
Misleading metaphors - tomkwok
https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/07/language-and-thought
======
rrherr
FrameWorks Institute is an interesting nonprofit organization — they
"empirically identify the most effective ways of reframing social and
scientific topics." In other words, replace the misleading metaphors with
better ones.

[http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/mission.html](http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/mission.html)

For a practical intro, see "How to build a metaphor to change people's minds"

[https://aeon.co/essays/how-to-build-a-metaphor-to-change-
peo...](https://aeon.co/essays/how-to-build-a-metaphor-to-change-people-s-
minds)

------
harperlee
If you liked this article, be sure to purchase and read "Methaphors we live
by", by Lakoff
([http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34459.Metaphors_We_Live_B...](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34459.Metaphors_We_Live_By))
It is a great little book that goes into much more detail and analysis of how
humans use methaphors and analogy as models to understand the world around us.
Highly recommended.

And if you already read it, I for one would welcome further study on these
lines if you know it!

------
Analemma_
Since it's The Economist, I'm surprised they didn't mention one of the most
common misleading metaphors I see floating around: that of equating sovereign
debt to credit card or household debt. It's used constantly by both Internet
commentators and politicians, and it needs to die as soon as possible, because
it's completely wrong and leads you to policy conclusions that are the exact
opposite of what you need to do.

~~~
trendia
Can you provide an example of a policy decision that is (1) correct using
sovereign debt analysis but (2) incorrect when using household debt analysis?

~~~
mabub24
This Reuters blog post points to one: refusing to invest in public
universities. This leads _private_ debt to grow, while austerity offers no
offset for students who must take out large loans to enroll.

There are many others really. It's a pervasive metaphor (sovereign debt =
household debt) that leads to fundamental confusions about how governments,
individual citizens and private industry, and imports/exports, interact. Many
austerity-hawks are sometimes unknowingly, sometimes very knowingly, repeating
it ad nauseum.

Too much sovereign debt is bad, but that is in specific contexts. Most
governemnts require debt in order to secure credit (as in the USA immediately
after securing independence). It's MUCH more complicated and flexible than
household debt. The flexible part is often what is lost in the metaphor.

[http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/why-
public-...](http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/why-public-debt-
is-not-like-credit-card-debt/)

~~~
trendia
It seems a better analogy would be business debt rather than household debt.

Business debt is used for productivity and not just consumption. However, in
both the case of business debt and sovereign debt, the return on the extra
capital would have to exceed the interest rate on the debt.

I disagree with your analysis of public universities, however. The cost of
university has grown substantially over the last 50 years with no real change
in education quality. That implies there is some underlying reason for that
cost disease. Besides, if everyone in the US goes to university, and the
government pays for university education, there really isn't a change in who
pays for tuition -- people either pay for it with a loan or they pay for it
with taxes. At least if they pay for it with a loan they aren't forced to pay
for someone else's education without receiving any benefit from it.

------
etiam
Not spot on the same issue perhaps, but these sorts of effects are an
important reason I cringe at the uptake of newspeak like "alternative facts"
by regular media and writers. If you not only let your adversary pick the
framing but actively contribute to it, you're placing yourself at a
potentially severe disadvantage for no good reason.

~~~
mrhektor
This is an excellent point. Sometimes, I think certain things just shouldn't
get coverage, like a particularly silly / obviously wrong thing Trump tweets.

------
akud
The prominence of metaphor to human cognition was put forth in _Metaphors We
Live By_ , by Lakoff and Johnson. A fantastic book. Anyone interested in the
line of reasoning in the article here should read it.

------
thewayfarer
"Metaphors are like models, only with unclear responsibilities." \--Nick Rowe,
talking about the use of metaphors to describe economic models.

~~~
abuteau
Other people that used that quote is Emanuel Derman. He's an interesting
character (PHD in theoretical physics, Ex-Goldman Sachs Partner). He is the
author of Models.Behaving.Badly: Why Confusing Illusion with Reality Can Lead
to Disaster, on Wall Street and in Life [1] and wrote a great paper on
Metaphors, Models & Theories. I did a review of his paper [2], but some
highlights:

Theories: Tell us what something is. According to Derman, theories “deal with
the world on its own terms, absolutely.”

Models: Tell us what something is partially like. According to Derman, models
are “reductions in dimensionality that always simplify and sweep dirt under
the rug.”

Metaphors: Models can be compared to Metaphors. Metaphors are relative
descriptions that compare it to something similar, but better understood
through theories or real life applications.

"A model is a metaphor, not the thing itself. Good metaphors compare something
we don’t understand, to something we think we do. Based on this, a model is
simple and of limited applicability when compared to the real thing as it
focuses on some parts rather than the whole. It is a caricature which
overemphasizes some features at the expense of others."

[1] [http://bit.ly/dermanmodels](http://bit.ly/dermanmodels) [2]
[https://medium.com/pnr-paper/metaphors-models-theories-
fb406...](https://medium.com/pnr-paper/metaphors-models-theories-fb40639f0a21)

------
Owloid
The ideas that apply to yourself are especially applicable. In regards to
stress, I frequently went to relax after school by doing personal projects
like a website. After hearing that stress was like a pressure, I assumed I had
to set aside time to "destress." I played games instead and felt fine for it,
but if I really regret stopping what I was doing.

------
Danihan
>This may be one reason why legal systems have historically been rather
forgiving of men who go on rampages after too much wifely nagging or losing
their jobs.

Since when? Please show me an example of this..

