This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

The Metaphor Rant

And Why They Should Not Be Used In Debates

I hope that everyone has been taught at some point what a metaphor is. But to review, a metaphor is a way of describing something by saying it is something else, to draw an analogy between them. "Love is a flower." "She's a real shrew." (For didactic purposes, I will also use "metaphor" to refer to "simile", since they are very, very similar and differ solely in a grammatical construction. Hence...) "The money flows from his pocket like a river."

English teachers

Thus, the most dangerous thing about a metaphor to the creator is that it might trap him or her into performing logic on the symbol, instead of the original subject. But even if you get this right as a creator, it's still not a good idea to use metaphors.


 

Not Even Good For Explanation

Some people teach that as long as a metaphor is used correctly within the guidelines laid out in the previous section, that it can be helpful to a debate. I now believe this is wrong.

The problem with the academic debate model is that it assumes that both "debaters" are fully rational, emotionally detached human beings that are trying to come to some sort of mutual understanding or settlement in the most efficient and correct way possible. I can count on one hand how many debates like that I've managed to be a part of; most people can safely set the count at precisely zero, since both sides have to cooperate and very few people are emotionally capable of detached debate at all. (Note that "emotionally detached" does not mean "not emotional"; I get emotional about many issues such as "abortion", but that does not mean that in the debate I let my emotions, such as anger at my opponent, frustration, etc., play out in the debate in the form of insults, slurs, intellectually dishonest accusations, etc. Not that I'm perfect but I do try.)

In addition to the fact that few debaters even remotely approximate this model, in the real world, debates are never between two parties. A handful of people may be debating but the number of people lurking dwarfs that count. It is importent to remember that those are the real targets in a debate; again, I can count the number of times I've seen a person back down and reconsider a position on my fingers.

Given the multiple failings of the standard debate model, we should expect that what the model tells us to do is incorrect. It is. The fact of the matter is that most people on the Internet are actively hostile to accepting or even considering new ideas, on both a concious and unconcious level, and will agressively misinterpret what you are saying, through both ignorance and malice.

Fundamentally, there's nothing you can do to prevent this. But remember that we are trying to reach the lurkers, not the debaters, so the key is to try to make sure that you're not leaving any (for lack of a better word) dumb avenues open for this sort of aggresive misinterpretation. In a nutshell, metaphors are the canonical example of such a dumb avenue that is ripe for aggressive misinterpretation through the argument technique I call [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "dancing" hasn't been defined.] dancing.

Remember the standard Venn diagram where there are two intersecting circles, and the space that is in both circles is shaded? Imagine that one circle is the subject of the metaphor, and the other is the symbol, and the point you are trying to make resides in the shaded middle. In general, there is a lot of the symbol that is not covered by the metaphor, and not really germane to topic of the metaphor, which is the real focus. However, that uncovered portion of the symbol is fertile ground for dancing. Instead of using the metaphor for understanding, you can safely assume that your opponent will become fascinated by attacking the symbol in any number of strange ways, appearing to make hash of an argument (that doesn't exist, but people will assume is yours), but in fact just getting side-tracked and not accomplishing anything.

Let me give you a wonderful real world example: In the context of an article on kuro5hin about the tragedy of the commons (I actively don't recommend the article, the author has a serious lack of [Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "clear thinking" hasn't been defined.] clear thinking), Zonko made a comment that went in part like this:

...suppose the two of us are stranded on a desert island. You possess 500 gallons of water, and I possess 500 loaves of bread. Clearly, a gallon of water is now worth vastly more to me - having none - them you.... Both of us would profit from [trading a loaf of bread for water].

And in reply... inasmuch as that phrase really applies here... brantsj replies

If I have all the water, you will be dying of thirst long before I am dying of hunger - at that point you will gladly 'trade' all your bread for a drink. Then you will be my slave for water and bread. Pray tell how we both have profited.

This is a wonderful "in-the-wild" example of the sort of willful misinterpretation that metaphors leave one open to in the real world. The original point by Zonko was a (correct!) point that the economy is not a zero-sum game, that real wealth is created in many transactions. The metaphor was an attempt to show how that works in a concrete way, but it's obviously a little contrived, as all metaphors are. brantsj's "rebuttal", instead of addressing the real point of zero-sum economies, gets bogged down in the precise machinations that someone might get involved in in that sort of situation. While possibly an interesting point in another context, it completely misses the point, which has to do with real situations and real economies. The details of that little, unreal situation prove nothing about the larger truths of the world.


 

Conclusion

Metaphors are the spice of great literature, and formalized debating. But they have no place in real-world debates, especially ones in areas people are fuzzy in. I strongly advise that you not use metaphors online, and that you be vigilant for people misusing and misunderstanding them, deliberately or otherwise.


[Macro error: Can't evaluate the expression because the name "#title" hasn't been defined.]
Current Section Links

 

 

Search Jerf.org
Google

Search WWW
Search jerf.org