Metaphor for something is only as secure as its weakest link
October 5, 2023 3:09 PM
I need help with a metaphor / allegory. The shorter and simpler the better. A rectangular space is enclosed by a 2m wall on one side and a 1.8m fence on the other. (The other 2 sides are inaccessible.) The wall will be replaced by an identical 1.8m fence. Some residents see this as a reduction in security for the enclosed space. I would like to gently help them understand it's not.
The point is that the wall and the fence are equally accessible to the public. If someone wanted to gain access to the space, they would simply climb over the fence. Replacing the wall with a fence would not make this more likely.
An example of a metaphor might be, if a house has 2 doors, a metal door and a wooden door, it is not made less secure if both doors were wooden.
But I don't want to send the message that the fence is somehow "insecure" or "weak", since residents have been content with it for years, and nobody has climbed over it.
The point is that the wall and the fence are equally accessible to the public. If someone wanted to gain access to the space, they would simply climb over the fence. Replacing the wall with a fence would not make this more likely.
An example of a metaphor might be, if a house has 2 doors, a metal door and a wooden door, it is not made less secure if both doors were wooden.
But I don't want to send the message that the fence is somehow "insecure" or "weak", since residents have been content with it for years, and nobody has climbed over it.
Yes, you can see through the fence, and it is a separate argument that improved sightlines increases security. But for this question I'd like to stick to the argument that physical security has not decreased.
posted by snarfois at 3:28 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by snarfois at 3:28 PM on October 5, 2023
If you have a 2-foot gunwale on one side of your rowboat, putting a 3-foot gunwale on the other side isn't going to keep you any safer. 2 feet is good enough, or it's not. There's just one boat and it's all the same water.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 3:28 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by Winnie the Proust at 3:28 PM on October 5, 2023
There's a concept of something being overengineered where it is better in some respect than it needs to be. Say an airplane wing is stronger than spec. That sounds good but the wing only needs to be as strong as it needs to be and that extra strength does nothing, and it likely means that you could use less material there and have a lighter wing which actually would be beneficial.
So for your case the wall is overengineered because the less expensive fence does the job just as well.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 3:37 PM on October 5, 2023
So for your case the wall is overengineered because the less expensive fence does the job just as well.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 3:37 PM on October 5, 2023
Some people are allergic to dogs, but if you don't have problems with allergies, then getting two dogs instead of one isn't going to make anything worse. If you did have problems, the first dog would have already triggered the issue.
posted by teremala at 3:49 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by teremala at 3:49 PM on October 5, 2023
If they have a 1.8 meter ladder, they’re already inside
posted by limagringo at 4:03 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by limagringo at 4:03 PM on October 5, 2023
How much liquid can you put in this glass?
What if you pour the liquid in from the tall side? Oh.
posted by phunniemee at 4:13 PM on October 5, 2023
What if you pour the liquid in from the tall side? Oh.
posted by phunniemee at 4:13 PM on October 5, 2023
This is basically the situation described by the saying, "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link." But you might not want to use that saying in this context.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:29 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 4:29 PM on October 5, 2023
(Side-remark: be careful here, as any comparison may invite demands to raise the other side as well. I know you know this, I'm just popping in to re-emphasize it ... god knows, I've been on the wrong side of that kind of thing).
posted by aramaic at 5:22 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by aramaic at 5:22 PM on October 5, 2023
If no one has ever climbed over the chainlink fence before, they're not likely to begin doing so now, but if they did, at least they're visible from both sides of the enclosure.
posted by wowenthusiast at 5:22 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by wowenthusiast at 5:22 PM on October 5, 2023
Is it possible that they’re saying they have concerns about security because it’s more likely to get action than saying that they like the shade / privacy / wind protection / place to bounce balls off that the wall provides? I’ve seen this play out in workplaces, where safety concerns get attention but livability concerns don’t, so everything becomes a safety concern.
posted by momus_window at 6:26 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by momus_window at 6:26 PM on October 5, 2023
If you have two hallways in a building, one of which is lit up at night by incandescent lights and the other by fluorescent lights, changing out the incandescent lights for fluorescent lights isn't going to make the hallway any darker.
posted by virve at 6:58 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by virve at 6:58 PM on October 5, 2023
If you leave your driver’s side door unlocked, I can steal your stereo just as easy whether you locked your passenger side or not. (Sorry for stealing your stereo, mine just doesn’t have an aux input.)
posted by Someone has just shot your horse! at 7:19 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by Someone has just shot your horse! at 7:19 PM on October 5, 2023
What is the threat to the space? What are you securing it against? Does the wall provide any other function other than securing the space? Unfortunately, I think the best metaphor is for those who don't want to replace the wall with the fence. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But, if both sides are working securing the space, replacing one side with an identical fence as the other side, it ain't fixing it, it is replacing it.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 7:30 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by JohnnyGunn at 7:30 PM on October 5, 2023
If your body can absorb 18mg of medicine at a time, so your doctor says take one 18mg pill a day, then your body isn’t getting any extra benefit if you take 20 mg pills because that’s what the pharmacy sells
posted by TwoWordReview at 8:12 PM on October 5, 2023
posted by TwoWordReview at 8:12 PM on October 5, 2023
If you leave your house with one of your two front windows wide open, you might as well leave both windows wide open - you’re not adding to your risk.