~~~
jt2190
"The rule of thumb" is probably the best-known example in English Common law.
The rule held that it was ok for a man to beat his wife with a rod, as long as
it was no thicker than his thumb.

(Edit: I'm certain that we can find examples from the legal systems of other
countries and cultures, if we bother to look.)

~~~
sparky_z
Speaking of bothering to look, you just have to check Wikipedia to know that
this is a myth.

[http://csswashtenaw.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/Rule_of_T...](http://csswashtenaw.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/Rule_of_Thumb.pdf)

[https://books.google.com/books?id=-IpmCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&dq=r...](https://books.google.com/books?id=-IpmCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&dq=rule+thumb#v=onepage&q=rule%20thumb&f=false)

~~~
jt2190
From the same wikipedia article:

> English common law before the reign of Charles II permitted a man to give
> his wife "moderate correction", but no "rule of thumb" (whether called by
> this name or not) has ever been the law in England.[2][8][d]

In other words, beating of wives was historically an acceptable practice under
English Common law, notwithstanding my mistakenly using a debunked anecdote.

Thank you for "moderately correcting" me.

(edit: And to further the original point that historically English Common law
allowed for wife-beating, from wikipedia:

> Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems viewed wife beating as a valid
> exercise of a husband's authority over his wife.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#History))

~~~
sparky_z
> In other words, beating of wives was historically an acceptable practice
> under English Common law

You're assuming "moderate correction" means wife beating. In fact, if you look
at the source Wikipedia cites for that phrase, it says:

>Such corrections specifically _excluded_ beatings in favor of temporarily
confining the wife to the household (like making a child sit in the corner).
In fact, no British law, Common or Parliamentary, _ever_ permitted wife
beating _under any circumstances_.

~~~
jt2190
I guess you're right and I'm wrong. My apologies.

(edit: Perhaps I was confused by this quote:

> "In the early 1800s most legal systems implicitly accepted wife-beating as a
> husband’s right, part of his entitlement"

> [https://www.britannica.com/topic/domestic-
> violence](https://www.britannica.com/topic/domestic-violence))

I took that to include English Common law (the article I quoted doesn't make
that clear.) Bully to the English for always providing legal protection to
their women!

------
neom
I believe the author is saying that the contextual application of a metaphor
can spur illogical thought? Yet it seems odd to limit an imaginative literary
tool.

------
amelius
Analogies are similar (or should I say analogous?)

~~~
neom
I was thinking about this also, do you think analogies are more
logical/rational and metaphors are more abstract/creative?

~~~
amelius
I'm not sure. But as it turns out, metaphors are analogies, but used in a
special way. Wikipedia has more info.

------
siner
Paywalled article. If your connection is not super fast cancel loading of the
page as soon as you see the article.

~~~
dredmorbius
[https://outline.com](https://outline.com) or
[https://archive.is](https://archive.is) are also often useful.

------
dahart
Are misleading metaphors the issue, or is it just that lots of the stories we
tell are misleading? Strange article, it seems to negate itself at the end by
pointing out that "declaring war" on things that aren't war is never true and
only sometimes helpful.

> “Calories in, calories out” is more than a banal restatement of the Law of
> Conservation of Energy: it is a metaphor casting the metabolism as akin to a
> current account. Weight gain is then simply a matter of depositing more than
> you withdraw. But that ignores the role of hormones and appetite;
> differences in the way different foods are metabolised and the way the body
> reacts to prolonged deprivation by hoarding fat and slowing down. No wonder
> diets rarely work

Speaking of misleading stories, diets do work. People just don't stick to them
because they're _super_ difficult. We are hard-wired physiologically to crave
food, and it can be near impossible socially to stick to a diet. It's not
because something is wrong with the phrase "calories in, calories out". Which
isn't even a metaphor, by the way, so why is this diatribe here? This specious
argument is saying we should ignore the primary factor and instead worry about
the margins. Person to person variance in caloric digestion is in the low
percentages for almost everyone. Nearly everyone gets the same 230 calories
from McDonalds French fries. Sure, someone might absorb a little more and get
245 and someone else might absorb a little less and get 215, but skipping them
is an order of magnitude more effective for _everyone_.

