3 ms·

I'm conflicted about the whole "Mental Model" thing that has sprung up in the last couple years. In principle, naming and sharing useful patterns of thought is

I'm conflicted about the whole "Mental Model" thing that has sprung up in the last couple years. In principle, naming and sharing useful patterns of thought is useful. In practice, every time I see them like this they make my skin crawl. Mental models are supposed to just be models, but, like, in your mind. People are building a pyramid on a mole hill instead of just noticing the hill... Ah, just realized the applicable Mental Model according to TFA. They're blurring the distinction between the map (mental models) and territory (actual thinking). Ed: first paragraph was largely superfluous. Ed2: "building a pyramid on a mole hill" describes so many things. Did I just invent a Mental Model? I think I did.

yayitswei 7y ago
Fwiw, I found the linked article on "The Map Is Not The Territory" an interesting read. https://fs.blog/2015/11/map-and-territory/ https://fs.blog/2015/11/map-and-territory/
- avindroth 7y ago
  The origin of that idea is in this sequence of blog posts, written in roughly 2009: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_Territory https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_Territory
  - barrkel 7y ago
    The origin of that phrase is actually Alfred Korzybski - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation ; also see Magritte's The Treachery of Images etc., the idea is not recent.
themodelplumber 7y ago
It'd be nice if we could move the conversation about Mental Models into "how to evaluate such a model for quality" as soon as possible. Otherwise the novelty of the most recent proliferation of the term is pushing critics to decide "good or bad" regarding _mental models in general_, which is, to be frank, pretty dumb. Certainly such a dichotomy is much worse by itself than a broad field in which some poor models, applied poorly, are mixed in with a lot of really great examples. And I guess this doesn't even get into the value proposition of a task like cataloging mental models and/or quantifying them via simple lists...mental models are a core aspect of human psychology and there's really an impressive amount of depth to the topic. Ramming a bunch of them together for quantity seems like a good way to make readers feel either over-confident or overwhelmed.
- yellow_lead 7y ago
  Questions answered from different mental models will get you different answers. Just as important as having these different "mental models" or "perspectives" (if you will) is discerning which is correct. AKA thinking for yourself. In my mind, a mental model is only useful for generating ideas from which you can gain another insight. No model has the right answer for every question.
  - themodelplumber 7y ago
    Ah, but that's the subjective-leaning perspective on mental models. The yin of our yin and yang here! The objective-leaning perspective may reel a bit from the "think for yourself" critique by the subjective side, but it counters with "don't reinvent the wheel" and tends to be hyper-efficient at integrating outside thought into the current context. (BTW thank you for your comment, this gets into the good stuff)
  - lowdose 7y ago
    Would be nice though to map which models are most relevant for specific questions.
    - themodelplumber 7y ago
      Validity, accuracy, reliability...science has helped us go a long way toward sorting it out. We've come so far in our measurement that there has begun a stringent internal critique of our time-tested models for measurement of those criteria.
  - andrewflnr 7y ago
    All very true, but I suspect you'll still find that some models are more frequently applicable, some more rarely, and some very frequently deceptive unless handled carefully. Those are good (albeit highly subjective) measures of quality.
- andrewflnr 7y ago
  I fully, strongly agree with everything here, especially regarding the folly of trying to evaluate "mental models in general". To clarify, lest I sound self-contradictory: my complaint is not with all mental models in general, but with the segment of discourse[0] that tries to point them out as a special thing. In fact, it's that selection into a group that invites the fallacious evaluation of the whole group. Furthermore, I think you've touched on something interesting with the point about cataloging or listing Mental Models. Part of it is the aforementioned point about inviting judgment on the group as a whole, but that's not all. It's a really odd collection of entities to put in one basket. Mostly all they have in common is that they exist in the mind, so what gets included in practice seems kind of arbitrary. In particular, putting them all on (even superficially) equal footing is dangerous. [0] Please forgive me if I'm inventing or misusing this term. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
avindroth 7y ago
