Metaphor that are isomorphic Can be powerful tools to explore, understand and explain concepts and knowledge systems
Using a system that is very intuitive and well known, to explain something that is very similar in structure removes a lot of barriers in learning
If the two systems create a humorous or interesting contrast Then the analogy becomes even more powerful
For example one article I wrote where I explore the structure of Internet as if it were city
The mapping is genuinely one-to-one
Every single technical concept has an exact spatial/organizational equivalent:
- Server = Building
- Port = Department
- Application = Floor
- Route = Room
- Collection = Cabinet
- Resource = Drawer
- Response = Documents
There’s no stretching, no “kinda like,” no asterisks.
The HTTP request flow literally follows the physical navigation flow.
It’s fluidly explains everything in an engaging manner
Because nothing in that article is foreign to the user even though they might not know anything about the computers and Internet
I think the charm of the Internet city was that the thing is literally built like that
And I was able to find analogy for it that is literally true
Everywhere else when analogies used are such that they are not very similar and require you to have some belief and context to make it work then they are not very effective
They kind of need some belief in the thought first that OK this thing is like this
The two systems shall deeply share similar systemic structure
What you need is structural equivalence, not just loose fitting analogy.
And it also helps you to explain the concept in same consistency throughout instead of having fragmented examples everywhere
It helps you establish a series of content that Does not contradict itself and maintains interest and understanding
If someone understand even a single part of it since reverse engineer the whole thing from that single point
If your analogy can let users rework the whole system even if they only have a part of that analogy then it’s a very successful analogy
This is called a ismorphic metaphor
An isomorphic metaphor is a story or analogy with a one-to-one relationship between its elements and those of a real-life situation, allowing the listener’s unconscious mind to understand a parallel structure without conscious effort
The reader already understands the “source” system.
So when the “target” system is structurally identical, knowledge transfers automatically.
Because the systems match, every new piece you add reinforces the previous ones.
Most analogies ask the reader to believe the two things are similar.
They require context, justification, or persuasion.
The analogy becomes a crutch instead of a model That you can just believe in.
So if you’re trying to make content use isomorphic metaphors and not illustrative ones
You can use isometric metaphors to generate series of explainers or skits or how to guides
It’s a literal infinite content hack
And if someone likes one video then they are bound to like hundreds of videos you might have already made or are going to make
Great to up your follow rate.
Easy to resell existing type of content to Someone who is already liking that format
Than to always have some novel or self contained content that may rub them off the wrong way after they’ve already liked something Made by you
Once you establish an isomorphic metaphor, you’ve built a consistent universe with explorable depth.
Every new piece doesn’t require re-convincing your audience.
They already trust the framework.
You’re not selling them a new analogy each time
You’re giving them another tour of internet city they already know exists.
Someone discovering video 50 can immediately understand it and wants to explore videos 1-49 because they know the framework will hold.
A big issue with content creation is running out of ideas
And then getting extremely depressed over burnout Induced by panic idea search
With isomorphic metaphors once you have a viewer interest validated metaphor, you are set for hundreds of video
Once someone has watched like two- three videos with same metaphor they will understand the 4th one even faster
So there is clear benefit for them in following you
You’re rewarding loyalty with increased comprehension and faster understanding
Example is Edward Kim
He explains economics using Clash Royale
Clash Royale is something many people are familiar with and he uses structure of Clash Royal to successfully explain economics
Because both of them share the structure closely
That example hits because we all know stacking Princess at the bridge is way better than stacking swamp cards when the opponent already has log in his cycle, Both being examples of increasing and decreasing marginal utility
Well you also have to make sure that you’re transferring knowledge from a wider known system to a targeted smaller one otherwise it won’t work
You can’t use a niche to explain another niche
You will exclude huge chunk of audience that way
And the difference between People’s knowledge of system A and B should be very high
Even if go to market strategy and throwing a party are kind of similar and throwing a party is more popular than GTM
Both of them are niche enough for them to flop as isomorphic metaphor
Another is even if something is more popular and everyone Does it does not mean they understand it intuitively or are good at it
People are confused as fuck in romantic matters so using metaphor finding a person to date and go to market strategy is also wrong move
So using bland things like gyms or cities evokes less of a emotional variable so the understanding might be consistent across different groups
You might struggle developing isomorphic metaphors because many systems don’t have that one-to-one structural mapping
Maybe they’re processes and concepts, not hierarchical systems like HTTP or subscription business models.
Well that’s where the difficulty lies and that’s why this is not just some magical fix
But even in something like HTTP where we had to explain processes
Just exploring the structure also does the job
When you GET a resource, that’s a process.
But by mapping it to “walking through building → department → floor → room → drawer,” we made the process feel structural and explorable.
Since we don’t have to be literal and the viewer can always explore the topic in depth somewhere else
Claude’s reaction
The key is: take a process/concept and make it feel structural by mapping it to a spatial/hierarchical system people already understand.
HTTP requests ARE processes, but you made them feel like navigation through physical space. The process became a journey with clear landmarks.
So the key principles are:
Makes the abstract feel concrete – by mapping it to something with clear structure
Universal source system – something everyone has experienced or deeply understands
Genuine structural isomorphism – not just “reminds me of,” but actually solving the same problem or following the same logic
Doesn’t have to be physical – can be social, temporal, organizational, relational systems