Live data from Hacker News

Misleading metaphors

economist.com

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: Misleading metaphors

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its one thing to tell someone to "drive less" when they have to go to work and don't have the capital/opportunity to move closer or change jobs. Eating less is entirely a personal willpower issue.

Everything in life is a willpower issue. If we could just increase willpower /exactly/ when it's needed, we could solve virtually every problem not limited by fundamental physics.

The problem is if we could just increase will power for everyone, we'd cause more problems than we'd solve. Too much "will power" means literally insane people. You'll have people exercising until they die of exhaustion/stroke/etc. You'll generate anorexics. You have psychopaths since willpower overwhelms every other consideration. People pursuing self-destructive dead ends all over the place because they no longer listen to their bodies, their peers, or just plain common sense to STOP.

We cannot just increase will power. The problem is with the other side: the body thinks it's starving, so is triggering extremely loud survival instincts that overwhelm will power. We don't want to make will power so great that it always overcomes survival instincts (like the need for sleep, pain in a tooth or a sliver, etc... all these are things we want people to still respond to so they don't kill themselves), we want to tamp down this false survival instinct of hunger to that of a normal person.

Re: Misleading metaphors

#32

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.

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?

Re: Misleading metaphors

#33
post #21

>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..

"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.)

Re: Misleading metaphors

#34
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...We are hard-wired physiologically to crave food... You just invoked the misleading "brain as a computer" metaphor. I know, it wasn't intentional, and you probably didn't mean it in the way most people would understand the term, but do give the article the benefit of the doubt that these concepts are such commonplaces in our spoken language that they can affect our thinking if we're not careful.

Interesting point, you're right that hard-wired can be seen as a metaphor, but I'm curious why you think it's misleading. I was referring to our evolved state, and my belief that our evolved state has mechanisms that fear not having enough food. If there's a problem with what I said, it's not the metaphor, it's what I believe. I can use biology terms instead of electrical terms, but I'd be saying the same thing. We a…

The brain as something that can be "hardwired" is metaphor is a recent manifestation of the brain as a complex but completely deterministic dispatcher. To be clear, I wasn't implying that you said anything wrong about evolutionary drives and their influence on the difficulty of sticking to an eating regimen for weight loss - just that it's only one way of looking at the problem. For example, it is reasonably understood how to create behavioral avoidance using some ethically questionable as was explored in A Clockwork Orange or seen naturally through phobias, both of which undertook the implicit metaphor that the brain has firmware that if flashed hard and often enough can override "hardwiring". Then there are more benign models of child development which work under the general belief that the brain is a kind of tree, which through pruning and delicate bending of the branches over a long but influential period of life can set disposition permanently (this goes back to Aristotle at least).

What I took away from the article is that decisions with serious consequences such as judicial sentencing, managing our health, and massive government policies are made on overly confident assumptions that descriptive metaphorical explanations are definitive statements of reality. This happens because the convenience of language around the terms confuses people.

Re: Misleading metaphors

#35
post #32

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.

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?

Avoiding austerity.

Re: Misleading metaphors

#36
post #32

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.

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?

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-...

Re: Misleading metaphors

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its one thing to tell someone to "drive less" when they have to go to work and don't have the capital/opportunity to move closer or change jobs. Eating less is entirely a personal willpower issue.

Everything in life is a willpower issue. If we could just increase willpower /exactly/ when it's needed, we could solve virtually every problem not limited by fundamental physics. The problem is if we could just increase will power for everyone, we'd cause more problems than we'd solve. Too much "will power" means literally insane people. You'll have people exercising until they die of exhaustion/stroke/etc. You'll g…

>We don't want to make will power so great that it always overcomes survival instincts (like the need for sleep, pain in a tooth or a sliver, etc... all these are things we want people to still respond to so they don't kill themselves), we want to tamp down this false survival instinct of hunger to that of a normal person.

I don't understand your argument. How does the OP just talking about increasing willpower, equate to advocating for people to ignore their survival instincts? Or do you consider any act of increasing willpower something that will eventually lead to someone ignoring their own life?

But ignoring all that, people want practical weight-loss programs that work in the real world, not just on paper. Personally, I don't see the point in arguing about methodology when one can simply 'practice what they preach' and show that it works. People have been losing excess fat in various ways without killing themselves, so it seems like there are multiple solutions to this problem.

Re: Misleading metaphors

#38
post #33
post #21

>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..

"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.)

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...

https://books.google.com/books?id=-IpmCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&dq=r...

Re: Misleading metaphors

#39
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.

Re: Misleading metaphors

#40
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in life is a willpower issue. If we could just increase willpower /exactly/ when it's needed, we could solve virtually every problem not limited by fundamental physics. The problem is if we could just increase will power for everyone, we'd cause more problems than we'd solve. Too much "will power" means literally insane people. You'll have people exercising until they die of exhaustion/stroke/etc. You'll g…

>We don't want to make will power so great that it always overcomes survival instincts (like the need for sleep, pain in a tooth or a sliver, etc... all these are things we want people to still respond to so they don't kill themselves), we want to tamp down this false survival instinct of hunger to that of a normal person. I don't understand your argument. How does the OP just talking about increasing willpower, equa…

I consider hunger a survival instinct. People with obesity, especially those who have actively tried to lose weight but failed, have a stronger hunger drive than normals as their body fights back against caloric restriction attempts.

If you just increased willpower to overcome this much stronger hunger drive, you'll have increased will power beyond any kind of equilibrium with the other (weaker) survival instincts, thus increasing the probability of some unintended problem.

The solution isn't to just increase willpower, as will power isn't lacking and increasing it more could cause problems. The solution is to address the real issue: the body's exaggerated response (i.e. releasing hormones which cause the sensation of hunger even when the individual is overweight) to fighting caloric restriction.

Post reply on HN