Why Absurd Explanations of Intransitive and Transitive Verbs Have Spread
The absurd explanations regarding intransitive and transitive verbs can be called a tragedy born from the worst possible combination of "inflation of simplicity" in the Japanese English education market and the needs of learners who "want to reduce the pain of memorization."
There are three main reasons why such absurd explanations (pseudo-science in the style of cognitive grammar)—which use terms like "energy attenuators," "magnets," or "plugs" that seem plausible at first glance but immediately fall apart when faced with exceptions—have spread so widely.
1. The reaction against the "rote memorization English" of the Showa era and business survival strategies
From the 1990s to the 2000s, criticism grew against the dry, rote-memorization-based exam English that demanded students "just memorize syntax and vocabulary."
This led to the emergence of an approach that claimed to "understand native intuition through imagery" (a popularization of cognitive linguistics). This was extremely attractive to learners and became a major trend that sold many books.
From the perspective of the education business, instructors and textbook authors needed to create "catchphrases that are different, novel, and make people feel like they've understood everything in one go." As a result,
"Transitive verbs are direct, so they have strong energy."
"Intransitive verbs lack energy, so they are supplemented by prepositions."
"Intransitive verbs have a different plug shape and cannot connect to nouns, so they connect via a preposition adapter."
"When a preposition is inserted, it acts like a cushion (attenuator), weakening the force applied."
—such "catchy but poorly grounded metaphors" were mass-produced one after another and spread like copy-paste across the internet, personal English learning blogs, and even textbooks.
2. Because it miraculously works if you only explain it using "a few convenient basic verbs"
The nasty part of this explanation is that for a very limited number of verbs—the kind beginners learn first—the logic actually (appears to) hold up.
I kicked the wall. (Kicked the wall = strong impact)
I kicked at the wall. (Tried to kick the wall = weak impact / didn't reach)
When shown only these two, learners are intensely convinced (misled) that "Oh! The preposition 'at' acts as a cushion (attenuator), weakening the physical impact on the wall!"
The proponents also pick and present only convenient example sentences where this explanation holds (like 'shoot' and 'shoot at'), so beginners without verification skills end up believing it is a "universal law." And counterexamples like 'shoot through' are either not mentioned at all or dismissed as "exceptions."
3. It falls into the trap of catering to the psychology of learners who "want to escape from memorization"
Everyone is a creature that wants to escape the "gritty work" of honestly memorizing vast amounts of collocations.
If someone tells you, "If you just understand this principle, it's a magic pair of glasses that will let you automatically derive the usage of all intransitive and transitive verbs without having to memorize the dictionary," you'll want to jump at it.
Originally, collocations (idiomatic combinations) in language are a accumulation of things that transcend logic, such as historical coincidence, regional culture, and the sound of words. The true nature of this absurd explanation is that it uses physics-like terms such as "energy" and "force" to make it appear as if it were a "beautiful, consistent system."
Conclusion: What was the problem?
Metaphors themselves are not evil. It is acceptable to use metaphors as "training wheels" to help form an initial image of complex concepts.
However, the biggest problem with this explanation is that "despite being just training wheels, it acts more important than the actual rules (the facts of collocations) and gives learners a false sense of omnipotence."