Use multiple analogies for the same problem

Draw on at least two different analogies for a new problem and see where they agree and diverge.

Why it works

Any single analogy highlights certain relationships and hides others. Using multiple analogies for the same target forces the different structural mappings to compete, which reveals which relational features are robust (they appear in every mapping) and which are artifacts of one particular base domain. The overlap between multiple analogies is more likely to capture something real; the divergence reveals where each analogy is doing ideological rather than cognitive work.

How to do it

1. For a new problem, generate two or three analogies from different domains.
2. Map the relational structure for each.
3. Identify which conclusions appear in all mappings — those are most reliable.
4. Identify where the analogies point in different directions — those are the genuinely uncertain areas.

Evidence

Multiple-source analogy is a principle endorsed in creative cognition and design thinking research; using multiple analogies reduces the over-fitting to one source domain that single analogies risk. Gentner, Loewenstein and Thompson (2003) showed experimentally that comparing two examples — rather than studying them separately — is what makes the shared relational schema explicit and transferable to new cases. (mechanistic)

The research here is more theoretical than experimental; generating high-quality multiple analogies requires strong knowledge of multiple domains.

Sources

• Gentner & Colhoun (2010), analogical processes in human thinking, Psychological Science — multiple analogies and robust inference
• Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393–408.
• Gentner, D., & Colhoun, J. (2010). Analogical processes in human thinking and learning. In A. von Müller & E. Pöppel (Series Eds.) & B. Glatzeder, V. Goel, & A. von Müller (Vol. Eds.), On Thinking: Vol. 2. Towards a Theory of Thinking (pp. 35–48). Springer.

Common mistake

Using two analogies that are actually the same structural mapping in different surface dressing — they both need to come from genuinely different base domains to provide distinct structural perspectives.