Are they actually missing privacy, eg theyre concerned that increased visibility makes the area more of a target?
posted by samthemander at 8:32 PM on October 5, 2023
Are they actually missing privacy, eg theyre concerned that increased visibility makes the area more of a target?
posted by samthemander at 8:32 PM on October 5, 2023
I wonder if you're seeing this as physical security question when actually it's a psychological security question.
People like walls because they provide a sense of solidity and safety in a way a chain link fence does not. Being able to be seen through a fence when previously they couldn't be seen (from that side) can make people feel less safe, especially (but not only) women.
Perceptions and feelings of security are often as important or even more important than actual security.
You're suggesting the only security problem is whether people can more easily climb over it; I'm betting that's not the only security problem some of your residents feel about this change.
This is probably not a problem to solve with logical intelligence, it's a problem to solve with emotional intelligence.
posted by underclocked at 1:15 AM on October 6, 2023
People like walls because they provide a sense of solidity and safety in a way a chain link fence does not. Being able to be seen through a fence when previously they couldn't be seen (from that side) can make people feel less safe, especially (but not only) women.
Perceptions and feelings of security are often as important or even more important than actual security.
You're suggesting the only security problem is whether people can more easily climb over it; I'm betting that's not the only security problem some of your residents feel about this change.
This is probably not a problem to solve with logical intelligence, it's a problem to solve with emotional intelligence.
posted by underclocked at 1:15 AM on October 6, 2023
When evaluating a bike lock, you look at the weakest component. It doesn’t matter that the lock is hard to pick if you’re using a thin cable that can easily be cut.
posted by Comet Bug at 1:33 AM on October 6, 2023
posted by Comet Bug at 1:33 AM on October 6, 2023
My answer is, those gates with multiple locks that are arranged in such a way that ANY of the locks can open the gate. Examples: 1 2 3 4 5
These are often used in, e.g., rural areas where one access road and one gate provides access to 5 or 10 or 15 different properties. So each owner needs access to the gate but they want to keep out "bad guys" and randos. So literally any one of (say) 10 locks can open the gate equally well.
If all the other gate sharers are using perfectly good $20-ish locks then it does you absolutely no good at all to go out and buy some $500 pick-proof super-hardened-tungsten lock and add it to the chain. The thief will just snip any of the $20 locks with their $30 tool. Your fancy $500 lock is still locked up tight but it didn't keep the gate from being opened. All that extra money spent accomplished nothing.
From your point of view, question is: If everyone else is spending $20-$30 on their locks, is it worthwhile for me to spend $500, or $200, or even just $100 on a lock that will be used together with the other locks that provide much lower security? Is that going to accomplish my goal of improving security? Or, if security is the concern, is that extra money better spent on some other security measure?
Here is a specific example. Is that one really HUGE lock on the end creating any more security at the gate? Was it a worthwhile purchase for the owner, considering it probably cost 3X what all the others did? Would you spend 3X as much to buy a lock like that in this situation, or would you buy the same type of lock all the others did and spend the money you saved on some other, actually effective, security measure?
posted by flug at 2:46 AM on October 6, 2023
These are often used in, e.g., rural areas where one access road and one gate provides access to 5 or 10 or 15 different properties. So each owner needs access to the gate but they want to keep out "bad guys" and randos. So literally any one of (say) 10 locks can open the gate equally well.
If all the other gate sharers are using perfectly good $20-ish locks then it does you absolutely no good at all to go out and buy some $500 pick-proof super-hardened-tungsten lock and add it to the chain. The thief will just snip any of the $20 locks with their $30 tool. Your fancy $500 lock is still locked up tight but it didn't keep the gate from being opened. All that extra money spent accomplished nothing.
From your point of view, question is: If everyone else is spending $20-$30 on their locks, is it worthwhile for me to spend $500, or $200, or even just $100 on a lock that will be used together with the other locks that provide much lower security? Is that going to accomplish my goal of improving security? Or, if security is the concern, is that extra money better spent on some other security measure?
