🔖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

🔖Knowledge Representation: Mental Models (Part II: Breaking of Complexity)

Mental Models Series

To understand how something complex works one has two main tools  - the mechanistic, respectively the holistic approach. The mechanistic approach assumes that something can be understood by breaking it into parts (aka analysis) and then by combining the parts to form the whole (aka synthesis). However, this approach doesn’t always account for everything as there’s behavior and/or characteristics not explainable by the parts themselves. Considering that the whole is more than its parts, the holistic approach studies the interactions of the parts that lead to such unexpected effects (aka synergies), the challenge being to identify those characteristics, circumstances or conditions that lead to or related to these effects. Thus, when these two tools are combined within multiple iterations one can get closer to the essence.

When breaking things into parts we need first to look at the thing or object of study from a bird’s eyes view and identify the things that might look like parts. Even if the object of study looks amorphous, the experience doubled by intuition and perseverance can offer a starting point, and from there one can start iteratively to take things apart until one decides to stop. When and where one stops is a question of possible depth, as allowed by the object itself, by the techniques available or our grasping, respectively by the intended depth  -  the level chosen for approximation.

Between the whole and the lowest perceived components, one has the luxury of experimenting by breaking things apart (physically and/or mentally) and putting things together to form unitary parts  - parts that typically explain one or more functions or characteristics, respectively the whole. In addition, one can play with the object, consider it in a range of contexts, extrapolate its characteristics, identify behavior not explainable by the parts themselves. In the process one arrives to a set of facts (things known or proved to be true), respectively suppositions expressed as beliefs (things hold as true without proof), assumptions (things accepted as true without proof) or hypotheses (things who’s value of truth is not known, typically because of limited evidence).

One builds thus a (mental) model, an abstraction of the object of study. The parts and relations existing between the parts form the skeleton of the model, while the facts and suppositions attempt to give the model form. Unfortunately, models seldom accommodate all the facts, therefore what one ignores or considers into the model can make an important difference on whether the model is of any use. One is forced thus to advance theories on how the skeleton can accommodate the form, how form reflects the facts and suppositions.

Simple models can prove to be useful, especially when they allow approximating the real thing within the considered context. However, the better approximations one needs and/or the broader the context is, more complex the models can become, especially when the number of facts considered as important increases. This can mean that two models or theories can be useful or correct when considered in different contexts but lose their applicability when considered in another context.

Having a repository of models to choose from is usually a helpful thing, especially in understanding more about the object studied. The appropriate usage of a model depends also on understanding its range of applicability within a context or across contexts, the advantages, and disadvantages of using the model. Knowing when to use a model is as important as knowing when not to use it, while understanding the measure of the error associated with a model can make us aware of the risks associated with a model and decisions made based on it.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🔖Knowledge Representation: Defining Mental Models (Part III)

Mental Models Series

Packing one or more labels (expressing the same thing) together with a set of characteristics into discrete cognitive units within a context is what defines a concept. Therefore, one or more labels can be associated with a concept, while a label can be associated with more concepts when different contexts apply. 

Concepts are associated with physical objects (doors, keys, latches, knobs), subjects (doorman, locksmith), scenarios and actions (opening a door, opening a door with a key, opening a door without a key, closing a door, breaking a door). As previously discussed, this mix forms together a ‘mental model’, however more precision is needed if we want to delimit the borders of a mental model.

When one or more labels are associated with one or more actions, or a chain of causality exists, then a mental model can be more likely extrapolated (aka build). Minimally we can consider only one object (the door) and only one action (opening the door) with two states (door open, door closed). One can consider the action of opening a door also as an objective, while in addition a basis heuristic is also implied (pushing the door). Thus, to open the door, I push it, and it will open or will remain closed. This is a description of the simplest mechanical model I can build. 

Of course, I can consider more factors: if I don’t apply enough force, the door might not open, so the force applied needs to be higher than the resistance. However, “force” and “resistance” are indirectly considered in our model and for the sake of simplicity can be ignored. Still, I can extend the model with one more heuristic – trying again. I can try again by applying the same force, or by pushing the door with my body’s force (maximal force) if the door didn’t open the first time. In the later case we deal thus with a third heuristic. A fourth heuristic might be to slightly increase the push force. 

