The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Analogizing and Conflating

To analogize (make an analogy by drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect), or to conflate (the process of joining together, combining into one) are proper techniques of debate if they are utilized properly.  No analogy is perfect, but if used properly, it can be clarifying. However, if used improperly, an analogy will be misleading. The difficulty is in determining if the analogy is being used properly or improperly. However, in today’s political debates they are often used improperly, as they are not analogized or conflated properly.

You cannot analogize or conflate dissimilar things, as there must be a common thread if you analogize or conflate. If there are no or very few similarities, then it is incorrect to analogize or conflate. The major problem is that on the surface it may appear to be a proper analogy or conflation, but when you examine the content of the analogy or conflation it falls short of being proper.

The other problem is when statistics are utilized they often confuse the statistical concept of correlation versus causality as explained in my Article “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave”. Correlation is when two or more statistics are compared and they seem to be related, especially when they are graphed. A Causality occurs when two or more statistics are related, and a change in one or more of the statistics affect the other(s) statistic. Just because two statistics seem to be related does not mean they are related. Statisticians are trained “Correlation does not imply Causation”, and to prove that the statistics being compared have a causality. Therefore, you should be very careful when utilizing statistics in Analogizing and Conflating, in that you have properly addressed the issue of correlation versus causality.

Some simple examples illustrate the problem of Analogizing and Conflating:

States’ rights and Federal enumerated powers are often not analogized nor conflated properly. An appropriate example is of the California New Car Pollution Regulations as a States Rights issue. California imposes stricter standards than the Federal government regarding air pollution of automobiles and trucks. As most cars and trucks are designed and manufactured in other states and transported into California, the car manufactures must take into account California’s stricter standards. This impacts the design and manufacturing of cars, with such impacts affecting the people of the other States.

When the actions of one State cause significant impacts on other States as a result of interstate commerce, then the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution becomes paramount. It is, therefore, not a States Right issue but a Federal enumerated power as defined by the Constitution. If the automobiles were designed and manufactured within California, for the utilization of the California people, then it would be a States Rights issue to set the standards for the design and manufacture of the cars and trucks produced in California. Therefore, to analogize or conflate in this manner is improper.

The utilization of words and terms is a common type of improper analogy or conflation, especially when they are used as pejoratives. As I have outlined in my Article “Divisiveness in America”, the use of pejoratives should only be utilized against people who have committed crimes, are immoral, or behaved in an unethical manner, not to people with whom you may disagree. And pejoratives should only be utilized in limited circumstances. They should never be utilized in political or social policy debates and discussions as this only leads to divisiveness. To do so otherwise demonstrates a lack of character or intelligence of the person using the pejorative.

People who use pejorative words and terms often do not know the full meaning, or historical context, of these pejoratives. Even if they know the full meaning, or historical context, of these pejoratives they often don’t know if the person they are utilizing these pejoratives against actually “fits the bill”. And if they deliberately utilize these pejoratives inappropriately, they are reprehensible. Under the above circumstances they are analogizing or conflating improperly.

The listener, viewer, or reader needs to carefully determine if what is being analogized or conflated is being done properly. If not, then you will often make an incorrect, and most often poor, judgment on the subject that is being analogized or conflated.