How could someone write a post like this and leave off the great book “Metaphors We Live By” by Lakoff and Johnson?
Is particularly found the part about how metaphors “hide and highlight” information. In other words the metaphor we use necessitates how we think. We often frame arguments using the metaphor of war and that frames how we think. The other party is an enemy that must be defeated, its bloody, and there is a loser. However we could frame it as a dance, in which case they are a partner, and for the outcome to succeed they must move together in harmony.
Lakoff has written other fascinating books like how metaphors are used in politics as well as math (“Where Mathematics Comes From”).
I view it as a side effect of linguistic evolution. Sure you could have a bunch of complex rules to strictly type your nouns and limit the type of verbs that validly relate things in one type to another, but if you simply relax the constraint (or just not bother in the first place) metaphors fall out as a natural consequence. See, I just did it. "fall out". Words don't physically fall, but because there's no constraint on using this physical verb to relate non-physical concepts, I can make metaphorical expressions at no additional cost to grammatical complexity.
We do this all the time. We might say a certain fact or circumstance "tells us" something to mean its presence let us make a deduction. Eg "this equation tells us the flow is laminar in this regime". Examples of this sort of thing are abundant.
The first part of Metaphors We Live By is fascinating. It describes how so much of language is made of dead metaphors. But then you get to stuff like:
> We often frame arguments using the metaphor of war and that frames how we think. The other party is an enemy that must be defeated, its bloody, and there is a loser. However we could frame it as a dance, in which case they are a partner, and for the outcome to succeed they must move together in harmony.
That's just silly. The reason arguments are described metaphorically as wars is because arguments and wars serve the same function: they occur when we disagree about something and are means of settling the disagreement. Dances, meanwhile, have nothing to do with disagreement and they don't settle anything.
One of the main things I discovered when learning new languages is that popular expressions, often rooted in metaphors deeply embedded in the collective consciousness of a group, are the hardest part.
Consider pancakes for example. It's a simple word for americans. I think it brings the idea of breakfast, syrup, sweetness. Maybe it brings a different feeling depending whether you're an adult or not. Health might be something in mind. That's all in a single word that can mean a lot of things when used in metaphors.
Now, let's look at what pancakes in Brazil mean, or "panquecas". It's a savory dish, for lunch or dinner. It brings the idea of meat, and tomato sauce. It's not an everyday dish. It's related to family meals, special occasions. The brazillian panqueca is more like a creppe, but not like american-made creppes, and it definitely does not bring the same associations to mind.
Both dishes seems to come from an earlier, much older tradition that most north americans and brazillians alike probably don't remember or understand. If they do, it's not the first thing that comes to either. So the difference is interesting, maybe funny, maybe a good topic for conversation.
That's a single word. We can expand that sort of comparison to broader stuff.
What happens when it's not funny or interesting? When something is fine in one culture but brings bad memories to another culture?
What about across time? Even within a singular culture, for how long does a metaphor hold? What happens if someone learns english from old movies and try to use those metaphors today? Will all of them hold the same meaning or some of them be offensive nowadays?
I certainly notice some difference between how americans and british use of figures of speech. That should be obvious for native english speakers of either of those countries, much more than it is to me. Imagine those differences amplified by a lot, and the gap that this could potentially cause.
Naively, doesn’t it seem likely that pancakes and panquecas are unrelated “false friends”?
Pancakes are “cakes” made in a pan. It’s not a Latin-derived word, so the only way they could be related is if panquecas is a loan word that took on a life if its own.
The simpler explanation is that pan means bread, -quecas definitely doesn’t mean cakes, and the foods are so different because the words are unrelated coincidental soundalikes.
Paying too much attention to words and meanings is one of the most unhealthy things in today's society. It erodes culture, obscures what we are as humans. The sooner we'll overcome this situation, the better.
There is a famous story where he helped a cancer patient with severe pain by telling him a story about a plant.
It is not so easy to find a good link unfortunately because the SERPs are dominated by NLP shysters and people who want to sell a $1200 course (funny when I mirror the way those people talk and use their tricks I sometimes get a copy of the course for free but use those tricks on normal people and you don’t get such good results…)
There are situations where indirect communication works best and it is good to have a library of stories that fit common situations that you can adapt. Some of you might be tired of hearing about my cat “Bob B” while other ones of you will be curious of about him and search for “Bob B cat” on Google and be like my son and wonder why I could be so hung up on an animal who doesn’t love me back but I can say he’s a very good source of material for working with wary people.
