思考与写作medium.com
我反复受用的心智模型
Mental Models I Find Repeatedly Useful
2016 — 2018，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇文章整理了作者认为反复有用的思维模型，涵盖奥卡姆剃刀、梅特卡夫定律、勒夏特列原理等多个学科的概念，并为每个模型提供简要解释。它旨在为读者提供一份可随时查阅的思考工具清单，帮助分析和决策。
为什么经久不衰：它把散落在各学科的经典思维工具集中成一份可复用的清单，并引发了对如何正确使用（而非误用）这些模型的持续讨论，因此多年后仍值得一读。
HN 评论精选
指出文章对奥卡姆剃刀的表述有误，强调应选择假设最少的假说而非最简单的解决方案，以避免停止证伪。
有意思的是，我最想挑刺的是奥卡姆剃刀。文章引用的说法是“最简单的解决方案通常是正确的”，这是常见的误解；它链接的维基百科页面其实有更好的表述：“在相互竞争的假说中，应选择假设最少的那个。”关键问题在于把简单等同于正确，这通常很危险：一旦你觉得某事“正确”，就不再寻找证伪它的方法，而这恰恰与奥卡姆剃刀的用途相反。奥卡姆剃刀用于在两个证据都支持的假说中选择假设更少的那个，部分因为更容易操作和理解，但主要是假设少更容易被证伪。在科学方法之外滥用这一原则会导致各种糟糕的逻辑。
mikekchar查看英文原文
Interestingly, I find my favourite nitpick: Ockam's razor. The article quotes it as "The simplest solution is usually the correct one". This is a common misinterpretation of it and it's interesting that the quote links to the wikipedia page that has a better statement: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." The key problem is equating simplicity with correctness. This is usually disastrous. Once you feel that something is "correct" you stop looking for ways to falsify it. That's the exact opposite for what Occam's razor is used for. Instead, if you have 2 competing hypotheses (two hypotheses for which the evidence supports both), you use the one with less assumptions. Partly because the one with less assumptions will be easier to work with and lead to models that are easier to understand. But mostly because less assumptions makes it easier to falsify. Abusing this principle outside of the scientific method leads to all sorts of incredibly bad logic.
建议删除严重高估的梅特卡夫定律，并加入可推广到组织行为的勒夏特列原理。
我会做两处调整。第一，删掉梅特卡夫定律，它严重高估了网络价值；更好的网络估值规则是 n log(n)，可参考相关论文。第二，我认为勒夏特列原理普遍适用，不限于化学。它说的是：当你观察一个处于平衡的系统并试图改变它时，会产生力量将其推回原平衡。在化学反应中认识到这一点是一回事，在组织中被它打个措手不及则是另一回事。可参考我的博客解释为何它在化学之外也成立。
btilly查看英文原文
Two adjustments that I would make. Remove Metcalfe's law. It is a massive overestimate. See http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/metcalfe.pdf for the better n log(n) rule for valuing a network. And I find Le Châtelier's principle generally applicable, and not just to Chemistry. It says that if you observe a system at equilibrium, and try to induce a change, forces will arise that push it back towards the original equilibrium. It is one thing to recognize this at work in a chemical reaction. It is quite another to be blindsided by it in an organization. See http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/05/le-chateliers-principle-not-just-for.html for my explanation of why this holds in general outside of chemistry.
批评清单暗示能让人变聪明，认为应学习批判性思维和推理过程，而不是收集可能相互冲突的模型。
唉，也许只有我这么觉得，但我认为这份清单没什么用。不是因为无趣，而是它暗示能让你变得更聪明。今天的问题不是信息，而是知识。即使你能正确且完整地理解所有这些模型（这可能要花好几年），你很可能仍然无法运用它们，尤其当它们彼此冲突时。我认为更好的做法是学习批判性思维、实用推理和运营领导力。过去的黑客价值观是：可以问方向，但不能要答案。因为过程本身和答案一样重要——不仅是为了好玩，而是因为可能没有正确答案，而且下次遇到类似问题时，你已经有做决策的经验。如今技术界很多“愚蠢”似乎源于学校推崇对复杂问题勾选答案，以及这些“定律”的流行让人过于自信，反而妨碍了正确推理。
uola查看英文原文
Ugh, maybe I'm the only one but I don't find this list useful. Not because it isn't interesting, but the implication that it will actually make you smarter. The problem today isn't information, it's knowledge. Even if you can correctly and fully understand all these models, something that could take years, you still most likely wouldn't be able to implement them, especially when they are in conflict with each other. I think it's a much better idea to study things like critical thinking, practical reasoning and operational leadership. Back in the day hacker values stated that you could ask for directions, but not for the answer. Because the process itself was as important as the answer. Not just for amusement, but because there might not be a right answer and the next time you're confronted with a similar problem you now have some experience of making those decisions. A great deal of "stupidity" in technology these days seem to stem from schools that promote check box answers to complex problems and the popularity of these "laws" that make people so sure of themselves that it prevents them from proper reasoning.
建议记录并重构自己的思维模型清单，而不是照搬别人的，这样能显著提升思维清晰度。
别错过两个最大的好处：绘制你自己的清单，而不是试图学习别人的清单；然后对你最终得到的清单进行重构，以获得更紧凑的表示。简单的做法是，在约两周内，每当我注意到自己使用了某个思维模型就记下来。当新条目开始减少后，我通过寻找将清单组织成类别或关系的方式进行压缩。这显著提升了我的思维清晰度。
nazgulnarsil查看英文原文
Don't miss out on two of the biggest benefits: mapping your own rather than trying to learn someone else's list, and then refactoring the list you wind up with for more compact representation. The easy way to do this was I just noted down any time I noticed myself using a mental model for about 2 weeks. Once new entries started tapering off I did the compression by trying to spot ways I could organize the list into categories or relations. This significantly improved the clarity of my thinking.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选