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-con

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.