3 ms·

I avoid 'mental models' altogether because I think this notion that there is some sort of model world different from lived reality is weirdly dualistic and fort

I avoid 'mental models' altogether because I think this notion that there is some sort of model world different from lived reality is weirdly dualistic and fortune cookie like. I think if you're faced with a problem the answer to that is having acquired proper integrated intuition through experience, not 'advice' in form of some model. Say if you're a runner, the better you get, the less you have a model like "I put the left foot in front of the right foot and breathe three times" you just learn what to do holistically. Or if you get better at chess, the less you rely on generic advice like 'the pawn is worth 1 point, the bishop 3", and the more you get a sense of a position that you can't express as some verbal model. The very best players can play 'without thinking'.

mlac 5y ago
This seems costly in learning / addressing new situations. Mental models can help avoid a lot of pain or give you options to approach new situations that you might not otherwise consider without trial and error. Sometimes watching a YouTube video makes a lot more sense than acquiring proper integrated intuition through experience. I don’t want my surgeon to perform my routine procedure using mental models. If things go wrong, I absolutely want her to apply mental models as she troubleshoots the issue.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  I think it is costly but I'm just very skeptical about how much cost and trial and error you really can avoid when actually doing / building something. For example with the surgeon I would say it's really important that she is quick, pays attention and is calm and reacts to new problems. Speed itself is a huge thing because thinking doesn't help you if the world moves on while you're thinking. I think people underestimate how tactile and sensory most problems are, even 'intellectual' ones. Another example is John Carmack recently pointing out how useless it is to talk about the 'metaverse' in abstract terms. When really you need to understand how the nuts and bolts and gears are engineered and hang together. The people who really build things often stay intentionally away from generalized wisdom.
scubbo 5y ago
I posit that sufficiently advanced "properly integrated intuition through experience" is indistinguishable from a mental model.
s0ulphire 5y ago
It sounds like what you're describing is the end goal in the "hierarchy of competence", where "unconscious competence" is the last step. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence That is the ideal goal, but I don't think the two ideas are exclusive. Take the case of learning a new skill like Chess. At the start you employed some sort of system to learn; that system is your own personal 'mental model' that you've constructed (whether consciously or not) to learn this new thing. How long does it take you to reach unconscious mastery in chess? Once you reach that level of mastery, looking back would you say there was a different system you could have employed to reach that goal faster? What if you shared this new system with a beginner and told them "use this model to learn, not the one that seems intuitive to you now". I think that's all a mental model is: recognising that other people who are better at the thing you're trying to do, have come up with a way to learn it faster than you're capable of intuiting as a beginner. I think it would be quite hubristic to assume you couldn't save any time by employing these ideas, or that your initial ideas are so close to the best approach that learning about another model is a waste of time.
geekster777 5y ago
I consider mental models more to be good decisions made in bulk (though not necessarily the best decisions). Of course you'll break the model when it's convenient or when you know better, but when you're taking your day on autopilot it'll keep you moving towards your goals. Like in the runner example, the mental model of "put one foot in front of the other" may not help, but a "I run for an extra 90 seconds after I get tired" might keep you pushing to always improve. Maybe this is just a difference of definition of "mental model". I saw it being complained about elsewhere, but the thread seems to generally be defining it as "rules of thumb". You do have a good point that folks tend to have a lot of difficulty breaking mental models they used as crutches while learning. In playing guitar, I've found folks who rely heavily on things like the box model or pentatonic scale who plateau and get "stuck" at a certain skill level because of it. So it raises the question - Is it better to use a model that provides quick wins and a notable plateau, or risk never getting traction but having an easier time at the high level? Of course that all depends on the specifics of each scenario, but my rule of thumb is to do the more fun thing and re-evaluate when my skills plateau.

mlac 5y ago

This seems costly in learning / addressing new situations. Mental models can help avoid a lot of pain or give you options to approach new situations that you might not otherwise consider without trial and error. Sometimes watching a YouTube video makes a lot more sense than acquiring proper integrated intuition through experience. I don’t want my surgeon to perform my routine procedure using mental models. If things go wrong, I absolutely want her to apply mental models as she troubleshoots the issue.

Barrin92 5y ago
I think it is costly but I'm just very skeptical about how much cost and trial and error you really can avoid when actually doing / building something. For example with the surgeon I would say it's really important that she is quick, pays attention and is calm and reacts to new problems. Speed itself is a huge thing because thinking doesn't help you if the world moves on while you're thinking. I think people underestimate how tactile and sensory most problems are, even 'intellectual' ones. Another example is John Carmack recently pointing out how useless it is to talk about the 'metaverse' in abstract terms. When really you need to understand how the nuts and bolts and gears are engineered and hang together. The people who really build things often stay intentionally away from generalized wisdom.

scubbo 5y ago

I posit that sufficiently advanced "properly integrated intuition through experience" is indistinguishable from a mental model.

s0ulphire 5y ago

It sounds like what you're describing is the end goal in the "hierarchy of competence", where "unconscious competence" is the last step. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence That is the ideal goal, but I don't think the two ideas are exclusive. Take the case of learning a new skill like Chess. At the start you employed some sort of system to learn; that system is your own personal 'mental model' that you've constructed (whether consciously or not) to learn this new thing. How long does it take you to reach unconscious mastery in chess? Once you reach that level of mastery, looking back would you say there was a different system you could have employed to reach that goal faster? What if you shared this new system with a beginner and told them "use this model to learn, not the one that seems intuitive to you now". I think that's all a mental model is: recognising that other people who are better at the thing you're trying to do, have come up with a way to learn it faster than you're capable of intuiting as a beginner. I think it would be quite hubristic to assume you couldn't save any time by employing these ideas, or that your initial ideas are so close to the best approach that learning about another model is a waste of time.

geekster777 5y ago

I consider mental models more to be good decisions made in bulk (though not necessarily the best decisions). Of course you'll break the model when it's convenient or when you know better, but when you're taking your day on autopilot it'll keep you moving towards your goals. Like in the runner example, the mental model of "put one foot in front of the other" may not help, but a "I run for an extra 90 seconds after I get tired" might keep you pushing to always improve. Maybe this is just a difference of definition of "mental model". I saw it being complained about elsewhere, but the thread seems to generally be defining it as "rules of thumb". You do have a good point that folks tend to have a lot of difficulty breaking mental models they used as crutches while learning. In playing guitar, I've found folks who rely heavily on things like the box model or pentatonic scale who plateau and get "stuck" at a certain skill level because of it. So it raises the question - Is it better to use a model that provides quick wins and a notable plateau, or risk never getting traction but having an easier time at the high level? Of course that all depends on the specifics of each scenario, but my rule of thumb is to do the more fun thing and re-evaluate when my skills plateau.