Well, the premise of mental models comes from the fact that we never perceive reality as is. We are always building models of the world, not actually "seeing" the world. Our senses are filtering machines (i.e. reality tunnels). We only perceive what is deemed useful, or is available according to our capacities. Thus in essence, we are just creatures of models. Mental models are just a more precise awareness of that phenomenon. It also sounds cool and sticks with people because mental models are focused on actually being seen (mentally). As you say, mental models rise from the insight that map is not territory, and that we have no territories in our minds, only maps.
- andrewflnr 7y ago
  That's yet another valid use of the term "mental model", but not really the usage in TFA.
shadowsun7 7y ago
As much as I personally like and respect Shane from Farnam Street, I don't like the current trend of mental model writing as much. I'm probably one of the more vocal critics, in fact (see: https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-fallacy/ https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-fallacy/). The problem with mental models as a thing these days is that it conflates three different things: 1. Frameworks — 'mental model' is often used as a synonym for 'framework', which (as any competent practitioner knows) come with its own set of problems. 2. Thinking Tools — so, things like 'reasoning from first principles'. 3. Mental models, as defined by Piaget & Papert — the original definition of the term, as in 'tacit mental representations of expertise'. Because mental model writing conflates the three, it can be very difficult to get anything useful out of it. Each of these three categories come with their own strengths and caveats. It is important to separate them. That said, I think the fad has its benefits: it's led to a resurgence of systems thinking. Which is net good, I think. A more nuanced, comprehensive summary of my criticisms may be found here: https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-faq/ https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-faq/
- jfarmer 7y ago
  I'm with you. The way the trend has reduced "mental model" into a synonym for "concept", basically. Everyone wants life hacks, but the value of "model thinking" is to avoid hacks (IMO) by externalizing your cognitive processes and make them more amenable to improvement. One value of models is that they reduce the need for memorization, but blog posts like this ask you to memorize more! The person below who said they have 100s of mental models written down makes me go "?????". Second-order thinking isn't a mental model, it's a way to draw more conclusions out of your models (and therefore conduct more, better experiments). https://twitter.com/jfarmer/status/1225807692561813510 https://twitter.com/jfarmer/status/1225807692561813510
  - lobo_tuerto 7y ago
    I'd bet they'd call these Marcus Aurelius mental models: http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html
jvanderbot 7y ago
I'm confused by the portrayal of these as mental models. These are aphorisms[1]. A mental model is a reduced-complexity representation of something that allows prediction or estimation of something that is otherwise incomprehensible[2]. This "Map is not the territory" one in particular is more of a word of wisdom or admonition against oversimplification than a process simplification that allows quick decision making. Second-order-thinking is not a mental model. It is a way of constructing mental models about things. You can add second-order-thinking to your mental model of how stones roll down hills or how people will react to your speech. They must be interrogated as you contemplate actions to determine the best outcome, and therefore the best action[3]. TFA is clickbait. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorism 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model 3. http://www.modeltheory.org/papers/2005HistoryMentalModels.pdf http://www.modeltheory.org/papers/2005HistoryMentalModels.pd...
- andrewflnr 7y ago
  Not all of them are aphorisms. "Circle of competence" is closer to what you could call a "model", even if it is pretty trivial. I'm pretty convinced now that part of the problem with the Mental Models meme is that they aren't all the same kind of thing.
  - jvanderbot 7y ago
    Circle of competence is a guiding principle of where to trust your models. It is not a model. How can I "query" the model to "predict" an outcome about my competence at a highly general level? I can't, but I can query a model of (e.g.,) an interviewer to see how he might respond to a joke, get a response, and then apply a high value of uncertainty to that response because it is outside my circle of competence (telling jokes is not something I'm good at). "Don't trust your unvetted models" is a better way of saying this.
readerofbooks 7y ago
What's TFA?
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  "The fine article". Sometimes the word "fine" is spelt differently.
dredmorbius 7y ago
The notion of mental models dates back at least to Plato's allegory of the cave. It is not new. It's a frequent topic of philosophical discourse, and a major component of cognitive psychology.