> Particularly when I talk to a non-techie about some complex technical issues
One time when talking with my brother (who isn't super technical), we were discussing hardware for gaming, and I was explaining to him about how some processors might show up as having twice as many cores as they're described due to hyperthreading. I was having trouble finding a good way to explain to him that each "virtual core" wasn't fully equivalent to a traditional core but still helped provide additional throughput, and after a moment he quipped "oh, so it's like two-ply toilet paper, you don't want to separate a sheet into each part but it's still better than one-ply". I'd never have been able to come up with as relatable an analogy as that, but I've used it on more than one occasion since to help explain to other people.
I use metaphors far too frequently in spoken conversations, and I have learned that it’s often more effective to cut bait (there’s one!) than to try to transition to a new metaphor mid stream of consciousness.
So they are useful, but I’ve noticed weakness in using them as well.
Yes.. I agree to the example and reasoning in the article, but on the other hand metaphors can simplify things too much, and even tell lies. E.g. politicians using them is the prime example. Thus, not convinced...
That's an interesting article, and I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis, but the article certainly doesn't argue well in support of its premise. It simply states it as fact, citing a book that apparently actually makes the case, but without citing anything near enough of it to actually make the case.
Having been terrible at communication (and continuing to be so), metaphors and analogies really are excellent tools.
The caveats first: Like with all communication, they should be understood by the audience, not offensive, not distracting.
A good analogy is like being able to share a scaled model with someone. It invites them to play with concepts and deduce things you haven’t conveyed yet.
That said, that level of fidelity is usually the result of thinking about a subject for a while, and handling the fall out of bad analogies for a while.
I try and remember the moments my mental image changes. Describing the inciting event, or the change that happened in your mental image, should lead to figuring out a good analogy.
At the very least, you will have a story to share, which is what human brains are very good at grasping, and using as models.
Metaphors or analogies not exactly fitting the pattern of facts under discussion is not a problem.
It provides a neutral framework to compare and contrast. How a metaphor or analogy breaks down under scrutiny refines the thought and provides a new opportunity for metaphors or analogies.
I once worked on simulation systems alongside (UK) military users and was fascinated by the metaphors they used when discussing projects. 'Crocodile closest to the canoe' or 'Wolf closest to the sledge' meant some sort of urgent deadline or serious challenge to a project. 'Left and right of arc' meant how far you could get from sort of middle-ground solution. 'Don't fight the white' meant that you should address a question / requirement, not complain about it (this apparently referred to the colour of paper used in staff college exams). 'Reversing out of a rabbit hole' was fairly intuitive.
Really fun times, that shed a lot of light on their culture.
Having worked within military and intelligence communities in the US, I'd say those metaphors demonstrate far greater clarity of thought than milspeak acronym-soup:
"SOF units in the AO must integrate C4ISR assets in CONOPs, synchronize with JOC and fuse MASINT into the COP, while EOD teams update TTPs for C-IED ops per JIEDDO, factoring IED TTPs observed in TICs, and G2 perform BDA utilizing IMINT to refine HVT targeting packages."
Analogies and metaphors might be usable in conflicts, but I think they are overused in the internet.
They can help explain things. It is sometimes the case that two people disagree because each doesn’t understand what the other is saying. They are misinterpreting each other, and a better explanation can clear that up.
But more often people just disagree. They understand each other, but disagree. Because the problem isn’t understanding, analogies and metaphors don’t help. Best case people just end up arguing about the analogy, as the best thing it could be is a good proxy for the actual thing, which is what they actually disagree about.
Worst case, the analogy or metaphor is constructed to cast one side of the argument as obviously evil or disgusting. This is really just an ad-hom with extra steps, and it just ruins all hope of further conversation
Making an analogy or metaphor in this manner is essentially taking a new topic, murdering it, and dressing up the old topic in a crude skin-suit impersonation of it. It never quite fits, different aspects end up strangely twisted and stretched, and it all ends up haphazardly stitched together. Of course this is an obviously evil thing to do, on top of not really being all that convincing.
Don’t be a topic-murderer. Don’t “Buffalo Bill” the conversation. Don’t make metaphors and analogies where they aren’t useful.
