5 ms·

This article seems to be saying that theory is insufficient for understanding. Practice is required. I completely agree. That doesn't negate the value of menta

This article seems to be saying that theory is insufficient for understanding. Practice is required. I completely agree. That doesn't negate the value of mental models. Mental models are absolutely required for understanding any complex system. They are literally how we think. They should be refined through direct experience. Listening to experts doesn't hurt either. What has me worked up is that the examples in the article are just garbage. A person skilled in tennis or MMA will have no problem communicating to you what it takes to acquire their skill. It so happens the most efficient way to communicate complex physical motions is to model them, then allow the student to attempt them, then critique the student's form. Finally the student will require many hours of practice of the correct forms to build muscle memory. There is nothing in here that says anything about mental models. "How do you know if a computer program is badly designed? You don’t go through a mental checklist; instead, you feel disgust, coloured by your experience." You absolutely better have a mental checklist and solid technical reasons for why it's badly designed. Imagine going to your boss, asking to do a complete re-write because you feel disgusted by the code base. How is that going to work out for you? Maybe it's algorithms that are not performant. It has inconsistent abstractions, too much abstraction, or too little. It may not accurately model the problem domain. A feeling of disgust is not going to get you anywhere. Technical knowledge and experience will. Ok. Clearly this article hit one of my buttons. I think I'm done now.

phkahler 6y ago
You can be good at something and not be good at articulating why stuff is good or bad, just that it is. Learning to explain to others does tend to refine your own ability though.
- Enginerrrd 6y ago
  I disagree with this almost as strongly as I possibly can. I've only ever encountered people with middling or mediocre skill in a subject express this attitude. People that are good, are good because they know precisely where the line between good and bad is, AND they've practiced "good" a LOT. Knowing is enough to articulate it. If you can't, you probably don't know it as well as you think. This leads to a bit of a paradox. The things I'm best at are precisely those things in which I feel I still have the most to learn. Why? Because I know the difference between what I'm doing and what good would be.
  - MauranKilom 6y ago
    What about the example of driving a car with manual transmission? (I admit that's not the most relatable thing everywhere in the world, still). I'd argue most experienced manual drivers are good at it when we talk about normal traffic (where the skill ceiling just isn't very high). Try and ask a manual driver when/how they shift. Maybe they will give you rough speed numbers, but that's not really how they do it. Despite knowing very well when they have to shift in their own car, they won't be able to articulate/communicate it in a helpful way. It's become muscle memory guided by sound, haptics, speed perception and timings. Your clutch and transmission will let you know the difference between good and bad very clearly. You practice "good" a lot. You know how to do it. But you can't articulate it. One could argue that the scenario in question precludes the possibility to "excel". But the striking difference between "new driver learning a manual" and "experienced driver shifting without spending even a sliver of conscious though on it" is a clear separation of "bad" from "good" (not just "mediocre") and should suffice as counterexample to "if you can't articulate it, you're mediocre".
    - smogcutter 6y ago
      It seems to me like the disagreement here comes down to the difference between “good” and “good enough”. For a lot of habitual, daily life type skills like driving, good enough is usually fine. You don’t need to be Senna to commute in a 5 speed. Most people are middling/mediocre drivers, and that’s okay! At the same time, I’ll submit that any competent manual driver should be able to sit in the passenger seat and diagnose when a learner is popping the clutch, lugging the engine, etc. If someone can’t, their own driving is probably faulty in ways they aren’t aware of.
      - phkahler 6y ago
        >> It seems to me like the disagreement here comes down to the difference between “good” and “good enough”. Yeah, theres a wide range and a lot of possible words to use. Good enough, Good, Great. Most importantly I think all of those are in contrast to someone who is "bad" at something and the other words to describe that end of the range of ability.
- intrepidhero 6y ago
  If you are good at something and can't articulate why your consistency is going to be pretty poor. Speaking from experience, I took a bowling class in college and got good enough that I could have "good days" but I couldn't tell you what I was doing differently on those days versus my "bad days". The lesson I took from that was that I was still a pretty terrible bowler and needed a coach to explain to me what I was doing wrong.
conformist 6y ago
It seems to me that the gist of the article is to question whether mental models can be effectively transferred verbally, rather than their existence? I agree with you, sometimes verbally conveyed theory is quite useful and can speed up building mental models. But maybe the fallacy is just that people tend to overestimate the benefit of this aspect (hence buy self-help books etc)?
gloryless 6y ago
It hit a note for me too. It's a microcosm for all of the internet. On one side list of talented people doing interesting stuff, on the other some fuckin thought-leader-wanna-be shitposts to hackernews "this is bad because I don't get it" and I waste 20 mins. It's a failure of democracy
rukuu001 6y ago
Yes! Mental models provide context and insight to build on current efforts. They can’t replace effort.
inimino 6y ago
> Imagine going to your boss, asking to do a complete re-write because you feel disgusted by the code base. You may have skipped some steps here. How do you know if a computer program is badly designed? You don't initially know it because you went through a checklist. (How would you know to apply the checklist?) How do you let your boss know it before doing a total rewrite? That is a totally separate question.
shadowsun7 6y ago
You should probably read this, then: https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-faq/ https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-faq/

