Knowledge Representation: Mental Models (Part III: Critical Notes I)

Mental Models Series

Despite the good intent and thorough research, the lack of appropriate definitions can easily make one mix concepts in the various explanatory pursuits. The best recent example is Adam Feel’s book on "Mental Models" in which the author doesn’t seem to correctly differentiate between mental processes, representations, concepts, models and the accessories used by mind in decisions and sense-making. Unfortunately, this is not an unique example, several books appeared recently on same topic seem to follow the same pattern.

It’s true that explaining how the mind works is a hardy endeavor as the subject finds itself at the intersection of several cognitive and non-cognitive sciences and pseudo-sciences, however one can still make use of a dictionary to test definitions’ correctness and appropriateness. If the dictionary definitions don’t resemble one’s understanding, then more likely the gap between one’s explanations and reality increases, the deeper one goes into the subject.

In the respective book, the most important distinction is between process and representation. A process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to transform an input into an output, or reach from a point to another. In respect to the mind, the process as transformation makes more sense. Perception, sense-making, recollecting, thinking, depicting, imagining are examples of mental processes even if they can maybe split in further subprocesses. In contrast, a representation is a description and encoding of something, typically an aspect of external or internal reality. Therefore, mental processes use representations and other elements of the mental space as inputs and outputs.

When one considers as process a mental model, which is nothing but a form of representation, then the characteristics associated with the model are far from being correct. Mental models don’t interpret by themselves, they don’t disguise even if their lack of clarity of understanding complicate our mental processes. They do not dictate or predetermine an action but predisposes one to a set of actions. Besides that, the quality of one’s thinking processes has an important impact on mental models’ usability.

Each person has a certain understanding of the world with a degree of fuzziness attached to it. How one reflects and interprets reality is somehow reflected in the quality of the models held. Any model has impact on the decisions made, independently whether the model is correct or wrong. A wrong model can lead to positive results, and in certain situations is enough to address a situation, same as the use of a good model can lead to undesired outcomes. In the end each model has a degree of appropriateness and applicability usually interpreted as value of truth. Being aware of these aspects is important in knowing when to use a model.

A model by itself comes with no guarantees. It has a potential, though it’s in our power to explore and exploit that potential. Having more models for a situation increases in theory one’s chances to succeed, though there are further aspects to consider like chance, right timing, the competitors, etc. Having a set of models doesn’t automatically equate with better information or intelligence, better or faster problem solving, same as the whish of being in control if one’s life is just an illusion.

One can think of the multitude of models like the pieces a puzzle attempting to reflect contiguous pieces of reality, though more than one model fits in one place, while the pieces can often overlap and change their form depending on context. It’s more of a multilayered impossible to solve puzzle, but day by day one can grasp more from it, and get eventually a better understanding about world’s texture.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post