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

Rhetoric and Analogies

Contents:

Author Info

  • Enriqueta Aragones

    ()
    (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)

  • Itzhak Gilboa

    ()
    (Tel-Aviv University and Economics & Decision Sciences, HEC Paris)

  • Andrew Postlewaite

    ()
    (Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania)

  • David Schmeidler

    ()
    (The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya and Tel Aviv University)

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://economics.sas.upenn.edu/system/files/13-039.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania in its series PIER Working Paper Archive with number 13-039.

as in new window
Length: 25 pages
Date of creation: 09 Jul 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pen:papers:13-039

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: 215-898-9992
Fax: 215-573-2378
Email:
Web page: http://economics.sas.upenn.edu/pier
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Methodology; Case-based reasoning;

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. Enriqueta Aragones & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2003. "Fact-Free Learning," PIER Working Paper Archive 05-002, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Dec 2004.
  2. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2012. "Economic Models as Analogies, Third Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 13-007, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 27 Jan 2013.
  3. Gilboa,Itzhak & Schmeidler,David, 2001. "A Theory of Case-Based Decisions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521003117, April.
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. Sendhil Mullainathan & Joshua Schwartzstein & Andrei Shleifer, 2006. "Coarse Thinking and Persuasion," NBER Working Papers 12720, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. E. Aragones & I. Gilboa & A. Postlewaite & D. Schmeidler, 2003. "Accuracy vs. Simplicity: A Complex Trade-Off," Levine's Working Paper Archive 506439000000000185, David K. Levine.
  3. David Austen-Smith & Tim Feddersen, 2002. "The Inferiority of Deliberation Under Unanimity," Discussion Papers 1360, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  4. VIEILLE, Nicolas & GILBOA, Itzhak, 2002. "Majority vote following a debate," Les Cahiers de Recherche 761, HEC Paris.
  5. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
  6. Enriqueta Aragones & Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2005. "Fact-Free Learning," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1355-1368, December.
  7. David Austen-Smith & Tim Feddersen, 2002. "Deliberation and Voting Rules," Discussion Papers 1359, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  8. Ran Spiegler, 2003. "Argumentation in Multi-Issue Debates," Levine's Working Paper Archive 506439000000000204, David K. Levine.
  9. Jerome Mathis, 2006. "Deliberation with Partially Verifiable Information," THEMA Working Papers 2006-03, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.

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:pen:papers:13-039. 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: (Dolly Guarini).

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.