Here is a specific example. Is that one really HUGE lock on the end creating any more security at the gate? Was it a worthwhile purchase for the owner, considering it probably cost 3X what all the others did? Would you spend 3X as much to buy a lock like that in this situation, or would you buy the same type of lock all the others did and spend the money you saved on some other, actually effective, security measure?
posted by flug at 2:46 AM on October 6, 2023
I think you are going to struggle to find a metaphor or analogy simpler or more easily imaginable than an actual wall. The reason we use analogies is to make complex ideas simpler, essentially. But it's already a wall. There is no simpler thing to imagine than that....however, I think you could compare it to other things that are deterrents but not intended to actually physically prevent an action. I always think about the signs between the states in Australia which advise you to get rid of fruit because of fruit flies because not doing so is any offence. But the border 'crossings' are not manned or patrolled in any way. It's just a reminder that this is the border, please respect the boundary, and presumably that in some way works.
posted by jojobobo at 3:51 AM on October 6, 2023
posted by jojobobo at 3:51 AM on October 6, 2023
Maybe a visual would help more than a metaphor? A cartoon maybe? In panel one, the double fenced area with a sneaky person climbing the fence on one side. Panel two has the same area with one fence replaced by a wall, and the sneaky person blocked and frustrated. Panel three he gets a lightbulb idea. Panel four he's climbing the fence on the other side.
posted by Garm at 5:19 AM on October 6, 2023
posted by Garm at 5:19 AM on October 6, 2023
Almost all the suggestions have the problem of making the fence – which was never a problem in the past – seem like it's a problem now. Like in my wooden door + metal door example – I'd rather have 2 metal doors!
The only one that sort of works, in my opinion, is the boat + water one. If one side of your boat is higher than the other, it doesn't make your boat any safer, and if you make them the same height, you haven't made the boat less safe. But it's still too complicated an image and liable to quibbles. (Because it considers only seaworthiness, not the ability of passengers to fall over the side.)
To people who say this is really about privacy: yes, I suspect you're right. Although this is also an illusion, since both wall and fence are next to public pathways, and the entire space is visible through the fence. But improving sightlines means that you will see more people, and even though this is objectively safer (in deterring crime), it feels less private, which can be experienced in terms of safety.
I should note: the enclosed space is not currently used by people. It's a vacant lot next to a building, and it's residents in this building that are objecting. The vacant lot is being transformed into a (private, locked) garden, and as part of this the wall is being replaced with a fence to improve sightlines and to let all passers-by benefit.
posted by snarfois at 6:41 AM on October 6, 2023
The only one that sort of works, in my opinion, is the boat + water one. If one side of your boat is higher than the other, it doesn't make your boat any safer, and if you make them the same height, you haven't made the boat less safe. But it's still too complicated an image and liable to quibbles. (Because it considers only seaworthiness, not the ability of passengers to fall over the side.)
To people who say this is really about privacy: yes, I suspect you're right. Although this is also an illusion, since both wall and fence are next to public pathways, and the entire space is visible through the fence. But improving sightlines means that you will see more people, and even though this is objectively safer (in deterring crime), it feels less private, which can be experienced in terms of safety.
I should note: the enclosed space is not currently used by people. It's a vacant lot next to a building, and it's residents in this building that are objecting. The vacant lot is being transformed into a (private, locked) garden, and as part of this the wall is being replaced with a fence to improve sightlines and to let all passers-by benefit.
posted by snarfois at 6:41 AM on October 6, 2023
Ah there you go. They want the garden to remain private and having the wall there at least gets them 50% privacy. I bet if you were suggesting to replace the fence with a wall you wouldn't be getting pushback.
posted by cooker girl at 6:51 AM on October 6, 2023
posted by cooker girl at 6:51 AM on October 6, 2023
It's a vacant lot next to a building, and it's residents in this building that are objecting.
Yes indeed. If the 'safety' complaints don't work they will move on to aesthetics. If that doesn't work, then social justice. They simply don't want anything there. There is no metaphor that will make them agree.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:38 AM on October 6, 2023
Yes indeed. If the 'safety' complaints don't work they will move on to aesthetics. If that doesn't work, then social justice. They simply don't want anything there. There is no metaphor that will make them agree.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:38 AM on October 6, 2023
The more you discuss it, the more people will argue. The stated concern is security. Be super responsive. I agree with you that security is our priority, and this plan is quite secure. You're so right about security. Even the slightly lower side is very secure. The vacant lot hasn't been managed, the garden will get more attention and therefore be more secure.
