You should’ve waited for the article to get promoted, and it seems it’s not going to be. Currently, the concept is not clearly explored or motivated on the blog.
I think mental models are interesting for being mechanisms, rather than merely classes and instances. I suspect we may refer to the concept again, in which case a brief definition on the Wiki linking a straightforward elaboration such as this is useful.
(Agree with what you are saying and add my take on it.)
I would say that the concept is explored, but this nomenclature isn’t established as a dominant standard (nor expressed powerfully in this post). Part of the problem is that the post is written submissively and by an author without established status. We don’t feel obligated to engage with him inside his way of carving reality, even though it isn’t particularly controversial in describing how things work.
We already have the word map of ‘map is not the territory’ fame. The way (specific to human) ‘Mental Models’ would differ from and perhaps constitute maps of the territory is something that would need to be explored. But as you say we just don’t seem to have the motivation to do so. The author acknowledges this in the first paragraph. In fact, that very paragraph more or less primes us to be unmotivated to explore while the final paragraph unintentionally gives us an excuse not to do so!
As for the writing style, I was very deliberately trying to express my exact state of knowledge (since if I don’t do this I tend to get myself into trouble), but it seems like I might have let this lead me to a somewhat uninteresting place.
You did that well. It is perhaps unfortunate that people respond more positively to confident assertions than well calibrated ones!
(since if I don’t do this I tend to get myself into trouble)
Sometimes the trick is to do things that might get yourself in trouble. You may get in trouble because confident assertions from a (not yet) dominant individual feel like a status incursion that needs to be beaten down. In those cases doing things that push the limits of the status people assign you even though you may experience trouble is a rather direct way of making people give up giving you trouble. You may also get in trouble because you make a mistake. In that case people will be eager to correct you, which leaves both you and the other readers better informed.
but it seems like I might have let this lead me to a somewhat uninteresting place.
I sometimes suspect that ‘interesting’ is a lot to do with the expected social reward or penalty for paying attention or ignoring the speaker in the context. I have a hunch that if while you were writing your post you imagined yourself speaking in a deep, slow and firm voice then that would have come across in your writing style and made a difference in the mind of the reader.
By the way, I am interested in how you think your ‘Mental Models’ fits in with ‘maps of the territory’. I obviously have my own take but I’d like to hear how it fits in with your mental model of mental models. I obviously have my own ideas but of course I absorbed your ‘mental model’ description by hacking it on to the conception I already have. ;) Maybe you see it differently!
A map is generally a specific sort of model, but not all models are maps. It’s much harder to extend the map metaphor into something that actually resembles human thought processes.
Hm, at risk of getting facial egg, how would you say it compares to my recent hierarchy of understanding, which got to +40, and gives a useful organization of epistemic states long discussed on this site?
Slightly different topic but your hierarchy of understanding is clear, easy to read and well integrated with cultural knowledge. (Also +41 now that I’ve read it.)
Well, I’d say clear, easy to read and well integrated with cultural knowledge makes good criteria for wiki inclusion. Do you think it is the kind of thing that would be useful to link to? That’s more or less what I use the wiki for. And I can imagine myself linking to your hierarchy at times.
Large parts of it are isomorphic—At least 3 of the levels seem to closely correspond with chain-, spoke-, and network-type mental models, which I (perhaps regrettably) didn’t go into here.
As far as the style goes, I very consciously try to write only what I know (since otherwise I have the bad habit of jumping to unwarranted conclusions), but it seems I might have let this prevent me from exploring any new or interesting territory.
Added to the Wiki.
You should’ve waited for the article to get promoted, and it seems it’s not going to be. Currently, the concept is not clearly explored or motivated on the blog.
I think mental models are interesting for being mechanisms, rather than merely classes and instances. I suspect we may refer to the concept again, in which case a brief definition on the Wiki linking a straightforward elaboration such as this is useful.
(Agree with what you are saying and add my take on it.)
I would say that the concept is explored, but this nomenclature isn’t established as a dominant standard (nor expressed powerfully in this post). Part of the problem is that the post is written submissively and by an author without established status. We don’t feel obligated to engage with him inside his way of carving reality, even though it isn’t particularly controversial in describing how things work.
We already have the word map of ‘map is not the territory’ fame. The way (specific to human) ‘Mental Models’ would differ from and perhaps constitute maps of the territory is something that would need to be explored. But as you say we just don’t seem to have the motivation to do so. The author acknowledges this in the first paragraph. In fact, that very paragraph more or less primes us to be unmotivated to explore while the final paragraph unintentionally gives us an excuse not to do so!
Thanks for the helpful comment.
As for the writing style, I was very deliberately trying to express my exact state of knowledge (since if I don’t do this I tend to get myself into trouble), but it seems like I might have let this lead me to a somewhat uninteresting place.
You did that well. It is perhaps unfortunate that people respond more positively to confident assertions than well calibrated ones!
Sometimes the trick is to do things that might get yourself in trouble. You may get in trouble because confident assertions from a (not yet) dominant individual feel like a status incursion that needs to be beaten down. In those cases doing things that push the limits of the status people assign you even though you may experience trouble is a rather direct way of making people give up giving you trouble. You may also get in trouble because you make a mistake. In that case people will be eager to correct you, which leaves both you and the other readers better informed.
I sometimes suspect that ‘interesting’ is a lot to do with the expected social reward or penalty for paying attention or ignoring the speaker in the context. I have a hunch that if while you were writing your post you imagined yourself speaking in a deep, slow and firm voice then that would have come across in your writing style and made a difference in the mind of the reader.
By the way, I am interested in how you think your ‘Mental Models’ fits in with ‘maps of the territory’. I obviously have my own take but I’d like to hear how it fits in with your mental model of mental models. I obviously have my own ideas but of course I absorbed your ‘mental model’ description by hacking it on to the conception I already have. ;) Maybe you see it differently!
Is “mental model” not an ordinary/transparent term? Is “map” actually any different?
A map is generally a specific sort of model, but not all models are maps. It’s much harder to extend the map metaphor into something that actually resembles human thought processes.
It’s much harder to extend the map metaphor to something that actually resembles human thought.
A map is necessarily a certain sort of model, but not all models can easily be represented as maps.
I took it to be more specific. A reference to the way humans actually build and internally represent the abstractions that they use as a map.
I don’t think I’m really clear on what sort of map would not constitute a mental model.
Say… one represented as a lookup table the size of Jupiter, for example. We don’t think like that.
Hm, at risk of getting facial egg, how would you say it compares to my recent hierarchy of understanding, which got to +40, and gives a useful organization of epistemic states long discussed on this site?
Slightly different topic but your hierarchy of understanding is clear, easy to read and well integrated with cultural knowledge. (Also +41 now that I’ve read it.)
Thanks! But I meant, how does it compare in terms of worthiness to be included in the wiki in some capacity?
Well, I’d say clear, easy to read and well integrated with cultural knowledge makes good criteria for wiki inclusion. Do you think it is the kind of thing that would be useful to link to? That’s more or less what I use the wiki for. And I can imagine myself linking to your hierarchy at times.
(It was already added to the page Understanding.)
Large parts of it are isomorphic—At least 3 of the levels seem to closely correspond with chain-, spoke-, and network-type mental models, which I (perhaps regrettably) didn’t go into here.
Thanks for the helpful comment.
As far as the style goes, I very consciously try to write only what I know (since otherwise I have the bad habit of jumping to unwarranted conclusions), but it seems I might have let this prevent me from exploring any new or interesting territory.