When one talks about repeatability of an action a loop is implied with an exist condition - I push the door, it doesn’t open, then I try to apply more force. When just enough force is applied the door opens, and this is the exit criterion from the loop. If after several tries the door doesn’t open, then one has the choice of persisting or of breaking the option – another exit criterion. Typically a few tries are enough, though one might be tempted to try again later, though this behavior might include other drivers and probably the existence of other models. 

One can extend the model by including a door latch and with it adding more heuristics, pushing down/up the latch, if a simple push of the door doesn’t work. With it the number of states increases – latch push down, respectively up. Also here the force applied plays an important role and a loop is implied. The more objects are involved, more complex the model becomes. Of course, one doesn’t need to consider all the heuristics and states, just the more relevant or more probably one. 

On the other side, the model we are trying to build even if reflects to some degree how the mind works, is deeply submerged into our cognitive space to the degree that it become an automatism. However, we can become aware of the entire mechanism as soon we try to describe it into a functional unit, even if the process might not always be that straightforward as we would like to. In addition, the are many elements which we are forced to ignore or simplify. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🔖Knowledge Representation: Defining Mental Models (Part II)

Mental Models Series

Even if a good definition for a concept is available this doesn’t mean that people are able to recognize concept’s characteristics, usage and area of applicability. Therefore, the easiest way to understand what a concept like ‘mental model’ is about is by having one or more representative examples. Even if the examples aren’t always sufficient, they allow us in theory more chances to succeed. With this in mind, let’s consider the scenario of ‘opening a door’. 

If I need to open the door, then I can use the door knob or latch to do that. If I try that and the door doesn’t open, then I might also need a certain key (or one deals with something that isn’t a door, e.g. a false door). Only a specific key will work unless I have a master key which can open any door within the building, though not in other buildings. Supposing that I have other special skills, I could open a locked door with other objects – a big and hard object that will break the door, maybe a picklock, or any other device that will help me achieve that. Otherwise I can call somebody who has the skills or means to do it. I still need to differentiate between the different types of doors, keys or on whether I am or not entitled to enter the building.

We deal thus with a set of objects (doors, keys, knobs, latches, picklock), subjects (doorman, security man, locksmith), actions (opening, breaking, entering), heuristics (trying the knob first, first trying by myself then ask for help) and contexts (am I entitled to open the door?, can I ask for help?) which, when put together form a mental model. If we look at this mix, one can break it down to smaller units – how to open a door, a lock, how to bypass security, how to break a door, etc. All these can be considered as separate mental models which when put within a context or situation can form another mental model. Therefore, the delimitation between mental models is really thin as many mental models overlap or aggregate to handle more complex situations. 

To open a door, one even doesn’t need to know how the objects or subjects are called. Being able to use a language gives us this luxury. In contrast, a cat or a dog can open an unlocked door (when that is possible) and probably there must have some cognitive structure that allows them to recognize that they deal with something that can be opened, how it could be opened, and repeat the action when needed. Of course, they could also mimic behavior they have seen (us opening the door), though there must be a small sprung of intelligence in recognizing that by reaching to the door latch and grabbing it the door will open.

Being able to use language allows us to describe and communicate how to open a door, how to arrive from A to B, how to solve problems, etc. Labeling things and agreeing on the labels with other people helps in the process, to the degree that we can use the respective labels to communicate with people we don’t even know, or cope with unknown situations based on descriptions using the labels we know (e.g. opening a door with a touch key). It helps also that the labels carry with them some characteristics that define them and that characteristics apply to a set of objects sharing them. There are also characteristics that can slightly differ, while upon case these variances can be ignored or make a considerable difference.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🔖Knowledge Representation: Mental Models (Part I: An Early Retrospective)

Mental Models Series

Browsing through the various material available on mental models it’s hard not to observe the frequency with which relatively modern scholastic sources like Craik [46], Johnson-Laird [47] or Boulding [48] are considered as starting points in elaborating the ideas. One is tempted to believe there's nothing else before them. However, as soon one leaves the standard paths of cognitive sciences and adventure on the paths of philosophy or pseudosciences, one is surprised to find a rich of material attempting to describe how the mind perceives, represents und understands reality, respectively the phenomena we deal with. 

