Re: "Interaction Junkies" and other 'tight metaphors'
From: Sharon Villines (
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 06:36:02 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Ormond Otvos <ormond [at]> Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 13:12:09 
> -0700
> Subject: [C-L]_"Interaction Junkies" and other 'tight metaphors'
> I would expect little forward movement in a discussion with someone who uses
> terms like "interaction junkie", not because it is wrong, or inaccurate in
> some cases, but because using such a "tight metaphor" so constricts the
> thinking process of the person using it, and those whom it might apply to, or
> even those to whom it doesn't apply, and who think it might be thought to
> apply to by others in the discussion.

This is a very helpful distinction. I would have said something general like
"emotion ladened" or "distracting," but "tight metaphor" is more fair and

"Interaction junkie" either limits the discussion to those who in fact may
be using interaction it to avoid something else or infers that all those who
thrive on interaction are junkies. Some people do seem to thrive on
interaction in perfectly healthy ways. Strange, but they do.

In Washington DC where all roads lead to Casablanca

Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at]  Unsubscribe  and other info:

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.