Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Rhetoric and Analogies

Contents:

Author Info

  • Enriqueta Aragonès
  • Itzhak Gilboa
  • Andrew Postlewaite
  • David Schmeidler

Abstract

The art of rhetoric may be defined as changing other people’s minds (opinions, beliefs) without providing them new information. One technique heavily used by rhetoric employs analogies. Using analogies, one may draw the listener’s attention to similarities between cases and to re-organize existing information in a way that highlights certain regularities. In this paper we offer two models of analogies, discuss their theoretical equivalence, and show that finding good analogies is a computationally hard problem.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://research.barcelonagse.eu/tmp/working_papers/706.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Barcelona Graduate School of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 706.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Jul 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:bge:wpaper:706

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Ramon Trias Fargas, 25-27, 08005 Barcelona
Phone: +34 93 542-1222
Fax: +34 93 542-1223
Email:
Web page: http://www.barcelonagse.eu
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: rhetoric; analogies; information; similarities; complexity;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Gilboa,Itzhak & Schmeidler,David, 2001. "A Theory of Case-Based Decisions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521003117.
  2. Enriqueta Aragones & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2003. "Fact-Free Learning," PIER Working Paper Archive, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania 03-023, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
  3. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Jerome Mathis, 2006. "Deliberation with Partially Verifiable Information," THEMA Working Papers, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise 2006-03, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
  2. Enriqueta Aragones & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2003. "Accuracy vs. Simplicity: A Complex Trade-Off," UFAE and IAE Working Papers, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC) 564.03, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
  3. Ran Spiegler, 2003. "Argumentation in Multi-Issue Debates," Levine's Working Paper Archive 506439000000000204, David K. Levine.
  4. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
  5. Itzhak Gilboa & Nicolas Vieille, 2004. "Majority vote following a debate," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 115-125, 08.
  6. David Austen-Smith & Tim Feddersen, 2002. "Deliberation and Voting Rules," Discussion Papers, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science 1359, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  7. David Austen-Smith & Tim Feddersen, 2002. "The Inferiority of Deliberation Under Unanimity," Discussion Papers, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science 1360, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  8. Sendhil Mullainathan & Joshua Schwartzstein & Andrei Shleifer, 2006. "Coarse Thinking and Persuasion," NBER Working Papers 12720, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Enriqueta Aragones & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2003. "Fact-Free Learning," PIER Working Paper Archive, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania 03-023, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bge:wpaper:706. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bruno Guallar).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.