Metaphores are really nice to use but... where I work, i have a lot of colleagues of different nationalities. Very often I need to explain in detail what I mean by them and that tends to defeat their purpose. Sometimes using very explicit or correct terminology sticks better. As always YMMV
I've unfortunately noticed that many people don't usually accept analogues or metaphors in arguments, unless they are trying to work with you. They either dismiss them outright or attack the analogue/metaphor without understanding it's an analogue/metaphor.
This is even worse when they don't like you personally.
Indeed, an example I saw was comparing linux kernel to a car, the next poster doesn't like it and tries to refine it. The argument dissolves into a discussion of cars
I personally despise analogues. They are always leaky and people pick weak or emotional ones. Anything which can be explained with an analogy can be explained without it.
One thing I love about metaphors is that you can tell the general interests of the person making the comparison. Someone who uses football metaphors to explain everything is really saying that all they truly understand is football. Someone who makes everything into a software metaphor only understands coding.
I have found a lot of people I know (who have excellent English, but aren't native English speakers) despise metaphors.
This is purely anecdotal, but I am married to a woman from Eastern Europe and I grew up in a schooling system that was primarily Cantonese and Mandarin speaking immigrants. All of these people had trouble speaking English in their formative years and became professionals with excellent English.
I will often use metaphors to describe things. For instance, when talking about a "stack" in computer programming, I go, "think of the plates in your dish cupboard". This works great with, say, my mother, who is an English speaker, she likes metaphor and simile. My friends and wife, they all go, "here you go again, stop using metaphors! Just tell me what's happening inside the computer. A computer is NOT a bunch of plates!"
This is a trivial example, but it actually happened! They did not want to discuss it with analogies or metaphorical connections!
This piqued my curiosity, I asked, "why don't you like metaphors?" and most of them responded, "it feels like you're talking down to me" or "I'm not a child you can use playthings to explain the world to, treat me like an adult or don't bother explaining it".
I asked them, "did any of my other behaviour make you feel like I thought you were a child?" and they responded, "no, not really, but once you started comparing things to other things, I got uncomfortable."
When we really got down to it, they all admitted the truth to me. Using the somewhat complex language of comparisons, metaphors, simile... it reminded them of how they used to not understand English very well. These comparisons would confuse them when they were younger. Other kids would make fun of them for not "getting it" quickly enough.
This remembered emotion made them hate my present-day metaphors and analogies. Explanations in what a native speaker would consider "clear and concise" were frustrating and uncomfortable for them.
Just a reminder to all of us, not everyone thinks in the way this article preaches. Some folks would prefer a more direct linguistic approach and find it more respectful, approachable, etc. As our populations become more diverse, it is more and more important to meet people where they are and where it best respects their lived experience.
I am left wondering how you're meant to explain a memory stack - or indeed a great deal of computing - without metaphor though since most of the events of computing aren't directly explainable since they're very different to any common human experience.
[+] [-] wirthjason|1 year ago|reply
Is particularly found the part about how metaphors “hide and highlight” information. In other words the metaphor we use necessitates how we think. We often frame arguments using the metaphor of war and that frames how we think. The other party is an enemy that must be defeated, its bloody, and there is a loser. However we could frame it as a dance, in which case they are a partner, and for the outcome to succeed they must move together in harmony.
Lakoff has written other fascinating books like how metaphors are used in politics as well as math (“Where Mathematics Comes From”).
[+] [-] IIAOPSW|1 year ago|reply
We do this all the time. We might say a certain fact or circumstance "tells us" something to mean its presence let us make a deduction. Eg "this equation tells us the flow is laminar in this regime". Examples of this sort of thing are abundant.
[+] [-] kjhughes|1 year ago|reply
Favorite fascinating George Lakoff book: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind
[+] [-] slibhb|1 year ago|reply
> We often frame arguments using the metaphor of war and that frames how we think. The other party is an enemy that must be defeated, its bloody, and there is a loser. However we could frame it as a dance, in which case they are a partner, and for the outcome to succeed they must move together in harmony.
That's just silly. The reason arguments are described metaphorically as wars is because arguments and wars serve the same function: they occur when we disagree about something and are means of settling the disagreement. Dances, meanwhile, have nothing to do with disagreement and they don't settle anything.
