http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/mission.html
For a practical intro, see "How to build a metaphor to change people's minds"
https://aeon.co/essays/how-to-build-a-metaphor-to-change-peo...
And if you already read it, I for one would welcome further study on these lines if you know it!
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-...
Theories: Tell us what something is. According to Derman, theories “deal with the world on its own terms, absolutely.”
Models: Tell us what something is partially like. According to Derman, models are “reductions in dimensionality that always simplify and sweep dirt under the rug.”
Metaphors: Models can be compared to Metaphors. Metaphors are relative descriptions that compare it to something similar, but better understood through theories or real life applications.
"A model is a metaphor, not the thing itself. Good metaphors compare something we don’t understand, to something we think we do. Based on this, a model is simple and of limited applicability when compared to the real thing as it focuses on some parts rather than the whole. It is a caricature which overemphasizes some features at the expense of others."
[1] http://bit.ly/dermanmodels [2] https://medium.com/pnr-paper/metaphors-models-theories-fb406...
Since when? Please show me an example of this..
(Edit: I'm certain that we can find examples from the legal systems of other countries and cultures, if we bother to look.)
http://csswashtenaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Rule_of_T...
https://books.google.com/books?id=-IpmCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&dq=r...
> “Calories in, calories out” is more than a banal restatement of the Law of Conservation of Energy: it is a metaphor casting the metabolism as akin to a current account. Weight gain is then simply a matter of depositing more than you withdraw. But that ignores the role of hormones and appetite; differences in the way different foods are metabolised and the way the body reacts to prolonged deprivation by hoarding fat and slowing down. No wonder diets rarely work
Speaking of misleading stories, diets do work. People just don't stick to them because they're super difficult. We are hard-wired physiologically to crave food, and it can be near impossible socially to stick to a diet. It's not because something is wrong with the phrase "calories in, calories out". Which isn't even a metaphor, by the way, so why is this diatribe here? This specious argument is saying we should ignore the primary factor and instead worry about the margins. Person to person variance in caloric digestion is in the low percentages for almost everyone. Nearly everyone gets the same 230 calories from McDonalds French fries. Sure, someone might absorb a little more and get 245 and someone else might absorb a little less and get 215, but skipping them is an order of magnitude more effective for everyone.
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.
And it's not just a matter of willpower.
If you add up the calories in the food you eat, then subtract the calories you burn through exercise, respiration, beating heart, etc., you cannot compute weight gain or loss.
That's because the body doesn't use 100% of calories in food. Some calories are never absorbed and are excreted as waste. And if you eat a big meal and then you don't exercise immediately to offset it, the excess calories are not automatically converted to fat.
And different bodies have different metabolisms, which is nearly impossible to quantify in any practical way. In fact, cutting back on calorie intake can actually cause some bodies to add fat.
So the whole idea of applying a simplistic equation to a complex and dynamic process like this probably does more harm than good.
"It's just a matter of willpower"--as one of my sibling commentors so thickly puts it--is theoretically true, it's just that a lot more willpower is required out of some people than others.
Eating less is entirely a personal willpower issue.
Most people are able to lose their weight fast once they get motivated and are in a place where they can form a good habit. Habit forming requires so staying power and ability to live in some amount of discomfort. When people difficulties in life, or become depressed, food is good excellent way improve mood temporarily. Food works as instant antidepressant for mild depression. It's long term effects for mental health are usually negative.
Many people (me included) feel few days of extreme hopelessness and loss of meaning in life if they fast. If person cant accept periods of mental discomfort, but treats them as emergencies that need to be solved and not endured, there is no way he/she can get anything done that requires more than average effort.
If we would treat self-control as major issue in health and life even for normal mentally healthy people, we could tackle the issue directly without negative connotations and shame.
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.
1580s, "one who passes judgment," from Middle French critique (14c.), from Latin criticus "a judge, literary critic," from Greek kritikos "able to make judgments," from krinein "to separate, decide" (from PIE root krei- "to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish"). Meaning "one who judges merits of books, plays, etc." is from c. 1600. The English word always had overtones of "censurer, faultfinder."*
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=critic&allowed_in_f...
That is, you literally cannot use the term "critical thinking" without employing metaphor.
1. Dismiss stress, by badly redefining what stress is.
2. People "snapping": Just mention it, but do not explain why is a bad metaphor. Maybe he/she deleted the paragraph, maybe he/she do not care for a coherent article?
3. Dismiss healthy food
4. Do not understand DNA
5. more badly explained things
6. “war on drugs” - finally something, but this is PROPAGANDA not a bad metaphor. It is intentional.
7. "War on terror" - I this case, when "war on terror" is "war on ISIS" is not a bad metaphor, they've uniforms and a territory.
