Why arguing by analogy isn’t valid

Dear Bob …

I read your column with interest having been a team leader and now finding myself, again, doing what I do best, which is creating software.  I know that I am not a leader but expect some time to find myself in that position again, so am very interested in understanding what makes leaders.  Maybe I can take an engineering approach to leading; treat it as a science and become a good, if not great, leader.

When I read about influencing yesterday, I spotted a weakness in myself.  When I read today: “While most people know that argument by analogy is invalid,” I was very surprised. Imagine the argument is a hot dinner. I’ve drawn more analogies in arguments than I’ve had hot dinners. In my mind, an analogy is the equivalent of an engineering model.  (You see, even that sentence contains an analogy!)  How could you have ever argued that the world is not flat without using models or analogies?  Or maybe they are not the same thing.  I am very interested in your opinion.  Of course, now that I can’t use my favorite arguing (persuading) tool, I’d like to know what I should use!

– Metaphorically inclined

Dear Tilted …

The problem with arguing by analogy (or metaphor) is that all I have to do to refute your argument is to say, “No, arguing isn’t like having a hot dinner. They aren’t parallel.” All that’s left at that point is assertion.

Or, you can take your analogy and abstract the essential systems elements from it. If you take the parallel and can demonstrate the same elements, you’re no longer arguing by analogy. You’re arguing from general systems theory.

So if I were to say, “A business process is like a linear amplifier,” you might not buy it. Now imagine I’d said, “A linear amplifier transforms inputs to outputs using a scaling factor. To stabilize it, you have to add a low-latency negative feedback loop. The business process we’re analyzing also transforms its input to an output, although not with a linear scaling factor. I still think they’re similar enough that we should explore using negative feedback to stabilize it.”

See the difference?

Now about you and leadership: Perhaps it’s because I wrote a book about leadership that looks at it as an engineering problem, more or less (Leading IT: The Toughest Job in the World, IS Survivor Publishing, 2004) – I agree not everyone is a leader or wants to be one, but most people can develop some ability in that area, and will benefit by doing so.

It’s more challenging than mechanical or electrical engineering, because you’re working with human beings – less predictable in their responses to stimuli than linear amplifiers or poured concrete. But the techniques do work.

Some people are natural leaders, just as some people are natural musicians. But just because something doesn’t come easily to you doesn’t mean you can’t become skilled at it through learning and practice, whether it’s playing the tuba or leading a project team.

– Bob