I am sometimes asked why I write this newsletter. It’s free, takes considerable time, and I’m not promoting anything. Honestly, I ask myself the same question.
The primary driver is a lifelong fascination with our differences. I love trying to understand humans and why we are the way we are.
Before attempting to understand our differences, I realized I needed to better understand what we have in common. That’s what I’ve covered in 32 posts since January 2026: How we process information and why some of it ends up as a memory. Here’s where we are today:
Sensing → Attention → Context → Gist → System 1 and System 2 → Working Memory → Chunking → Cogntive Load → Understanding
I realize this is not sexy or provocative. But it’s in service of something bigger and more focused on our differences that is yet to come.
For now, thank you for reading and sharing. I hope that newsletter has fed your fascination as it has mine.
Do Analogies Work? How Do We Know?
A well-placed analogy can feel like a shortcut. Once we understand one phenomenon, we can start to see connections to others. As we discussed last week, our minds collect patterns that help us understand the world around us. Those patterns are interconnected, and analogies are one way those connections become useful.
In the 1980s, two researchers asked: Can learning the relationships in one situation help us understand a different situation?
Mary Gick and Keith Holyoak conducted fascinating experiments to help answer this question.
Study participants were told two stories that included a solution to a problem. The first was a story about a military general who wanted to capture a fortress. No single road could carry the entire army, so he divided the army into smaller groups on smaller roads that converged at the target.
The second story was about a firefighting team. Their big hose didn’t work to stop the fire, so they used multiple smaller hoses.
Once the participants had seen both stories, they were asked:
What do these stories have in common?
Researchers were testing to see if people saw the pattern of convergence. The researchers grouped participants into three categories based on their responses:
Good: captured the convergence pattern clearly.
Intermediate: captured part of it.
Poor: missed its key features.
The takeaway: Not everyone sees the same kinds of connections. Some people see patterns; others just see teamwork or military exercises.
This provided a foundation for another experiment and a new challenge.
Here, the participants were told they needed to use radiation to destroy a tumor without harming the surrounding tissue. A single strong beam would be harmful to tissue; a weak one would not reduce the tumor. What could be done?
The researchers were testing to see if the participants saw the medical story as analogous to the military story. Both divide forces and then converge to beat the enemy.
The driving question: Will the participants use their knowledge of the military story to solve the medical problem?
The results were stark. People who saw the convergence pattern were much more likely to use it in a different situation.
Of the participants in the “good” category, 91% solved the radiation problem (10 of 11 people)
Of the participants in the “intermediate” category, 40% solved the radiation problem (4 of 10 people)
Of the participants in the “poor” category, 30% solved the radiation problem (9 of 30 people)
Why Does This Matter?
First, when we see a connection, it’s easy to assume that everyone else sees it too. They don’t. Instead of assuming, make the important connections clear. Walk through the pattern so they can see what is happening. Show them which relationships matter and why.
Second, this kind of knowledge is transferable. Once the audience sees and can describe the pattern, they are more likely to apply it later. Show them how the pattern works in other situations, and they’re more likely to remember it in the future.
If You Enjoyed This Post
Please consider hitting the ♥️ button below (it helps others find this post)
I’d love to hear from you. Leave a comment, and we can chat.
Know someone who would enjoy this? This post is public, so feel free to share.
Thanks for sharing.
I was thinking of a few other questions I might have asked re. the firefighers / army.
Is there a difference between attacking from all sides, rather than multiple smaller attacks from the same direction? But, what if you can't get behind the enemy / fire?
For the medical example - would it be better to do from all sides (if there's nothing preventing you) or from a single side?
So is it best to talk about the patterns you see, or invite people to think first, then share your views & see rthe differences?