In Erard’s article on metaphors, “See through Words”, he explains how his job as a metaphor designer  is to make sure that the metaphors he conjures up are “meant to help people understand the unfamiliar”. Throughout the article he explains how metaphors are made, how they help us in our everyday life,  how metaphors are learned, and some other bits and pieces as well. One part in the article that I noted while reading was when he said “To design a metaphor, you have to get beyond what people say they like or don’t like. These are emotional responses, and it’s the cognitive one’s you’re after”. To me, what he means is that a metaphor that’s specific to one particular thing may not be to ones liking (maybe the two things your comparing isn’t exactly your ideal comparisons), but in the end if the metaphor works and is applicable, that is all that really matters. Overall I thought this was a good detail to add in his article.

Another part in the article that I commented on was when Erard was doing an experiment. He was  going into the public and asking people “what are skills”. He noted that the participants were fumbling and couldn’t respond well. It wasn’t until he told them a metaphor that allowed them to not only understand the question, but allowed them to answer and draw connections they wouldn’t have other wise. I thought this part was interesting because he was almost planting the answers into the participants minds, giving them almost a forced answer. The metaphor that he gave them was to specific and I feel that this portion of his article demonstrated how metaphors can be restricting.