---
id: 2026-03-15T12:38:20-0400
title: 2026-03-15 12:38:20
tags:
  - status/draft
date-created: 2026-03-15T12:38:20-04:00
daily: "[[2026-03-15]]"
---
# 2026-03-15 12:38:20

I have this idea that people generally respond better to a good analogy
than to a well-reasoned argument,
so I'm frequently disappointed in myself
for being unable to come up with one.

It ought to be easy for me.
When I'm sure of something,
my certainty invariably manifests in the form of an analogy,
only the parallel concepts are just that,
and they resist my attempts to define them.

I feel now that this judgement might be baseless anyway.
Without the pressure of organizational enforcement,
radical changes in thinking necessarily take years of incremental changes.
No matter how much better the new framework is,
a person must work up to the change,
otherwise their trust in it will be hollow.
At least that has been my experience in the past few years;
knowing that a shovel is better for digging ditches,
but still using a gardening trowel
because it's what I'm comfortable with.
It doesn't frustrate me when others use trowels,
only when they can't acknowledge the benefits of the shovel.

Like that one, most of the analogies I want to make
would be intended to demonstrate why an action would be foolish.
It would be fitting to write in [anapestic tetrameter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anapestic_tetrameter)
a la [[seuss_1937_mulberry-street]].
