思考与写作fs.blog
心智模型：做出明智决策的最佳方式（113 种模型详解）
Mental Models: The Best Way to Make Intelligent Decisions (113 Models Explained)
2018 — 2020，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
这是 Farnam Street 的一篇长文，整理并解释 113 个跨学科“思维模型”，主张把它们当作工具箱来提升决策质量。文章本身更像导览和索引，评论区则围绕其营销性质、模型能否真正落地以及与实践经验的关系展开争论。
为什么经久不衰：它把分散在物理、生物、心理等领域的思考框架集中成可检索清单，适合作为按图索骥的入口，但价值取决于读者是否结合实践去用。
HN 评论精选
批评思维模型是脱离实践的工具拼盘，真正专长来自训练、经验和直觉。
思维模型很糟糕。整个 Farnam Street/理性主义文化都很糟糕，动不动喊谬误也属于同一类。原因是思维模型像一堆从别处抄来的杂乱工具；真正深入的知识是默会的、整合了经验、有机形成的，靠训练和专业能力获得，往往无法言说或形式化。依赖思维模型是一种拐杖。可以类比下棋：新手学棋子值多少分、哪些格子重要，就像这些模型；真正好的棋手不会这样有意识地算，他们已内化知识、靠直觉，一两秒就能走出好棋。真正的专长不是坐着“想通”，而是与真实世界互动、沉浸到想提升的事情里。
Barrin92查看英文原文
mental models are terrible. This entire farnam street /rationalist culture is terrible, fallacy screaming falls into the same category. The reason why it's terrible is because mental models are like a sort of jumbled set of tools, copied over from somewhere else. Deep and genuine knowledge is tacit, integrated, incorporates experience and is organic. It's acquired through training and expertise and often can't be verbalised or formalised. Relying on mental models is a sort of crutch. Maybe a good comparison is chess playing. If you're a new chess player you learn that pieces are worth X points, and that such and such squares are important, and that's basically like these sorts of models. Really good chess players don't consciously think like that, at least not in a sort of pronounced way. They've incorporated knowledge and play by intuition. They can make 'good moves' in a second or two. I don't know why these 'fallacies' and 'mental model' things have taken off so much within certain circles, I feel like it's because people do nothing else other than reading these blogs. Real expertise or knowledge isn't gained by sitting around and 'thinking through stuff', it's by coming into interaction with the real world and immersing yourself in what you want to get better at.
批评其商业模式，并指出模型易读难用，需要长期实践和师徒式训练。
当有人推销某种东西时，先问他的议程。Farnam Street 的 Shane Parrish 做的是通讯和订阅生意，就像 CNBC 做金融信息娱乐而非投资财富创造；他们想让你把他们当权威，兜售来自权威位置的想法，却没有成功业绩记录。思维模型读起来有趣，应用是另一回事。我读了几十年，决定选一个模型专注应用：反过来想，总是反过来想。它极难应用：一是在决策火热时很难记得用，二是不能只靠应用，需要跟专家实践、学徒/实习/住院医式训练；读一篇文章或一本书学不会。
haltingproblem查看英文原文
I posted this comment in an earlier thread on Mental Models but here it goes again. Remember when someone is pushing something ask yourself - what is their agenda? Farnam Street's Shane Parrish is the newsletter and subscription business, just like CNBC is in the financial infotainment business not in the investment or wealth creation business. They want you think of them as the authority by peddling ideas from an place of authority without actually providing a track record of success. CNBC's Jim Cramer's stock recommendations on evaluation had a worse than S&P record and subsequently pulled from his site. Mental model are quite interesting to read but applying them is another matter. It like asking Tiger Woods for golf lessons. I have been reading mental models for a couple decades now. I decided to pick one model and focus on applying it - invert always invert. This one simple rule has been really hard to apply. One, it is really really hard to remember to apply in the heat of decision making. Two, you cannot just apply it. That requires practice with an expert practitioner like an apprenticeship (guilds), extended internship (law/finance) or residency (medicine). You cannot just pick it up by reading a damn article or book. Let me give an analogy of trying to reason about physical properties from first principles which is another "mental model". This is another popular exhortation - think from first principles just like Feynman or Fermi. Apparently, Fermi figured out the yield from the first test nuclear blast by tossing paper confetti over his head and calculating the yield from the scatter from the blast wave. I can think from first principles in one extremely narrow field where I happen to have half a decade of education and 20 years of experience. To reason from first principles like Fermi or Feynman in a broad domain like physics requires a world class mind, a world class education and a world of experience. Seriously, WTF. Most mental model writing is akin to consuming youtube fitness porn. It looks easy to do, you look cool doing it and the end results are just spectacular. However, like Arnold or David Goggins it requires an inhuman dedication, purpose, ability to withstand pain, bounce back from trauma and just keep sacrificing attitude for a couple of decades with a healthy dose of failure. Most of the time the only person benefiting is the video creator from the ad-roll. I appreciate the posts but I now believe these mental models are incredibly hard to do and like most of the self-improvement/growth hacking genre is just good for entertainment and commerce 99.99% of the time.
质疑文章标题的核心主张未被论证，内容更像营销。
那么为什么“思维模型”是做出明智决策的最佳方式？还有哪些其他方式？这篇博文没有解释，它很大程度上看起来像营销材料。
madballster查看英文原文
So why are "mental models" the best way to make intelligent decisions? What other ways to make intelligent decisions exist? The blog post failed to explain that, it largely appears to be marketing material.
推荐另一篇关于模型的扩展阅读。
如果你想多读这个主题，我推荐 Stripe 的 Slava Akhmechet（RethinkDB 创建者）写的这篇文章：https://www.defmacro.org/2016/12/22/models.html
Mandatum查看英文原文
If you'd like to read more on the subject, I can recommend this article put together by Slava Akhmechet at Stripe, creator of RethinkDB. https://www.defmacro.org/2016/12/22/models.html
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