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

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/