Why use metaphors in conflicts? Because understanding is remembering in disguise (2009)

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”).

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.

I think of the use of metaphor by the pioneering hypnotist Milton Erickson, here is some description

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.

Metaphors are also a handy hint that you are being manipulated. They are often used by influencers, salespeople, con artists, and other fraudsters.

When someone starts using metaphors, you know you are getting taken for a ride.

I use metaphors and analogies to build bridges between me and my listener.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra

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.

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.

Am I going to be the first to bring up "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra"?

I'll leave this here, as it's interesting and related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_(philosophy)