I wonder how many HN conversations would be cut short if we simply accepted that analogies are imperfect yet useful. They provide a very limited amount of insight into any topic—so yes, let’s use them, and let’s stop arguing about whether an analogy is the “right analogy”. A analogy will have some element of truth that transfers from one situation to another, and in a good analogy, it will be easy for readers to discover that element of truth.

You’ll find ways in which the analogy is “wrong”, but that’s just noise.

IDK... I do see you point, but I'd like to think both I and the commenter I responded to were using analogies in an ok way.

Analogies are a pretty good rhetorical device, IMO because we kind of think in abstract analogies anyway. We could have both made our points without analogy, but I don't think much content is lost.

His point is that Bankers are the professionals. This is true. I "complicated" the analogy/comment to highlight the tension between "bankers are knowledgeable professionals" and "bankers are an interested party."

In any case, I feel that analogies are ok. The problem with my comment might have been an overly combative or nitpicky tone, especially given that we probably agree of most of it.

Analogies are like children. If its your own they're a brilliant, cute, funny, unique individual. If they're other people's they're loud, annoying, stinky little pests and oh god they're swarming you.

Actually they're more like teenagers.

I wonder how many HN conversations would be cut short if we simply accepted that analogies are imperfect yet useful.

I chuckled, but let's not. I apologize.

Analogies are good as long as they’re good. If they’re not good they just leave people more confused / argumentative

Most people can’t understand analogies. They are literally literal.