In my fuzzy brain, those games where you have to guess how water will flow are an okay analogy; water flows through the lowest easiest path (except for roof leaks which are notoriously capricious). Arguing and explaining make people dig in. Listen, use active listening, reassure that any problems will be addressed.
posted by theora55 at 8:32 AM on October 6, 2023
In my fuzzy brain, those games where you have to guess how water will flow are an okay analogy; water flows through the lowest easiest path (except for roof leaks which are notoriously capricious). Arguing and explaining make people dig in. Listen, use active listening, reassure that any problems will be addressed.
posted by theora55 at 8:32 AM on October 6, 2023
Wouldn't replacing the wall with a fence also make things brighter? There won't be a wall casting its shadow and the fence will actually let light through. Probably better for the garden and the street/sidewalk around it.
The wall will be able to retain heat which may help extend the growing season or allow warmer weather plants to survive.
I'm sure there are good reasons but fencing off a new garden that's being made from vacant land doesn't feel right to me.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:14 PM on October 6, 2023
The wall will be able to retain heat which may help extend the growing season or allow warmer weather plants to survive.
I'm sure there are good reasons but fencing off a new garden that's being made from vacant land doesn't feel right to me.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:14 PM on October 6, 2023
The opposing arguments about replacing the solid wall with a shorter see-through fence, which will match the fencing and gate already on the property:
Privacy. Another fence means a different group of pedestrians/vehicles can see into the lower apartment windows. A fence means more noise pollution. More trash can blow through the fence into the (until now) underused area.
Strength as security. It is easier to drive through a fence than a solid wall. Out of sight is out of mind. Thieves look for the easy opportunity, so a solid wall avoids temptation.
Exclusion. Why share the view of a lovely new private garden with the riffraff?
Arguments for replacing the existing wall with a new fence that matches the current fencing and gate (assuming that the fencing is upmarket):
Emphasize that the lovely new private garden will be even better with more sunlight, air circulation, exposure, etc. Replacing the wall will increase the property value.
The gated outdoor living area will be a desirable feature for the community. Neighborhoods with green spaces are upscale.
It will cost the apartment dwellers little or nothing to improve the lovely private garden with updated boundaries and features. New fencing is part of that project.
Other than picking up after themselves when they enjoy the gated living space, it will be no work for the apartment dwellers.
Replacing the solid wall with the same existing fencing increases the visual appeal. It ties everything together.
And yes, the plans include security features. The existing fencing meets or exceeds those measures, which is why more fencing is under contract.
As you said, it doesn't make sense to complain about another 1.8 meter fence on the property. The boundary enclosures are included in the contract specifications.
There are no plans to build more walls.
posted by TrishaU at 8:16 PM on October 6, 2023
Privacy. Another fence means a different group of pedestrians/vehicles can see into the lower apartment windows. A fence means more noise pollution. More trash can blow through the fence into the (until now) underused area.
Strength as security. It is easier to drive through a fence than a solid wall. Out of sight is out of mind. Thieves look for the easy opportunity, so a solid wall avoids temptation.
Exclusion. Why share the view of a lovely new private garden with the riffraff?
Arguments for replacing the existing wall with a new fence that matches the current fencing and gate (assuming that the fencing is upmarket):
Emphasize that the lovely new private garden will be even better with more sunlight, air circulation, exposure, etc. Replacing the wall will increase the property value.
The gated outdoor living area will be a desirable feature for the community. Neighborhoods with green spaces are upscale.
It will cost the apartment dwellers little or nothing to improve the lovely private garden with updated boundaries and features. New fencing is part of that project.
Other than picking up after themselves when they enjoy the gated living space, it will be no work for the apartment dwellers.
Replacing the solid wall with the same existing fencing increases the visual appeal. It ties everything together.
And yes, the plans include security features. The existing fencing meets or exceeds those measures, which is why more fencing is under contract.
As you said, it doesn't make sense to complain about another 1.8 meter fence on the property. The boundary enclosures are included in the contract specifications.
There are no plans to build more walls.
posted by TrishaU at 8:16 PM on October 6, 2023
If you were wearing one low-top and one high-top shoe, and your feet haven’t gotten wet, they won’t be any wetter if you switch to a matching pair.
posted by babelfish at 6:47 AM on October 7, 2023
posted by babelfish at 6:47 AM on October 7, 2023
Offer to make the new portion of the fence as tall as the wall is, to improve the security. Of course no one will want to do this - because why? - but it could help to focus what the actual objection is.
posted by flug at 11:54 PM on October 8, 2023
posted by flug at 11:54 PM on October 8, 2023
I also thought of another way to approach this: ask people to picture the wall and the fence side by side, rather than as 2 sides of a rectangle. It should then be obvious that the wall is not making the combined barrier any more secure.
posted by snarfois at 3:22 AM on October 10, 2023
posted by snarfois at 3:22 AM on October 10, 2023
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by phunniemee at 3:18 PM on October 5, 2023