Analogy Mapping Table¶
Template — instantiates Relevance-Substitution Detection and Correction
For an argument by analogy, records which source-domain features actually map to the target and which persuasive similarities carry no evidential weight.
Analogy Mapping Table is a fill-in template for one specific substitution: an argument that rides on "X is like Y, so what's true of Y is true of X." It lays the source domain and the target side by side, lists the features being carried across, and forces each one to be marked as a genuine structural correspondence or a mere surface resemblance that persuades without transferring. The defining idea is that an analogy's fluency — how neatly it sounds, how satisfying the parallel feels — is not the same as its aptness, and only the features that hold up as structural mappings are allowed to support the conclusion. Where its siblings anchor to a question or discount a feeling, this template's whole subject matter is the internal structure of a comparison: which correspondences are real, which are decorative, and what the target actually looks like once the decorative ones are removed.
Example¶
A startup founder pitches investors with a single line: "We're the Uber of home repair." The Analogy Mapping Table takes that comparison apart. In the source column (Uber) sit the features doing the persuading: an app that dispatches nearby providers, surge pricing, ratings, near-zero marginal cost per match, a fragmented supply of drivers. In the target column (home repair) each is tested. Fragmented supply of independent providers — maps: real correspondence, plumbers and electricians are indeed dispersed. Instant, interchangeable dispatch — fails: a home repair is scheduled, skilled, and licensed, not a two-minute interchangeable ride. Near-zero marginal cost per match — fails: vetting a tradesperson's license and insurance is expensive and recurring. Ratings build trust fast — partial. The table's output is blunt: the analogy transfers the fragmented-supply insight and almost nothing else, and the reconstructed picture of home repair — high-trust, scheduled, regulated — looks far less like Uber than the pitch implied. The comparison stops being a conclusion and becomes one testable hypothesis about supply.
How it works¶
- Lay source beside target. The two domains are placed in parallel columns so each carried-over feature has an explicit home on both sides.
- List the carried features. Every similarity actually doing persuasive work is entered as a row — especially the ones that make the analogy feel right.
- Mark map vs. mirage. Each row is judged: structural correspondence (the relation genuinely transfers), surface resemblance (looks alike, relation does not transfer), or partial. This per-feature judgment is the template's core.
- Reconstruct the target on its own terms. After the mirages are struck, what remains is a description of the target built from the mappings that survived — which is the actual evidence the analogy provides.
Tuning parameters¶
- Feature granularity — how finely the analogy is decomposed. Fine rows catch subtle non-transfers but bury the table in detail; coarse rows are readable but let mixed features pass as wholly valid.
- Mapping bar — how strong a correspondence must be to count as structural. A high bar rejects seductive-but-loose parallels; a low bar keeps more of the analogy but readmits surface resemblance.
- Reconstruction depth — whether you stop at "which features map" or go on to rebuild the target from the survivors. Rebuilding is more revealing but more work.
- Multiplicity — testing one analogy or several competing ones side by side. Comparing rivals guards against a single seductive frame but multiplies the tables.
When it helps, and when it misleads¶
Its strength is disciplining exactly the cases where a vivid comparison is doing the arguing. It operationalizes the distinction between surface and structural similarity at the heart of structure-mapping theory: apt analogies transfer relations, weak ones merely share attributes.[n1] By demanding a map-or-mirage verdict per feature, the table stops a single pleasing parallel from importing conclusions it never earned.
Its failure mode is false rigor about a device that is inherently generative. Analogies are for discovery as much as proof, and a table that rejects every non-perfect mapping can kill a productive hunch before it's tested. The classic misuse is the reverse — building the table after committing to the comparison, populating it only with the features that happen to map, and calling the analogy validated. The guarding discipline is to enter the persuasive features before judging them and to treat the surviving mappings as a hypothesis to check against the target directly, not as a verdict the analogy has now earned.
How it implements the components¶
substitute_signal_register— the feature rows are a register of the similarities carrying persuasive force in the analogy.relevance_test— the map-vs-mirage judgment tests each similarity for genuine structural (relational) transfer to the target.relevant_signal_reconstruction— rebuilding the target from the surviving mappings reconstructs what the comparison actually tells you about it.
It does not pre-register per-question allowable evidence in a relevance_standard or lay out an issue_relevance_map across many claims — that whole-decision evidence grid belongs to Question–Evidence Matrix, its template twin.
Related¶
- Instantiates: Relevance-Substitution Detection and Correction — supplies the analogy-specific test that separates a comparison's persuasive fluency from its evidential transfer.
- Sibling mechanisms: Affect–Evidence Split Prompt · Red Herring Filter Checklist · Question–Evidence Matrix · Decision-Basis Disclosure · Reweighted Update Log · Cue-Validity Audit · Proxy-Relevance Audit · Blinded or Masked Review
Editorial Notes¶
Form Classification¶
Form family: Representation, Specification & Plan
Rationale: For an argument by analogy, records which source-domain features actually map to the target and which persuasive similarities carry no evidential weight, making its operative form a non-executable information artifact that externalizes static or prospective structure.
Independent corroboration: The frozen evidence defines Analogy Mapping Table as 'For an argument by analogy, records which source-domain features actually map to the target and which persuasive similarities carry no evidential weight', so its operative form is Representation, Specification & Plan.
Review outcome: Independent reviewer agreement; high confidence.
Origin Attribution¶
Primary origin: Cognitive Science
Origin pattern: Cross-disciplinary synthesis
Present-day reach: Universal
Rationale: Systematic correspondence tables are a direct operational form of structure-mapping theory in cognitive science.
Related originating lineages:
- Law & Governance — Legal reasoning uses explicit analogy between cases and precedents.
- Philosophy — Logic and philosophy of science evaluate analogical inference and disanalogy.
- Rhetoric — Classical analogy and comparison supplied a long-standing argumentative lineage.
Review resolution: Structure-mapping theory explicitly maps objects and, especially, systems of relations from base to target, matching the table's row-by-row correspondences and limits. Legal analogy, philosophy, and rhetoric are materially formative traditions, but cognitive science supplies the most exact formal lineage.
Encyclopedia synthesis: The exact catalogued form synthesizes established practice rather than reproducing a single standard historical label.
Review outcome: Researched adjudication after independent review; high confidence.
Sources consulted:
Notes¶
[n1] Gentner's structure-mapping theory holds that a good analogy transfers a system of relations between domains, not shared surface attributes; the map-vs-mirage column is a working version of that test. ↩