[+] [-] alganet|1 year ago|reply
Consider pancakes for example. It's a simple word for americans. I think it brings the idea of breakfast, syrup, sweetness. Maybe it brings a different feeling depending whether you're an adult or not. Health might be something in mind. That's all in a single word that can mean a lot of things when used in metaphors.
Now, let's look at what pancakes in Brazil mean, or "panquecas". It's a savory dish, for lunch or dinner. It brings the idea of meat, and tomato sauce. It's not an everyday dish. It's related to family meals, special occasions. The brazillian panqueca is more like a creppe, but not like american-made creppes, and it definitely does not bring the same associations to mind.
Both dishes seems to come from an earlier, much older tradition that most north americans and brazillians alike probably don't remember or understand. If they do, it's not the first thing that comes to either. So the difference is interesting, maybe funny, maybe a good topic for conversation.
That's a single word. We can expand that sort of comparison to broader stuff.
What happens when it's not funny or interesting? When something is fine in one culture but brings bad memories to another culture?
What about across time? Even within a singular culture, for how long does a metaphor hold? What happens if someone learns english from old movies and try to use those metaphors today? Will all of them hold the same meaning or some of them be offensive nowadays?
I certainly notice some difference between how americans and british use of figures of speech. That should be obvious for native english speakers of either of those countries, much more than it is to me. Imagine those differences amplified by a lot, and the gap that this could potentially cause.
[+] [-] smogcutter|1 year ago|reply
Pancakes are “cakes” made in a pan. It’s not a Latin-derived word, so the only way they could be related is if panquecas is a loan word that took on a life if its own.
The simpler explanation is that pan means bread, -quecas definitely doesn’t mean cakes, and the foods are so different because the words are unrelated coincidental soundalikes.
[+] [-] Livanskoy|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] PaulHoule|1 year ago|reply
https://ahsm.org.uk/the-magic-of-metaphors/
There is a famous story where he helped a cancer patient with severe pain by telling him a story about a plant.
It is not so easy to find a good link unfortunately because the SERPs are dominated by NLP shysters and people who want to sell a $1200 course (funny when I mirror the way those people talk and use their tricks I sometimes get a copy of the course for free but use those tricks on normal people and you don’t get such good results…)
There are situations where indirect communication works best and it is good to have a library of stories that fit common situations that you can adapt. Some of you might be tired of hearing about my cat “Bob B” while other ones of you will be curious of about him and search for “Bob B cat” on Google and be like my son and wonder why I could be so hung up on an animal who doesn’t love me back but I can say he’s a very good source of material for working with wary people.
[+] [-] kjhughes|1 year ago|reply
https://www.ericksoninstitute.it/en/38/palliative-care/one-d...
[+] [-] TwoNineFive|1 year ago|reply
When someone starts using metaphors, you know you are getting taken for a ride.
[+] [-] Towaway69|1 year ago|reply
Particularly when I talk to a non-techie about some complex technical issues.
I find it’s my responsibility to find the bridge that brings us together rather than assuming my listener can’t or won’t understand.
[+] [-] saghm|1 year ago|reply
One time when talking with my brother (who isn't super technical), we were discussing hardware for gaming, and I was explaining to him about how some processors might show up as having twice as many cores as they're described due to hyperthreading. I was having trouble finding a good way to explain to him that each "virtual core" wasn't fully equivalent to a traditional core but still helped provide additional throughput, and after a moment he quipped "oh, so it's like two-ply toilet paper, you don't want to separate a sheet into each part but it's still better than one-ply". I'd never have been able to come up with as relatable an analogy as that, but I've used it on more than one occasion since to help explain to other people.
[+] [-] cheschire|1 year ago|reply
So they are useful, but I’ve noticed weakness in using them as well.
[+] [-] throwbadubadu|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] quietbritishjim|1 year ago|reply
I have no idea what you mean by this, I can't even figure out roughly what you mean from context, so I guess that's a weakness of them for a start.
[+] [-] gcanyon|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] intended|1 year ago|reply
The caveats first: Like with all communication, they should be understood by the audience, not offensive, not distracting.
A good analogy is like being able to share a scaled model with someone. It invites them to play with concepts and deduce things you haven’t conveyed yet.
That said, that level of fidelity is usually the result of thinking about a subject for a while, and handling the fall out of bad analogies for a while.
I try and remember the moments my mental image changes. Describing the inciting event, or the change that happened in your mental image, should lead to figuring out a good analogy.