~~~
johngalt
Calories in/out is true. As in it is an accurate statement.

The problem is that common examinations of diet focus on this math rather than
what motivates humans to eat. It is like saying 'the problem with traffic is
too many cars.' It is an axiom that does nothing to examine the causes.
Admonishing everyone to 'drive less' will do very little unless several other
systems are changed.

~~~
moron4hire
The "calories in/out" line also ignores that the "calories out" part varies
_extremely_. For example, my mother has two bum knees from a lifetime of
sports activity that now prevent her from engaging in most strenuous activity,
and an under-active thyroid. She's also post-menopausal, so her overall
metabolism is super low. She literally cannot lose weight on anything more
than 1500 calories per day.

"It's just a matter of willpower"\--as one of my sibling commentors so thickly
puts it--is theoretically true, it's just that a lot more willpower is
required out of some people than others.

~~~
dahart
I agree, reducing it to "willpower" is roughly the same thing as reducing it
to "calories in, calories out". Neither one actually helps you achieve it. And
saying it's only "willpower" and nothing more is possibly more misleading, and
more shaming than the caloric equation.

I found out personally that focusing on willpower doesn't work very well,
thinking that way makes it easier to fail mentally. You're trying to focus
everything you have on not eating food, and judging your strength by whether
you succeed. It's like the psych test of trying not to think of a polar bear.
([http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/unwanted-
thoughts.aspx](http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/unwanted-thoughts.aspx))
Trying not to think about something is harder than thinking about something,
and doubly harder than the habits we don't think about. Focusing on willpower
is setting up such a monumental task that almost nobody can achieve, and the
very few people that do have mentally trained for it.

It does take me the right mental frame of mind to stick to a reduced calorie
diet, but I don't consider it willpower, it's more of a way of thinking and
arranging my life so that I don't need willpower. It's almost opposite of
willpower. I think about what I should do and how I should feel, instead of
what I shouldn't, and I form new habits so that I don't have to think about it
all the time or use the power of my will to overcome my tendencies.

I'm not sure but I feel like women generally have it harder when it comes to
calorie reduction. My wife has to eat under 1500 to lose weight as well, and
she's active and doesn't have bum knees or thyroid problems. Either way, that
stinks for you mom. Does she regret her previous sport life at all now, or
does she have fond memories?

~~~
dahart
The above comment seems to be rubbing some people the wrong way. I'm honestly
stumped as to which parts are disagreeable and I'd listen and appreciate any
further feedback, especially if I was accidentally offensive. My one any only
goal was to contribute positively to the discussion.

------
Owloid
Despite being paywall, the content is interesing and viewable by canceling the
loading as siner posted.

~~~
abrowne
Or use the "kill sticky headers" bookmarklet:
[https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-
headers/](https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/)

------
pdog
Metaphors and analogies are not tools for critical thinking. When you use a
metaphor or an analogy to link two ideas together, you are simply combining
things that have no logical connection. It's essentially a quirk of human
thought that this type of analogical "reasoning" even exists.

~~~
blowski
Some of the greatest thinkers in history used metaphors. For example -
Sócrates, Descartes, Confucius, Kant. If metaphors were good enough for them,
they're good enough for me.

~~~
pdog
At best, metaphors are a useful mnemonic device. If they had any value or
explanatory power, they'd be used in science. But they're not.

~~~
blowski
I see scientists using them all the time. For example, Stephen Hawking has
described the universe as being like the surface of a balloon.

------
lucio
Misleading article:

1\. Dismiss stress, by badly redefining what stress is.

2\. People "snapping": Just mention it, but do not explain why is a bad
metaphor. Maybe he/she deleted the paragraph, maybe he/she do not care for a
coherent article?

3\. Dismiss healthy food

4\. Do not understand DNA

5\. more badly explained things

6\. “war on drugs” - finally something, but this is PROPAGANDA not a bad
metaphor. It is intentional.

7\. "War on terror" \- I this case, when "war on terror" is "war on ISIS" is
not a bad metaphor, they've uniforms and a territory.

