Comment by hammock
14 hours ago
> to Hofstafer analogy making isn't some higher level cognitive process, certainly not a language based one, but basically is THE cognitive process
This is so funny to me, because as many people know, sharing an analogy with another person is the fastest way to LOSE an argument with someone, or otherwise spiral it into an unproductive place.
I think it’s Scott Adams who used to say analogies work well for explaining. They work terribly for persuasion.
Agreed, and while subjective experience can be misleading (being a Hofstadian "strange loop" is a strange thing) you'd think that if our entire perceptual and cognitive processes were analogy based, then this would filter through to our everyday experience. You'd expect us to see analogies, not generalities, everywhere... looking at your car engine and seeing a hologram of your failing football team floating over it, perhaps!
It's notable that when we do use analogies there are really two use cases
1) Trying to use them to communicate an alternate or simpler POV
2) To make a joke, by pointing out a ridiculous comparison
The joke case is interesting, because this seems to be the basis of half of humor - breaking expectations (the other half perhaps being taboo breaking?), which really isn't how you'd want an adaptive cognitive system to work. You need to see the predictive regularities in the world, not see absurd similarities that make you laugh.
> I think it’s Scott Adams who used to say analogies work well for explaining. They work terribly for persuasion.
Yes; here is one instance: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n45D_zi3O5g#t=14m13s>
> sharing an analogy with another person is the fastest way to LOSE an argument with someone
This is true if the arguer is hostile, but as I've gotten older, if I get the sense that someone is entering an argument with the primary goal of "winning", I'll try to avoid that framing or just look for an offramp entirely.
Sure, the other party might think they "won", but they were going to think that anyway. For those more inclined to feel that the point of talking to each other is to learn from each other, I'll continue to use analogies and other things reasonable people understand.
> This is true if the arguer is hostile, but as I've gotten older, if I get the sense that someone is entering an argument with the primary goal of "winning", I'll try to avoid that framing or just look for an offramp entirely.
Absolutely. The best kinds of arguments are those where you both have the shared goal of reaching consensus, and treat reaching consensus as a collaborative activity of finding the correct answer, even though you disagree with the starting point. There are a few techniques for this, which work well when operating in good faith, and can backfire when dealing with hostile counterparties. Most things work badly when arguing with hostile counterparties.
> They work terribly for persuasion.
I just experienced this in a conversation. An analogy offers an opportunity to engage with the straw man and miss the forest for the trees.
I think that's just because every analogy gives an entire "second front" of ideas for a hostile recipient to find a "flaw", when they ignore the intended boundary between the stuff that does/doesn't matter to the analogy.
Ex:
Explainer: "Getting a spleen means cutting open the patient and taking it out. It's just like how I'm going to unzip this section of the patient-shaped doll, and remove this little purple bean. In both cases a hole is necessary in a similar location."
Hostile listener: "Nonsense! I can just buy beans at the store! So just buy a spleen! No hole!"
Constructing explicit analogies for persuasion seems to be a bit of a different thing.
I’m not sure if Hofstadter puts it this way, but to me even the core aspects of your sentences in this post have roots in analogies. What does it mean to lose an argument or to spiral it to a different place? There is no place, there is no lost item, but we talk about these abstract ideas in ways that largely depend upon understanding things like physical objects and space and movement.