yayitswei 7y ago

Fwiw, I found the linked article on "The Map Is Not The Territory" an interesting read. https://fs.blog/2015/11/map-and-territory/ https://fs.blog/2015/11/map-and-territory/

avindroth 7y ago
The origin of that idea is in this sequence of blog posts, written in roughly 2009: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_Territory https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Map_and_Territory
- barrkel 7y ago
  The origin of that phrase is actually Alfred Korzybski - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation ; also see Magritte's The Treachery of Images etc., the idea is not recent.

themodelplumber 7y ago

It'd be nice if we could move the conversation about Mental Models into "how to evaluate such a model for quality" as soon as possible. Otherwise the novelty of the most recent proliferation of the term is pushing critics to decide "good or bad" regarding _mental models in general_, which is, to be frank, pretty dumb. Certainly such a dichotomy is much worse by itself than a broad field in which some poor models, applied poorly, are mixed in with a lot of really great examples. And I guess this doesn't even get into the value proposition of a task like cataloging mental models and/or quantifying them via simple lists...mental models are a core aspect of human psychology and there's really an impressive amount of depth to the topic. Ramming a bunch of them together for quantity seems like a good way to make readers feel either over-confident or overwhelmed.

yellow_lead 7y ago
Questions answered from different mental models will get you different answers. Just as important as having these different "mental models" or "perspectives" (if you will) is discerning which is correct. AKA thinking for yourself. In my mind, a mental model is only useful for generating ideas from which you can gain another insight. No model has the right answer for every question.
- themodelplumber 7y ago
  Ah, but that's the subjective-leaning perspective on mental models. The yin of our yin and yang here! The objective-leaning perspective may reel a bit from the "think for yourself" critique by the subjective side, but it counters with "don't reinvent the wheel" and tends to be hyper-efficient at integrating outside thought into the current context. (BTW thank you for your comment, this gets into the good stuff)
- lowdose 7y ago
  Would be nice though to map which models are most relevant for specific questions.
  - themodelplumber 7y ago
    Validity, accuracy, reliability...science has helped us go a long way toward sorting it out. We've come so far in our measurement that there has begun a stringent internal critique of our time-tested models for measurement of those criteria.
- andrewflnr 7y ago
  All very true, but I suspect you'll still find that some models are more frequently applicable, some more rarely, and some very frequently deceptive unless handled carefully. Those are good (albeit highly subjective) measures of quality.
andrewflnr 7y ago
I fully, strongly agree with everything here, especially regarding the folly of trying to evaluate "mental models in general". To clarify, lest I sound self-contradictory: my complaint is not with all mental models in general, but with the segment of discourse[0] that tries to point them out as a special thing. In fact, it's that selection into a group that invites the fallacious evaluation of the whole group. Furthermore, I think you've touched on something interesting with the point about cataloging or listing Mental Models. Part of it is the aforementioned point about inviting judgment on the group as a whole, but that's not all. It's a really odd collection of entities to put in one basket. Mostly all they have in common is that they exist in the mind, so what gets included in practice seems kind of arbitrary. In particular, putting them all on (even superficially) equal footing is dangerous. [0] Please forgive me if I'm inventing or misusing this term. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

avindroth 7y ago

Well, the premise of mental models comes from the fact that we never perceive reality as is. We are always building models of the world, not actually "seeing" the world. Our senses are filtering machines (i.e. reality tunnels). We only perceive what is deemed useful, or is available according to our capacities. Thus in essence, we are just creatures of models. Mental models are just a more precise awareness of that phenomenon. It also sounds cool and sticks with people because mental models are focused on actually being seen (mentally). As you say, mental models rise from the insight that map is not territory, and that we have no territories in our minds, only maps.

andrewflnr 7y ago
That's yet another valid use of the term "mental model", but not really the usage in TFA.

shadowsun7 7y ago

As much as I personally like and respect Shane from Farnam Street, I don't like the current trend of mental model writing as much. I'm probably one of the more vocal critics, in fact (see: https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-fallacy/ https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-fallacy/). The problem with mental models as a thing these days is that it conflates three different things: 1. Frameworks — 'mental model' is often used as a synonym for 'framework', which (as any competent practitioner knows) come with its own set of problems. 2. Thinking Tools — so, things like 'reasoning from first principles'. 3. Mental models, as defined by Piaget & Papert — the original definition of the term, as in 'tacit mental representations of expertise'. Because mental model writing conflates the three, it can be very difficult to get anything useful out of it. Each of these three categories come with their own strengths and caveats. It is important to separate them. That said, I think the fad has its benefits: it's led to a resurgence of systems thinking. Which is net good, I think. A more nuanced, comprehensive summary of my criticisms may be found here: https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-faq/ https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-faq/

jfarmer 7y ago
I'm with you. The way the trend has reduced "mental model" into a synonym for "concept", basically. Everyone wants life hacks, but the value of "model thinking" is to avoid hacks (IMO) by externalizing your cognitive processes and make them more amenable to improvement. One value of models is that they reduce the need for memorization, but blog posts like this ask you to memorize more! The person below who said they have 100s of mental models written down makes me go "?????". Second-order thinking isn't a mental model, it's a way to draw more conclusions out of your models (and therefore conduct more, better experiments). https://twitter.com/jfarmer/status/1225807692561813510 https://twitter.com/jfarmer/status/1225807692561813510
- lobo_tuerto 7y ago
  I'd bet they'd call these Marcus Aurelius mental models: http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html

jvanderbot 7y ago

I'm confused by the portrayal of these as mental models. These are aphorisms[1]. A mental model is a reduced-complexity representation of something that allows prediction or estimation of something that is otherwise incomprehensible[2]. This "Map is not the territory" one in particular is more of a word of wisdom or admonition against oversimplification than a process simplification that allows quick decision making. Second-order-thinking is not a mental model. It is a way of constructing mental models about things. You can add second-order-thinking to your mental model of how stones roll down hills or how people will react to your speech. They must be interrogated as you contemplate actions to determine the best outcome, and therefore the best action[3]. TFA is clickbait. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorism 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model 3. http://www.modeltheory.org/papers/2005HistoryMentalModels.pdf http://www.modeltheory.org/papers/2005HistoryMentalModels.pd...

andrewflnr 7y ago
Not all of them are aphorisms. "Circle of competence" is closer to what you could call a "model", even if it is pretty trivial. I'm pretty convinced now that part of the problem with the Mental Models meme is that they aren't all the same kind of thing.
- jvanderbot 7y ago
  Circle of competence is a guiding principle of where to trust your models. It is not a model. How can I "query" the model to "predict" an outcome about my competence at a highly general level? I can't, but I can query a model of (e.g.,) an interviewer to see how he might respond to a joke, get a response, and then apply a high value of uncertainty to that response because it is outside my circle of competence (telling jokes is not something I'm good at). "Don't trust your unvetted models" is a better way of saying this.

readerofbooks 7y ago

What's TFA?

dredmorbius 7y ago
"The fine article". Sometimes the word "fine" is spelt differently.

dredmorbius 7y ago

The notion of mental models dates back at least to Plato's allegory of the cave. It is not new. It's a frequent topic of philosophical discourse, and a major component of cognitive psychology.