1

I'was looking for a verb meaning 'to fail to discern analogies between things', but, after a bit of searching, I realized that 'confound', which first came to my mind, is not the right term because Merriam-Webster defines it as 'to fail to discern differences between' things, not analogies.

Thus, my question is, is there a verb meaning 'to fail to discern analogies between things'?

Improve this question
5
  • Nothing specific, beyond obvious catch-all terms like dull, obtuse, thick, etc.
    – Robusto
    Commented Sep 10, 2013 at 22:04
  • @Robusto, but, afaik, those verbs means 'to fail to discern both differences and analogies between things', whereas I want a verb strictly related, and possibly only related, with analogies.
    – user51029
    Commented Sep 10, 2013 at 22:11
  • 2
    I’m having trouble even imagining what such a character trait would be in practice. Do you mean someone who does not see (without being told, at least) that there is a high degree of similarity between the stories in West Side Story, Romeo and Juliet, and Pyramus and Thisbe, for example? You could make up a joking, PC term like similarly challenged, though I guess not many would understand what you meant.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Commented Sep 10, 2013 at 22:11
  • 2
    I would call such a person overly literal.
    – B. Szonye
    Commented Sep 10, 2013 at 23:24
  • 1
    He can't see the forest for the trees. (he misses the overall pattern because he's lost in meaningless detail).
    – bib
    Commented Sep 10, 2013 at 23:58

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
3

Not a verb, but how about pattern blindness?

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    This is a fascinating answer that is on the trail of an elusive quarry, and it has some merit. It just feels a shade shy of the bull's-eye for me.
    – John M. Landsberg
    Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 0:08
  • Nice expression!
    – moonstar
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 12:32
2

People who are good at analogies are good at "connecting the dots."

So the term I would use is "unable to connect the dots."

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Your first statement is at best a stretch. Your second leaps into the void.
    – Robusto
    Commented Sep 10, 2013 at 23:51
2

I would have to say, if anything, your closest bet would be dissociate (also written as disassociate).

Improve this answer
2
  • This has no such specific association.
    – Robusto
    Commented Sep 10, 2013 at 23:49
  • @Robusto Yes it doesn't, can't it? It's the President of the Association of United Individualists.
    – John M. Landsberg
    Commented Sep 11, 2013 at 0:03
0

A person who is failing to make connections can be described as being obtuse. This can be used to describe someone who is failing to do so despite their best efforts (e.g. "Forgive me for being obtuse, but can you repeat that?"), but I consider it especially apt for describing someone who isn't really trying to understand or is resistant to the idea in some way (in somewhat the same sense that Upton Sinclair meant when he wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.").

"Being obtuse" can also be used to describe someone who does understand but is being overly pedantic, as in:

Alice: "Can you hand me one of those Kleenex?"
Bob (not moving): "Those aren't Kleenex-brand, they're generic facial tissues."
Alice: "Oh, don't be so obtuse."
Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.