Final answer:
The 'desk space' analogy of working memory is flawed because it is too static, not illustrating WM's dynamic processing capabilities. Baddeley and Hitch's model presents WM as a more complex system with different components for managing information. Additionally, the size of WM varies among individuals, unlike an unchanging desk.
Step-by-step explanation:
The analogy of working memory (WM) being likened to a desk space is problematic primarily because the desk analogy is too static. WM is indeed capable of more than simply short-term storage. The analogy falls short as it does not account for the dynamic processes involved with WM, such as the manipulation and processing of information. Working memory is not just a passive space but an active system that is involved in complex cognitive tasks such as comprehension, learning, and reasoning.
In contrast to the analogy, WM is more akin to a computer system that involves different components interacting with each other. Baddeley and Hitch's model, for instance, presents WM as comprising a central executive, a phonological loop, a visuospatial sketchpad, and an episodic buffer, all working in conjunction to manage different types of information. These components are responsible for information manipulation and the transition of information into long-term memory, which a static desk space cannot represent.
Furthermore, unlike a desk whose size never changes, the capacity of WM varies across individuals. Thus, implying that WM has a fixed amount of space like a desk does not accurately reflect the variability seen in WM capacity among different people.