It is true that mental models are a natural way to think about the world. I think it's so natural that it doesn't need to be called out. It's better to focus on honing your models than it is to look at the meta-process surrounding the existence of models, I think.
I mean, for example, why worry about filling a perceived gap in your mental models (e.g., ponder the existence of the Overton Window as a model of group decision making and political discourse), when just learning about the Overton Window (without all this mental model meta-tagging) is already a useful thing to think about when making decisions.
I'm glad that the "General thinking concepts" are not being cast as "mental models", that would be a meta-classification error. (Aphorisms != Models the same way as Information!=Data or Knowledge!=wisdom).
But seriously, this is just a book marketing page that keeps getting re-written and re-posted over and over.
Comments
It is true that mental models are a natural way to think about the world. I think it's so natural that it doesn't need to be called out. It's better to focus on honing your models than it is to look at the meta-process surrounding the existence of models, I think.
I mean, for example, why worry about filling a perceived gap in your mental models (e.g., ponder the existence of the Overton Window as a model of group decision making and political discourse), when just learning about the Overton Window (without all this mental model meta-tagging) is already a useful thing to think about when making decisions.
I'm glad that the "General thinking concepts" are not being cast as "mental models", that would be a meta-classification error. (Aphorisms != Models the same way as Information!=Data or Knowledge!=wisdom).
But seriously, this is just a book marketing page that keeps getting re-written and re-posted over and over.