Many mental frameworks and systems are used to make decisions. One of the most common is reasoning by analogy, where one object, process, or situation is compared to another. While analogical reasoning is essential to function in a world where we constantly face new facts and circumstances, it can also lead to many erroneous conclusions. This article, part 4 in a 20-part series, Making Better Decisions, examines analogical reasoning, considers its strengths and weaknesses, and discusses how it can improve decision-making.
An Overview of Analogical Reasoning
Imagine that you arrive at a city you have never been to before. The street numbers are not in chronological order. The buildings and houses all have unrecognizable shapes. Everyone is speaking an unfamiliar language. How would you start to function in this world?
You would probably begin with one of the most fundamental forms of human reasoning: analogy. You would compare unfamiliar things with those you already know based on their shapes, sounds, and functions. From there, you would begin to interact with this new place and modify your perceptions and behavior as you receive feedback from your surroundings that either confirms or alters your assumptions.
One of the most fundamental forms of human reasoning is using analogies.
Analogical reasoning, in its simplest form, involves stating that one thing is like something else. We use analogies all the time to describe our perception of reality:
- The chef’s new dish tastes like chicken
- Starting a business without a business plan is like going over a waterfall in a barrel; and
- Going on a blind dates is like riding a bicycle on a tightrope.
Analogical reasoning involves stating that one thing is like something else.
There are several ways to classify analogical reasoning. The first is based on the source (the object used for reference). The source can be a word, object, image, process, or any other type of phenomenon.
- A brain (the thing to be explained) is like a computer (the source)
- The recent economic cycle (the thing to be explained) is like the early economic cycles of the early Roman empire (the source); and
- Leadership (the thing to be explained) is like navigating a ship (the source).
Analogical reasoning can also be classified based on the relationship between the source and the new object to be described (the target).
Shared features. The first way two objects can be compared is by the number of features they have in common. Baseball is like cricket to a certain extent because they both have batters and fielders, a pitcher/bowler pitches the ball/cricket ball to the batter, and the batter tries to hit it.
Defining characteristics. The second way is based on a single, important characteristic the source and the target share. Oceans, rivers, and streams can all be compared by the fact that their key defining characteristic is water. Jazz, opera, and reggae can all be compared by the fact that they are types of music.
Target and object function. The third way is by the function of the object or the effect that its use or existence is expected to create. Throwing a rock or a brick against a glass window brings about the same result of breaking the glass. Targets and objects that are very different can have the exact same function.
Analogical Reasoning Advantages
Analogical reasoning has several advantages.
It is a very efficient way to make sense of unfamiliar data and situations. We constantly face new facts, information, and situations. Analogical reasoning permits handling what we do not know by equating it to what we do. If each time we went to a different restaurant, we had to relearn basic concepts of waiting to be seated, making food choices, eating, and paying the bill, it would add large amounts of time to the dining process and negatively impact restaurant operations.
Analogical reasoning allows us to deal with unfamiliar situations.
It can be carried out very quickly. Many situations, like driving a car, require split-second decisions that determine the difference between safety and catastrophe. If we had to consciously reanalyze from scratch every combination of situations on the road that occur on even a short trip and think through their potential risks and how we should respond to those risks, we would never be able to react quickly enough to drive without getting into an accident.
It permits constructive dialogue between people with different perspectives. A significant challenge in an increasingly specialized world divided by organizational lines and jargon is creating mutually intelligible dialogue. If a chemist speaks to me in technical terms only used by chemists, since I do not have a background in chemistry I would not be able to understand what they are saying, discuss problems they are facing, and propose solutions. However, if analogical reasoning is used, issues can be generalized to a point where broader dialogue is possible. For example, a person who has never written a line of code can get some idea of the coding process if they learn that coding is like learning a foreign language. Once that it grasped, a language student could begin to discuss the coding process with reference to language syntax and other shared concepts.
It allows for higher-order reasoning. Many types of innovation are driven not by instantaneous leaps but rather by iterative progress. If someone does not understand the concept of three dimensions, it is very difficult to discuss four or five dimensions. Analogy is a cognitive building block that allows people to proceed from known to increasingly abstract concepts. This is very useful in generating novel ideas and solutions.
Analogical Reasoning Disadvantages
Analogical reasoning also has several disadvantages.
It can equate unrelated things. Since analogies are only verbal constructions, they can misleadingly link things that have very little or nothing to do with each other. This is false framing. While to make an economic forecast, I can state that the current economic situation is like one that existed ten years ago, the two situations may be the result of entirely different economic drivers. Not considering these factors would negatively affect the forecasting process.
It can overlook key distinguishing factors. Many things are exactly the same in every respect except for the key points that define them. The words typical and atypical are almost the same but they mean opposite things. Two medical patients may have nearly identical symptoms except for one that determines how serious their medical conditions are.
