Using https://web.archive.org/web/20190725120100/https://nesslabs.com/mental-models https://web.archive.org/web/20190725120100/https://nesslabs....: The articl

Using https://web.archive.org/web/20190725120100/https://nesslabs.com/mental-models https://web.archive.org/web/20190725120100/https://nesslabs....: The article is a list of 30 items in the category "mental model" bracketed by some high-level opinions. Included on the list are: - areas of research ("game theory") - broad motivational factors ("incentive" - basic business terms ("margin of safety") In other words, I wouldn't consider many of these things to be mental models. Furthermore, the article offers no examples of the "great power" of mental models. Unfortunately, this article isn't unique in mental model discussions. Most of them follow the same pattern. To future authors: the world doesn't need yet another recapitulation of a list from Wikipedia on mental models. Instead, try taking an item on the list and doing something surprising or unique with it. If it seems like an anti-pattern ("tribalism"), show how useful it can be to the reader. If it's vague ("signaling theory"), give down-to-earth examples illustrating how to use its principles in daily life. If it seems like something that "mental gymnasts" would do all the time ("backward chaining"), expose its pitfalls. Or, try to develop a good definition of the term "mental model." I see it used far too frequently with a citation to some other source. The author does this, but the quote doesn't clear up much. The definition on Wikipedia is just plain vague and may explain why these lists tend to include things that don't seem to be actual mental models but rather fields of study.