At the very least, you will have a story to share, which is what human brains are very good at grasping, and using as models.
[+] [-] e1gen-v|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] detourdog|1 year ago|reply
It provides a neutral framework to compare and contrast. How a metaphor or analogy breaks down under scrutiny refines the thought and provides a new opportunity for metaphors or analogies.
[+] [-] KineticLensman|1 year ago|reply
Really fun times, that shed a lot of light on their culture.
[+] [-] panarky|1 year ago|reply
"SOF units in the AO must integrate C4ISR assets in CONOPs, synchronize with JOC and fuse MASINT into the COP, while EOD teams update TTPs for C-IED ops per JIEDDO, factoring IED TTPs observed in TICs, and G2 perform BDA utilizing IMINT to refine HVT targeting packages."
[+] [-] bee_rider|1 year ago|reply
They can help explain things. It is sometimes the case that two people disagree because each doesn’t understand what the other is saying. They are misinterpreting each other, and a better explanation can clear that up.
But more often people just disagree. They understand each other, but disagree. Because the problem isn’t understanding, analogies and metaphors don’t help. Best case people just end up arguing about the analogy, as the best thing it could be is a good proxy for the actual thing, which is what they actually disagree about.
Worst case, the analogy or metaphor is constructed to cast one side of the argument as obviously evil or disgusting. This is really just an ad-hom with extra steps, and it just ruins all hope of further conversation
Making an analogy or metaphor in this manner is essentially taking a new topic, murdering it, and dressing up the old topic in a crude skin-suit impersonation of it. It never quite fits, different aspects end up strangely twisted and stretched, and it all ends up haphazardly stitched together. Of course this is an obviously evil thing to do, on top of not really being all that convincing.
Don’t be a topic-murderer. Don’t “Buffalo Bill” the conversation. Don’t make metaphors and analogies where they aren’t useful.
[+] [-] nuancebydefault|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] alephxyz|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|1 year ago|reply
That was what I was thinking, too, reading the link.
[+] [-] emilfihlman|1 year ago|reply
This is even worse when they don't like you personally.
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|1 year ago|reply
In an argument, you need to show the link between cause and effect, a chain of reasoning.
[+] [-] tryauuum|1 year ago|reply
I personally despise analogues. They are always leaky and people pick weak or emotional ones. Anything which can be explained with an analogy can be explained without it.
[+] [-] NoCoooode|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] softfalcon|1 year ago|reply
This is purely anecdotal, but I am married to a woman from Eastern Europe and I grew up in a schooling system that was primarily Cantonese and Mandarin speaking immigrants. All of these people had trouble speaking English in their formative years and became professionals with excellent English.
I will often use metaphors to describe things. For instance, when talking about a "stack" in computer programming, I go, "think of the plates in your dish cupboard". This works great with, say, my mother, who is an English speaker, she likes metaphor and simile. My friends and wife, they all go, "here you go again, stop using metaphors! Just tell me what's happening inside the computer. A computer is NOT a bunch of plates!"
This is a trivial example, but it actually happened! They did not want to discuss it with analogies or metaphorical connections!
This piqued my curiosity, I asked, "why don't you like metaphors?" and most of them responded, "it feels like you're talking down to me" or "I'm not a child you can use playthings to explain the world to, treat me like an adult or don't bother explaining it".
I asked them, "did any of my other behaviour make you feel like I thought you were a child?" and they responded, "no, not really, but once you started comparing things to other things, I got uncomfortable."
When we really got down to it, they all admitted the truth to me. Using the somewhat complex language of comparisons, metaphors, simile... it reminded them of how they used to not understand English very well. These comparisons would confuse them when they were younger. Other kids would make fun of them for not "getting it" quickly enough.
This remembered emotion made them hate my present-day metaphors and analogies. Explanations in what a native speaker would consider "clear and concise" were frustrating and uncomfortable for them.
Just a reminder to all of us, not everyone thinks in the way this article preaches. Some folks would prefer a more direct linguistic approach and find it more respectful, approachable, etc. As our populations become more diverse, it is more and more important to meet people where they are and where it best respects their lived experience.
[+] [-] XorNot|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] giardini|1 year ago|reply
Language is impossible without metaphor. You might suggest this to your acquaintances.
[+] [-] bensmoif|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] marginalia_nu|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]