3 ms·

> If someone starts running a meth lab out of your unlocked cellar, at what point do you become culpable for not knowing? The problem with analogies is that th

> If someone starts running a meth lab out of your unlocked cellar, at what point do you become culpable for not knowing? The problem with analogies is that they assume they are correctly "analogous" but 9/10 times they really describe an entirely different situation, making them unhelpful if not misleading

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
The problem with analogies is that people who disagree tend to just say "X is not Y" instead of "X is different from Y in this context due to Z". I'm not sure whether that is just a social behavior or if saying the second thing is especially hard.
- rzzzt 3y ago
  A duck is not a horse due to... it not being a horse. You can macroexpand Z to "not having four legs", etc., but incomparable things will end up being different just based on their very essence.
  - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
    "Why can't I pull a small wagon with a team of ducks? I can pull a large wagon with a team of horses." Useful answers: Ducks are not as intelligent as horses and aren't as easy to train. There is not a good way to strap a harness onto a duck for this task. Ducks waddle and this introduces turbulence. Ducks have substantially less pulling power. etc. Useless answer: A duck is not a horse because a duck is different from a horse. The person making the analogy knows that it is an analogy; it is not the source of confusion.
- airstrike 3y ago
  It's not especially hard -- the burden of proof just isn't on the listener. Saying "X is not Y" is just saying "I'm not convinced, you must do better with your analogies". With enough context, one can infer as much Letting someone run a meth lab in your cellar is pretty obviously not the same as "letting" some malware run on your box, for crying out loud
  - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
    You're saying that it would be easy to address the point directly, but you won't because it is not your responsibility to do so? I'm not in love with that line of reasoning, but, taking it as fact, surely the analogy is not unhelpful (it successfully conveyed to you why the other person's mental model is wrong) and instead your response is (you do not feel obliged to pass that information along). "I'm not convinced, you must do better with your analogies" is exceedingly unhelpful if you actually know what the issue is. What do you imagine is the correct response to that? Are they supposed to keep guessing at analogies while you say "Nope!" until they read your mind? Just because the important differences are obvious to you doesn't mean that they're obvious to them (and the fact that they used the analogy suggests very strongly that they are not). "Obviously not the same thing" is generally applicable to all analogies, valid or otherwise.
    - airstrike 3y ago
      Choosing not to say what's wrong with the analogy is veiled criticism that the analogy is worse than just "not applicable" -- it's shit. It expresses repulsion in addition to expressing rejection. And, yes, they'll have to guess what's wrong... But the argument my veiled criticism is making is that their analogy is so objectively bad that it won't take them more than half a second to figure out what's wrong with it. I refuse to waste my time explaining because I value my time more than that (even if, perhaps ironically, I don't mind explaining to you why I chose not to explain myself to them)
      - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
        It sounds like we're in agreement about the facts here (though I am not convinced this is a good thing to do). For the record, it has been a day and I have not figured out what you believe is wrong with the analogy. Everyone else in the thread seems to be going along with it, except for one person who correctly points out that the 'lock the doors' aspect is irrelevant. I'm not really invested in the answer (my aim was just to defend the usefulness of analogies), but that feels like a data point I should pass along.

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago

The problem with analogies is that people who disagree tend to just say "X is not Y" instead of "X is different from Y in this context due to Z". I'm not sure whether that is just a social behavior or if saying the second thing is especially hard.

rzzzt 3y ago
A duck is not a horse due to... it not being a horse. You can macroexpand Z to "not having four legs", etc., but incomparable things will end up being different just based on their very essence.
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  "Why can't I pull a small wagon with a team of ducks? I can pull a large wagon with a team of horses." Useful answers: Ducks are not as intelligent as horses and aren't as easy to train. There is not a good way to strap a harness onto a duck for this task. Ducks waddle and this introduces turbulence. Ducks have substantially less pulling power. etc. Useless answer: A duck is not a horse because a duck is different from a horse. The person making the analogy knows that it is an analogy; it is not the source of confusion.
airstrike 3y ago
It's not especially hard -- the burden of proof just isn't on the listener. Saying "X is not Y" is just saying "I'm not convinced, you must do better with your analogies". With enough context, one can infer as much Letting someone run a meth lab in your cellar is pretty obviously not the same as "letting" some malware run on your box, for crying out loud
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  You're saying that it would be easy to address the point directly, but you won't because it is not your responsibility to do so? I'm not in love with that line of reasoning, but, taking it as fact, surely the analogy is not unhelpful (it successfully conveyed to you why the other person's mental model is wrong) and instead your response is (you do not feel obliged to pass that information along). "I'm not convinced, you must do better with your analogies" is exceedingly unhelpful if you actually know what the issue is. What do you imagine is the correct response to that? Are they supposed to keep guessing at analogies while you say "Nope!" until they read your mind? Just because the important differences are obvious to you doesn't mean that they're obvious to them (and the fact that they used the analogy suggests very strongly that they are not). "Obviously not the same thing" is generally applicable to all analogies, valid or otherwise.
  - airstrike 3y ago
    Choosing not to say what's wrong with the analogy is veiled criticism that the analogy is worse than just "not applicable" -- it's shit. It expresses repulsion in addition to expressing rejection. And, yes, they'll have to guess what's wrong... But the argument my veiled criticism is making is that their analogy is so objectively bad that it won't take them more than half a second to figure out what's wrong with it. I refuse to waste my time explaining because I value my time more than that (even if, perhaps ironically, I don't mind explaining to you why I chose not to explain myself to them)
    - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
      It sounds like we're in agreement about the facts here (though I am not convinced this is a good thing to do). For the record, it has been a day and I have not figured out what you believe is wrong with the analogy. Everyone else in the thread seems to be going along with it, except for one person who correctly points out that the 'lock the doors' aspect is irrelevant. I'm not really invested in the answer (my aim was just to defend the usefulness of analogies), but that feels like a data point I should pass along.