why I chose "analogies"…

It's always seemed logical to me to explain things by equating them with something else the listener already knows. I've probably done this my entire life and it works pretty well for me. People rarely experience the same thing in the same way. It never ceases to amaze me that two people of comparable intelligence can share a conversation or experience and come away with vastly different perceptions of it. Before being judgmental or argumentative, ask yourself this: "Is there anything - any fact or explanation- that you don't currently know, that might change the way I view this?" For instance, if someone is speaking too loudly, but you knew that person to be hard of hearing, would it be more tolerable? Is it possible that the person you deem to be wrong might know something about the situation that you are not aware of?

One of my oldest analogies for this is a story I call "the hill." Imagine there stands before you a tall hill, and on this hill you can see a tree- one tree. You are speaking to someone who is currently on another side of the same hill. You proclaim that there is only one tree on this hill, but your companion insists you are wrong; they insist there are two trees on the hill. You know you are right- you can see the one tree right in front of you with your own eyes! How can they be arguing this fact? But what they see on the other side of the hill is two trees, so of course they argue that they are correct- they can see the two trees right in front of them with their own eyes! Obviously, you are both mistaken; there are at least three trees on this hill, and only a complete 360° examination of the hill will reveal the total number of trees it holds. Remember that it's rare for any of us to have such a comprehensive understanding of anything.

So while we each evaluate the set of facts in front of us and make a determination, we must keep our minds open to the possibility that there may be other factors we are not currently aware of that would alter our perception.