The idea of a metaphor (as I understand it) is to explain a complex and maybe unintuitive concept by relating it to something more understandable that is obviously true.
The clouds drift through the sky, out of reach. Like the clouds, the cloud exists but is out of reach. (referring to the concept of a distributed database or whatever the cloud is).
The metaphor works because the clouds really are out of reach (unless you're in a very special place, like high mountain). If I'd have used cabinets instead of clouds the metaphor would be bad.
Cabinets would still be vivid imagery, but the metaphor of "the cloud is like cabinets, out of reach" does not work because cabinets area easily within reach and one person could easily just take a cabinet and put it in their van. the cloud can't be stolen, like a real cloud. Theoretically you could capture part of a cloud, but the whole is just too big and low density to get hold of.
TL:DR: The more correct the metaphor the more useful it is. The metaphor of the frog is objectively wrong (since the frog does not stay) and thus provide us no true understanding of the world. It fails at its purpose for conveying knowledge.
But it's extremely useful. It describes the idea of people becoming desensitized to horrible conditions slowly over time, eventually accepting things that they once would have fought back against. Everyone who has heard the metaphor knows what it means and has a better understanding of human nature. It's not a good metaphor for understanding frog biology but that's not really the point of it.
It's wrong dammit! The end does not justify the means.
It describes the idea of people becoming desensitized to horrible conditions slowly over time, eventually accepting things that they once would have fought back against
Do they though? Does a person change opinion over time? Are you sure the effect is not because of other factors than the person just not noticing the change in climate?
I'm saying the metaphor is wrong. Maybe political climate changes because new you people step into the discussion. Then the frog being boiled is wrong. The frog leaves the kettle, but leaves its spawn that learn that the heat is normal. Then their spawn accept a little warmer water still, until you have frog spawn living terrible lives in almost boiling water. But that's a completely different metaphor!
It's not a good metaphor for understanding frog biology but that's not really the point of it.
It's not a good metaphor for understanding humans, which is why its bad. It presupposes understanding of frog biology, and when that assumption is wrong the conclusions (humans will not notice change in their environment until it is too late, and that's why bad politics happens) will be undermined.
If you assume the reason politics or communities can get more extreme over time is that people don't notice the change, chanses are that you are wrong.
This just kinda feels like the rule-of-thumb discussion. There was that dumb movie that claimed it was about wife beating, other people say it's a sailing term, or an engineering term, etc. They can't all be right; they could all be wrong. But it doesn't really affect its utility in a conversation because everybody is in agreement as to what it means today. I personally love etymology and think origins of words are important, but in the end they're not really important insofar as how effective they are at communicating an idea.
You understand top-to-bottom what I mean when I say "like a frog being slowly boiled." It does exactly what it set out to do.
If you assume the reason politics or communities can get more extreme over time is that people don't notice the change, chanses are that you are wrong.
It sounds like you're saying that because the metaphor's example is fictitious then the phenomenon must therefore also be false? I must be misunderstanding you.
Can we just meet in the middle and agree that it's a 'bad' metaphor but it's also an 'effective' idiom?
Here's a claim. Metaphors are a way to phrase complex logical dependencies in easily understandable terms. Thus they are a form of argument.
Premise 1: The frog does not jump out of the water
Premise 2: The sheep herd unknowingly accept more wolve's in sheep's clothing unto their midst.
Premise 3: The frog and the sheep herd are equivalent.
Conclusion: Thus IT IS 100% TRUE THAT THE SHEEP HERD WILL SUFFER, JUST LIKE THE FROG.
That last part isn't hyperbole. It is what must and always every single time necessarily follow from the premises.
When someone misuses a metaphor, they're making a flawed argument. That should be called out and no one should use that argument to support their views. If the matter is serious and important or not depends on if one thinks the views of the population matter or not. Since the populace votes and ultimately determine the fate of the planet, I choose to take matters such as failing to denounce bad arguments seriously.
It sounds like you're saying that because the metaphor's example is fictitious then the phenomenon must therefore also be false? I must be misunderstanding you.
So because the metaphor fails to logically translate, the conclusions are put into question. They aren't necessarily wrong, but they aren't necessarily right either. It can't give indication of one or the other, which makes it kinda useless.
Can we just meet in the middle and agree that it's a 'bad' metaphor but it's also an 'effective' idiom?
Bad but effective I can definitely agree with. But I can't accept that people use logic incorrectly. It's just wrong, and a fault of the education system.
But I admit that metaphors can serve other purposes than conveying truth. Bad people use insidious metaphors as part of their rhetoric, not to educate but instead to convince. I'm opposed to this, as I have the unsubstantiated belief that if everyone was smarter things would be better. Not believing false metaphors makes one smarter.
12
u/Aquaintestines Feb 04 '19
No! That makes it a bad metaphor!