I find there are generally two reasons people use analogies. The first is to make a concept easier to understand. The second is to subtly change what is being argued in order to make their position seem stronger. I did the second for years without realizing what I was doing, and still fall into the trap.
Or the third to to illustrate the argument in another context.
I usually avoid analogies of HN as you are often called out on the technicalities of them. And you are right that can often damage an argument.
However, I have argued that changing peoples behaviour, even when their current behaviour is bad for them, is often impossible despite all evidence, from the beginning.
> Or the third to to illustrate the argument in another context.
This is still case 1.
I actually agree with you that some people with bad security habits will never change their behavior, but do you really feel that someone using passwords in a notebook because that's what they're comfortable with is in the same class of behavior as someone addicted to nicotine?
Feel free to have the last word here. 1 on 1 HN threads more than 3 deep rarely result in productive conversation. Cheers
I find there are generally two reasons people pick apart argument structure rather than deal with an argument's content. The first is to point out fallacies or rhetorical devices which are invalid or illogical. The second is because they realize their position is too weak to confront it directly.
You don't seem to be 'simply' doing anything. Everything you have posted besides the first comment about phishing is some kind of dodge which uses obvious manipulation tactics, for instance saying 'I do that myself sometimes', which is a cop method for encouraging confessions, or 'you can have the last word' works to actually let you have the last word. Stop doing that.
You're ascribing a ton of ill will here, and I hope you'll give me a little more grace, but on the other hand maybe there is some truth to your words. I'll see if I can communicate more clearly and authentically in the future. Thanks for the opportunity to introspect.
* to respond to something you don't agree with, in this case a metaphor, perhaps just write "I don't agree with that metaphor" or "let's stick to realistic examples"
* try not to dissect motives unless necessary. The person you responded to made a good point that people will do things against their interests out of habit or convenience -- why does use of a completely legitimate tactic need to be singled out?
* technical people who work with non-technical people (or even who deal with non-technical families and friends and children) are highly accustomed to describing things in simple metaphors
I realize that I have been uncordial and somewhat aggressive with you in this instance, but it made me particularly irked to see someone profess such an amount of self-awareness while showing a profound lack of it.
Either you are (a) just not in your groove mentally at that moment, (b) not as centered as you like to think you are, or (c) playing some kind of game, either consciously or unconsciously. Either way I figured my approach would get a response and hopefully a correction.
I look forward to our next encounter and genuinely hope it starts off on a better footing because you seem like an interesting person.
Some people will just never change a behaviour.