The Great Mental Models Volume 1: General Thinking Concepts by Shane Parrish

Apt, therefore, that the author(s) start the book with this as the first model all of us need to understand: “the map is not the territory”, which is basically another way of saying that we should realise the usefulness of models only as an approximation/ simplification/ abstraction /reduction of reality and keep that in mind always while using them.

We should not make the mistake of thinking that the model itself is reality and start taking decisions that make sense in the model without first examining whether reality is still concurrent with the model (or has it changed since the model was last updated).

Whenever we make a decision based on the model that turns out to be incorrect, then it’s the model that needs updating (and not reality that needs to be “rejected”).

The world is (and has always been) interconnected and while we may isolate a specific field of study while assuming the rest of the world to be ceterus paribus, its important that we bring back that knowledge and fit that (like a jigsaw) into a latticework of mental models.

The better way to learn models is by creating a “meta model” which should allow for “meta thinking”. So, create a model of models where, whenever you learn a new model, you fit that with the other models so that you can see the entire machinery work together.

This sounds hard, maybe it is, but it makes sense to me – And as is pointed out in the book, the number of models one will have to learn will still pale in comparison to practically countless number of specific concepts out there.

Plus, I think pareto principle will apply here too and after, maybe, 10-12 models we’ll have covered most of them to have a working meta model.

Basically, if you’re learning things by rote without putting them in relation to the rest of the world (and studying that interplay) then you might as well not “learn” at all.

Is it falsifiable?

You can cut through pseudo-science (and other things non-scientific) by applying the principle of falsifiability to it.

Basically, if it can’t be proven false then be careful about accepting it as true.

Reason from first principles

it can help us clarify complicated problems by separating the underlying ideas or facts from any assumptions based on them.

To apply this, there are two techniques we can use: Socratic questioning and the Five Whys.

necessity ≠ sufficiency

The latter is a subset of the former. If you’re doing what is necessary, it does not mean what you are doing is sufficient.

Since that is what most of life is – It will allow you keep a level head and take level decisions.

Bayesian probability must also be learnt for good measure since everything in life is connected to everything else.

Be careful about systems/situations where more “fat tail” curves have been observed, which basically means that extremes are more likely to occur that you might not be prepared for (the bad extremes that is).

Reminds me of the saying: “a moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips”.

Another useful (but related) idea that comes later in the book is of inversion (or as I have heard used elsewhere “back casting”) – I found this to be especially useful since we often set goals but when we make the plans (or systems if you’re so inclined) to achieve those goals they might not always be connected to the end result we want to achieve.

Inversions helps by having us ask the question “Say, that I do in fact end up achieving the goal – If that actually happened – Then what else would have to be true about my life that would make the achievement of the goal a mere logical consequence?” – This is really useful to me and I will be using it going ahead.

BTW, alternatively one can also ask: “For me to achieve my goal, what are those things that must not do?”. Also BTW, inversion can help us understand if we’re dealing with true causation or mere correlation.

The authors also remind us of the fact that Simpler explanations are more likely to be true than complicated ones (Occam’s razor).

And that it’s better we do not attribute to malice what you can to stupidity/laziness (Hanlon’s razor).

These allow us to focus on correcting genuine problems with the world instead of thinking that people are out there to get us. Needs a bit of experience to get right though, type 2 errors can have serious consequences here.