds make sense of many things in life. I strongly suggest to read the book "Metaphors We Live By"[1]. A classic from 40 years ago that shows how deep analogies and metaphors run in our bones. And no, a student debt or a leaky nose doesn't cut it; a powerful analogy like what Rosling used strikes a better chord with the topic at hand ("the state of the world"). [1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3637992.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo363799...

kashyapc 5y ago

I don't want belabor the point here. But yes, we have to agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong with you sharing your difficult experience, of course. What I'm saying is that how the analogy will be "perceived" is irrelevant; that's the eggshells part I was referring to. What counts here is the effectiveness of it. You're essentially saying "regardless of how useful it is, we should ban this analogy because it might offend someone". If you go down that route, you would've been robbed of many of the greatest books and insights. The incubator analogy is perfectly "relatable" (i.e. understandable) to many of us. Though, of course, not in the finest resolution that someone who has experienced the unfortunate situation. But all the same, it can be appreciated without losing the critical insights. Evolution has "programmed" us to understand these kind of analogies. Rosling was a doctor, and an extremely sensible man. There's a reason he picked that analogy; he knew what he was doing. > [...] I don't even understand what's the need for an analogy here? Yes, an analogy is required—that's how our minds make sense of many things in life. I strongly suggest to read the book "Metaphors We Live By"[1]. A classic from 40 years ago that shows how deep analogies and metaphors run in our bones. And no, a student debt or a leaky nose doesn't cut it; a powerful analogy like what Rosling used strikes a better chord with the topic at hand ("the state of the world"). [1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3637992.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo363799...