phkahler 6y ago

You can be good at something and not be good at articulating why stuff is good or bad, just that it is. Learning to explain to others does tend to refine your own ability though.

Enginerrrd 6y ago
I disagree with this almost as strongly as I possibly can. I've only ever encountered people with middling or mediocre skill in a subject express this attitude. People that are good, are good because they know precisely where the line between good and bad is, AND they've practiced "good" a LOT. Knowing is enough to articulate it. If you can't, you probably don't know it as well as you think. This leads to a bit of a paradox. The things I'm best at are precisely those things in which I feel I still have the most to learn. Why? Because I know the difference between what I'm doing and what good would be.
- MauranKilom 6y ago
  What about the example of driving a car with manual transmission? (I admit that's not the most relatable thing everywhere in the world, still). I'd argue most experienced manual drivers are good at it when we talk about normal traffic (where the skill ceiling just isn't very high). Try and ask a manual driver when/how they shift. Maybe they will give you rough speed numbers, but that's not really how they do it. Despite knowing very well when they have to shift in their own car, they won't be able to articulate/communicate it in a helpful way. It's become muscle memory guided by sound, haptics, speed perception and timings. Your clutch and transmission will let you know the difference between good and bad very clearly. You practice "good" a lot. You know how to do it. But you can't articulate it. One could argue that the scenario in question precludes the possibility to "excel". But the striking difference between "new driver learning a manual" and "experienced driver shifting without spending even a sliver of conscious though on it" is a clear separation of "bad" from "good" (not just "mediocre") and should suffice as counterexample to "if you can't articulate it, you're mediocre".
  - smogcutter 6y ago
    It seems to me like the disagreement here comes down to the difference between “good” and “good enough”. For a lot of habitual, daily life type skills like driving, good enough is usually fine. You don’t need to be Senna to commute in a 5 speed. Most people are middling/mediocre drivers, and that’s okay! At the same time, I’ll submit that any competent manual driver should be able to sit in the passenger seat and diagnose when a learner is popping the clutch, lugging the engine, etc. If someone can’t, their own driving is probably faulty in ways they aren’t aware of.
    - phkahler 6y ago
      >> It seems to me like the disagreement here comes down to the difference between “good” and “good enough”. Yeah, theres a wide range and a lot of possible words to use. Good enough, Good, Great. Most importantly I think all of those are in contrast to someone who is "bad" at something and the other words to describe that end of the range of ability.
intrepidhero 6y ago
If you are good at something and can't articulate why your consistency is going to be pretty poor. Speaking from experience, I took a bowling class in college and got good enough that I could have "good days" but I couldn't tell you what I was doing differently on those days versus my "bad days". The lesson I took from that was that I was still a pretty terrible bowler and needed a coach to explain to me what I was doing wrong.

conformist 6y ago

It seems to me that the gist of the article is to question whether mental models can be effectively transferred verbally, rather than their existence? I agree with you, sometimes verbally conveyed theory is quite useful and can speed up building mental models. But maybe the fallacy is just that people tend to overestimate the benefit of this aspect (hence buy self-help books etc)?

gloryless 6y ago

It hit a note for me too. It's a microcosm for all of the internet. On one side list of talented people doing interesting stuff, on the other some fuckin thought-leader-wanna-be shitposts to hackernews "this is bad because I don't get it" and I waste 20 mins. It's a failure of democracy

rukuu001 6y ago

Yes! Mental models provide context and insight to build on current efforts. They can’t replace effort.

inimino 6y ago

> Imagine going to your boss, asking to do a complete re-write because you feel disgusted by the code base. You may have skipped some steps here. How do you know if a computer program is badly designed? You don't initially know it because you went through a checklist. (How would you know to apply the checklist?) How do you let your boss know it before doing a total rewrite? That is a totally separate question.

shadowsun7 6y ago

You should probably read this, then: https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-faq/ https://commoncog.com/blog/the-mental-model-faq/