Comment by rckoepke

Probably better, but I guess it depends. I suppose one of two cases would apply to analogies that people come up with independently (although 'polytely explores some of the non-independence of this particular case):

1) The analogy has more symmetries between the left and right side of the analogy than most analogies, allowing people to arrive at it from many different perspectives.

2) A lack of options for the analogy - maybe there just aren't that many good examples with any real symmetries at all, so everyone who is inclined to create analogies is forced to the same one, which may or may not be particularly quality.

I'd hypothesize overall (1) will generally dominate (2) just because if an analogy is poor, I'd expect few people to come up with it even if it's the only possible analogy...it wouldn't pass the "impact"/"relevance" threshold needed to spend effort converting to a tangible form for communication.

I also think (2) may be a false mechanism given the incredible breadth of experiences everyone has. There might not be a lack for analogy targets for almost every conceivable topic.

Whereas (1) feels quite a bit more defensible overall.

That said, we're in a bubble here as 'tlarkworthy points out, so I wouldn't use this as an example.