Good post, but you seem to be conflating frames, mental models, and theories. Lets take these in reverse order, starting with the most rigorous type of understanding first:

Theories: Cumulatively build abstract representations of reality that have been validated by testing (ideally experiments). Shannon's Information Theory is one, as is Einstein' relativity.

Mental models: More common frameworks used to understand reality. These tend to be a step (or more) below theories since they are either un-testable, or specified so poorly that testing is not feasible. These are low resolution understandings of reality. Boyd' OODA loop is a famous one. Charlie Munger (Buffet' partner at Berkshire Hathaway) popularized this term in the last couple of decades in his writings and speeches describing a lot of psychological "theories" as mental models. Not surprisingly, the VC/ angel investor crowd loves this type since it is not as rigorous as a hard scientific theory so easier to generate based on observational data.

Frames: This term has its roots in the social construction of reality using language. Shared frames help in the interpretation of reality. Erwin Goffman did a lot of pioneering work in this area. I would argue, that frames are often even less rigorous than mental models since they are dependent on synchronized interpretation within a group of people.

Bottomline, these are distinct terms with very different meanings. Its important to be precise, otherwise noise/ signal is too high.

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments