3 ms·

Yes, I agree logical concepts can be abstracted into generic core concepts. Like how the concept of "picking up a coffee cup" can be abstracted into the more ge

Yes, I agree logical concepts can be abstracted into generic core concepts. Like how the concept of "picking up a coffee cup" can be abstracted into the more generic core concept of "picking up an object" which can be applied more broadly. But that's more about logical reasoning than it is about mental models. A mental model is how the brain understands a logical concept. There's also a danger with it becoming counter-productive. For example you might want to learn how to ride a bike. You educate yourself about the technical workings of the bike. How your body will balance itself. When you need to apply force on the paddles. Which muscles you will use to apply that force. You gain full understanding of the concept of "riding bike". This doesn't mean, however, you now have a proper functioning mental model of it. The other kid didn't do all the research you did. He just got on his bike and started trying. After some trial and error he's already making some distance. His mental model of "riding bike" might already exceed yours even though you have a better understanding of how it works. You might even be learning more slowly since you're constantly distracted by how the development of your mental model matches up with your understanding of it. I believe this is also why some people stutter. They're constantly thinking about their speech. Their mental model of "speaking" gets interrupted by them thinking about it. So I agree it's valuable to understand core concepts. It's valuable to think about how the brain works. It's valuable to be able to use your feelings (caused by your mental model) as tools to effectively make use of your brain. But I'm not sure it's wise to mess with the mental model that the brain creates about concepts. Or to define a logical concept as a mental model.

xtiansimon 7y ago
The philosopher Peter Sloterdijk describes ‘ideology’ as a personal idea of how the world _really_ works. You could call that a mental model. However, when I think specifically about the subject ‘mental models’ I return to the concept I learned about first in the Coursera course Model Thinking by Scott E. Page (University of Michigan). He teaches a survey of many different models. For example, there is the Threshold Model [1] developed by Mark Granovetter and others. This general concept can be applied to a variety of problems from predicting the spread of infectious disease, to the spread of social trends in human culture. While the concept can be generalized, it’s also theoretically grounded in mathematics and statistics. For this reason I find the OP’s follow-up somewhat—misguided? Seems like he needs to pick a topic and do some research. Unless we’re just talking about our favorite books, which is basically what the thread has become. And I love it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model
- wintercarver 7y ago
  Just reading through comments to aggregate notes, and as the OP, yep: I meant something closer to "favorite books" but with the condition that they happen to introduce, by intention or unintentionally, a (single) "mental model" (not to be too strict about the definition) or perspective of sorts. I realize now my original question was not that clear, sorry about that!
  - xtiansimon 7y ago
    Well. Thanks for the apology; I feel the pain. Broad minded thinking runs into this problem frequently. But the more I think about it—What’s good in literature and science and also satisfies the constraint of a grand conceit—the more I believe the only satisfactory ‘answer’ is the one they answer for their self. I’ve been trying to answer some similar questions in philosophy of language since 2005, and I’m still at it. I say, go for it. We will all be interested to read what you write.
    - wintercarver 7y ago
      Thanks for the encouragement to write, it was entirely unexpected and pleasant - kind of a glimmer of the olde, small internet days. I didn't have this piece in mind when posting on HN, but all the book recommendations got me thinking and this is what managed to land on the word processor. https://blog.usejournal.com/effort-neglect-and-the-second-textbook-434a3400be2f https://blog.usejournal.com/effort-neglect-and-the-second-te... P.S. I am not part of “Journal,” and don’t use it. One of their people reached out to me and asked if I’d submit my piece to their publication.

xtiansimon 7y ago

The philosopher Peter Sloterdijk describes ‘ideology’ as a personal idea of how the world _really_ works. You could call that a mental model. However, when I think specifically about the subject ‘mental models’ I return to the concept I learned about first in the Coursera course Model Thinking by Scott E. Page (University of Michigan). He teaches a survey of many different models. For example, there is the Threshold Model [1] developed by Mark Granovetter and others. This general concept can be applied to a variety of problems from predicting the spread of infectious disease, to the spread of social trends in human culture. While the concept can be generalized, it’s also theoretically grounded in mathematics and statistics. For this reason I find the OP’s follow-up somewhat—misguided? Seems like he needs to pick a topic and do some research. Unless we’re just talking about our favorite books, which is basically what the thread has become. And I love it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model

wintercarver 7y ago
Just reading through comments to aggregate notes, and as the OP, yep: I meant something closer to "favorite books" but with the condition that they happen to introduce, by intention or unintentionally, a (single) "mental model" (not to be too strict about the definition) or perspective of sorts. I realize now my original question was not that clear, sorry about that!
- xtiansimon 7y ago
  Well. Thanks for the apology; I feel the pain. Broad minded thinking runs into this problem frequently. But the more I think about it—What’s good in literature and science and also satisfies the constraint of a grand conceit—the more I believe the only satisfactory ‘answer’ is the one they answer for their self. I’ve been trying to answer some similar questions in philosophy of language since 2005, and I’m still at it. I say, go for it. We will all be interested to read what you write.
  - wintercarver 7y ago
    Thanks for the encouragement to write, it was entirely unexpected and pleasant - kind of a glimmer of the olde, small internet days. I didn't have this piece in mind when posting on HN, but all the book recommendations got me thinking and this is what managed to land on the word processor. https://blog.usejournal.com/effort-neglect-and-the-second-textbook-434a3400be2f https://blog.usejournal.com/effort-neglect-and-the-second-te... P.S. I am not part of “Journal,” and don’t use it. One of their people reached out to me and asked if I’d submit my piece to their publication.