This potential weakness in analogical reasoning is compounded by the fact that a distinguishing feature for one person is not a distinguishing feature for another. A fast-food restaurant and a 5-star restaurant are exactly the same if their key defining characteristic is that they are both places to eat. They are very different if price is taken as the key defining characteristic.
It can create different perceptions. People interpret analogies based on their experiences and frames of reference. These differences can cause an analogy to be interpreted in different ways. For example, if work is described as running a marathon, for two people who are not marathon runners, they may get the general idea that work is a long, slow process rather than a quick sprint. However, if one of the people is a marathon runner and intimately familiar with the process of running marathons, they may read a level of detail into the analogy that is not what the person who used the analogy intended.
The Role of Analogous Reasoning in Decision-Making
Analogous reasoning plays a key role in several parts of the decision-making process.
Circumstance framing. Imagine that we work in the finance department of a company and are preparing the budget for the upcoming year. Economic conditions this quarter are worse than in the previous quarter. Is the economic situation worsening? Is the last quarter a likely brief downturn in a generally positive trend? How this question is answered will significantly impact the budget discussion and the budget allocation decisions.
Decision framing. Assume that you own a football team that has been playing poorly. What type of decision should be made to improve the team’s performance? Depending on the analogy that is used, possible decisions include whether:
- the coach should be fired
- certain players should be replaced
- the team needs to raise capital to make investments in club infrastructure.
Decision framing is significant, not only because some decision paths may be more likely to solve an issue than others but because these paths imply very different uses of firm and external resources. These uses can impact the firm, positively or negatively, in ways that extend beyond the scope of the decision.
Determining the solution. Analogical reasoning also impacts the solutions that are selected. Consider a firm that is trying to improve employee performance. For some firms, this may involve deciding only whether employee salaries should be increased, remain the same, or decreased. Yet, in many work environments, salary changes may have a very limited correlation with employee performance. In these situations, providing more responsibility or a better work life balance may have a much greater probability of increasing employee productivity.
Decision implementation assumptions. Analogous reasoning also impacts decision implementation assumptions. For example, if it previously took three months to implement a particular solution, a person might reason that implementing a similar solution will also take three months. However, the previous decision implementation timetable may have been driven by factors not present in the current situation. This can cause miscalculations regarding the resources that are needed to put a decision into practice.
Using Dynamic Analogous Reasoning to Strengthen Decision-Making
Once its advantages and disadvantages are understood, analogous reasoning can strengthen the decision-making process in several ways.
Facilitates brainstorming. Analogous reasoning can be used as a brainstorming aid. For example, assume that a business is trying to determine its strategy given short-term market trends. Given the complexity of economic movements, the nature of relevant economic trends may not be clear. In this type of situation, analogies to several type of economic possibilities can create a broader range of potential analytical reference points. In other words, instead of saying the economy is like X, we can say it could be like X, Y, or Z.
Analogical reasoning can drive brainstorming.
Facilitates lateral thinking. Analogous reasoning is a very powerful way to facilitate lateral thinking. If we start from a particular situation and build solutions from that point, there is a great likelihood that the set of proposed solutions will be very similar to each other. However, analogies can be used to quickly bootstrap to a much wider potential solution set. For example, assume that an electronics’ internal communications are inefficient. Instead of modifying its communication approach slightly based on what is common in the company’s sector, it could, for example, use communications in the military as a model to follow. While there may be limitations in applying that system given differences in the objectives, size, and operating realities, the jump to an out of the box possibility via an analogy can often generate new perspectives that can potentially lead to a solution.
Facilitates critical analysis. Once potential analogies are articulated, components of analogous reasoning can be used to test the strength of different comparative relationships. This can be used to ask several types of questions:
- what does the source have in common with the target?
- what are the relevant defining features of the source and the target?
- what are limitations of applying the analogy?
These questions can test analogical assumptions and increase the likelihood of a stronger connection between objects and sources.
Facilitates cross-disciplinary solutions. Many organizations struggle with creating organizational solutions that reflect the perspective of different institutional perspectives. These differences may make it difficult to discuss issues and the best way to solve them. Analogous thinking can help isolate problems from specialty perspectives and jargon and create a wider common base for problem analysis and solution dialogue.
Conclusion
This article discussed the strengths and weaknesses of analogical reasoning and its use in decision-making. It also showed analogical reasoning can be used to strengthen the decision-making process through brainstorming, generating lateral thinking, and supporting critical analysis. The next article in this series will consider another decision-making approach, first principles reasoning.
The image for this article, the painting The Girl with the Mandolin by Pablo Picasso, was taken from here. This painting is representative of the artistic movement of cubism. This painting represents analogous thinking because it blurs the line between something that is like an image of a girl playing the mandolin and something that is not.
