Reading focus
Syllabus: How Do We Reason and Solve Problems?
Identify the relational structure transferred by an analogy and the attributes left behind. Compare relational mapping with the property-dependent similarity examined earlier.
Why you're reading it. Explain how a comparison can suggest a solution without proving that the solution works.
A question to consider. Can two problems with different objects share the same solution structure while two visually similar problems do not? Construct one example of each.
Why this reading
Two situations can look different yet share a useful organization. Gentner proposes a precise account of that relation: an analogy maps connected relationships, not merely a list of similar objects. The framework makes it possible to ask which parts of a comparison support an inference and which are distractions.
Before you read
The base is the familiar situation; the target is the situation being interpreted. An attribute describes an object, while a relation connects objects. A higher-order relation connects other relations, as when one event causes another. Systematicity is the proposed preference for an interconnected relational structure. Predicate notation is a compact way to write these distinctions.
Read for
- Track what maps and what does not in one worked analogy. Distinguish shared object properties from shared relations.
- Explain why a connected set of relations receives priority over an isolated resemblance. Ask whether the rule explains the choice or merely redescribes it.
- Separate mapping an already represented base and target from retrieving a useful base, constructing those representations, and checking whether the inferred relation is true.
Consider afterwards
- Someone explains a transport network by comparing it with water flowing through pipes. Identify a useful relation, a misleading object attribute, and one prediction the analogy suggests that still needs independent evidence.
Editorial context
The paper proposes a theory and reviews supporting examples; it is not a complete process model of every stage of analogy. Mapping depends on what the reasoner represents in the first place. A structurally coherent comparison can generate a plausible candidate inference without establishing its truth. The historical solar-system/atom example illustrates a mapping, not an adequate account of contemporary atomic physics.