3 ms·

I agree with what you said, but I don't think it invalidates the usefulness of "mental model" thinking. I like that you used the word "tacit," because I think t

by olipi 6y ago

I agree with what you said, but I don't think it invalidates the usefulness of "mental model" thinking. I like that you used the word "tacit," because I think that's exactly what somebody like Charlie Munger would point out: when dealing with complex issues, people often rely on their tacit knowledge and, because of their own limitations and biases, miss some of the most fundamental and obvious aspects of their problem. An example he uses is the introduction of New Coke: Munger describes a number of extremely basic biological and psychological concepts that could have predicted the failure of New Coke, things that are part of every 100-level course in those subjects, and yet the executives at Coke still managed to completely fail to integrate that knowledge into their decision-making. I'm not all on the hype train, but I do think the idea of applying a broad set of concepts to complex problems can be really, really useful, and sometimes will produce better results than relying on your tacit knowledge. There are of course problems where this is not true, and knowing the difference is important. Mental model thinking will probably not generate the next big breakthrough in some highly technical field like math or physics, for example. But that doesn't mean it has no value.

slx26 6y ago
Yeah, I think your comment adds some interesting ideas. Following the original chess comparisons, we could also say that new players will learn more and faster when given some models of what are good and bad moves, than if they need to learn from scratch with nothing else. Eventually they will outgrow that and their knowledge will exceed what can fit into a "mental model", but models are not useless. But still with chess, there's also the so called Kotov syndrome, which is "a situation when a player thinks very hard for a long time in a complicated position but does not find a clear path, then, running low on time, quickly makes a poor move, often a blunder". Overthinking, getting too deep into a certain path, can also be a problem. Intelligent people sometimes make obvious mistakes due to getting lost on deep thoughts. And this is a problem related to deep knowledge, not just models. Nothing is foolproof. What I think is productive here is to distinguish between different types of models: if a model can help you acknowledge certain problems or patterns, that can be pretty useful; but if it tries to be the all-encompassing explanation to something, then it's probably wrong and might lead you the wrong way more often than not, constraining your vision instead of expanding it. You need experience to make good decisions, not just be given a model, but experience is also not enough or not always there, and models can help fill some of those gaps too.

by olipi 6y ago

slx26 6y ago

Yeah, I think your comment adds some interesting ideas. Following the original chess comparisons, we could also say that new players will learn more and faster when given some models of what are good and bad moves, than if they need to learn from scratch with nothing else. Eventually they will outgrow that and their knowledge will exceed what can fit into a "mental model", but models are not useless. But still with chess, there's also the so called Kotov syndrome, which is "a situation when a player thinks very hard for a long time in a complicated position but does not find a clear path, then, running low on time, quickly makes a poor move, often a blunder". Overthinking, getting too deep into a certain path, can also be a problem. Intelligent people sometimes make obvious mistakes due to getting lost on deep thoughts. And this is a problem related to deep knowledge, not just models. Nothing is foolproof. What I think is productive here is to distinguish between different types of models: if a model can help you acknowledge certain problems or patterns, that can be pretty useful; but if it tries to be the all-encompassing explanation to something, then it's probably wrong and might lead you the wrong way more often than not, constraining your vision instead of expanding it. You need experience to make good decisions, not just be given a model, but experience is also not enough or not always there, and models can help fill some of those gaps too.