One can agree that Craik’s work was a milestone within this context, as he considered that organisms and not only humans carry ‘small-scale model’ of external reality (aka mental models). However the term can be rooted back to antiquity if we consider Aristotle’s phantasmata (mental images) - perceptual states without matter used by intellect to think and associated with the imagination faculty [4] [5]. Similar interpretations appear in Augustinus [8], Avicenna [9] [10] [11], Maimonides [12], Aquinas [13] and much later St. Thomas [14] or Spinoza’s [16] works. Probably many of these sources have as direct or indirect source Aristotle’s work.

One can be entitled to suppose that there are also earlier similar attempts to explain how the mind reflects the reality, for example Plato’s 'images of beauty' [3] and model of resemblance [2]. Further early references are met in the works of Cicero [6] or Plotinus’ Enneads [7]. The available translations are maybe copies that haven’t kept the original or the meaning were adapted to modern times. References to the 'eye of the mind' or the 'thinking soul' are indicators for such attempts, typically in the context of treating imagination and perception themes.

One should not neglect the scriptures of the East, probably the earliest knowledge sources which attempted to describe metaphorically the inner workings of the mind. Patañjali 'Yoga Sūtras' [1] is maybe the best-known example of such sources, available in various translations with rich commentaries. Despite its character of pseudoscience and its interpretational complexity, the depth of the work could provide food for thought for the scientist and nonscientist altogether.

Hobbes [15], Berkely [17] [18], Hume [19], Reid [21] or Coleridge’s [22] [23] works seem to be more elaborated and have the advantage of eliminating the translator from the process, being to some degree easier to consume, despite the complex logical constructs of the literary style and the muddy character of the advanced ideas. In opposition with them, Kant [20] and later Nietzsche’s [25] works form the groundwork on which the modern German and European philosophy was built upon. Kant and  Nietzsche’s schemas and schemata reflect the purposeful and structural character of such representations when associated with concepts.

Starting with Helmholtz’s 'Anschauungsbild' [24] (mental image) the term starts being use by scientists like Hertz [26] [31], Boltzmann [29] [35], Heisenberger [44] or Dirac [43] in respect to the modelling of phenomena. In parallel the works of Galton [27], Frege [28] [39], James [30], Peirce [32] [37] [38], Bergson [33], Wundt [34], Ribot [36], Wittgenstein [40], Freud [41], Piaget [42] or Sartre [45] represent a new wave into the development of cognitive sciences. It’s a really long list of precursors, probably incomplete, and ignoring them in the detriment of Craik, Johnson-Laird, Boulding, or any others, is an injustice made to the former.

Whether one talks about phantasmata, (mental) images, pictures, models or representations, schema, schemata, diagrams, conceptual schemes/models, or frames, they are all metaphors with similar meaning. It’s important to stress the fact that the metaphors used across the centuries and geographies reflect also the vocabulary available and the languages used to express them. The deeper one dives into the early ages’ cultural heritage, the more one discovers such metaphors. Unfortunately, without appropriate keys to decipher them and minds to explore them, the sources can become lost in the thread of time. 

References (the quotes are available here):

[1] Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali, cca. 500 BC-400 CE

[2] Plato, “The Symposium", cca. 385–370 BC)
[3] Plato, “Timaeus”, 360 BC

[4] Aristotle, "De Anima" III, cca. 350 BC

[5] Aristotle, “De Memoria et Reminiscentia” [On Memory and Recollection], 4th century BC

[6] Marcus Tullius Cicero, "De Natura Deorum" ["On the Nature of the Gods"], 45 BC

[7] Plotinus, “Enneads”, cca. 270 AD

[8] Aurelius Augustinus, "The City of God", early 400s

[9] Avicenna Latinus [Ibn Sina], "A Compendium on the Soul", cca. 996-997

[10] Avicenna Latinus [Ibn Sina], "Liber De anima", cca. 1014-1027

[11] Avicenna Latinus [Ibn Sina], "Pointer and Reminders", cca. 1030

[12] Moses Maimonides, “The Guide for the Perplexed”, 1190

[13] Saint Thomas Aquinas, “De Anima” III, cca. 1268

[14] John of St. Thomas, “Tractatus de signis”, 1632

[15] Thomas Hobbes, “Leviathan”, 1651

[16] Baruch Spinoza, "Ethics", 1677

[17] George Berkeley, "Principles of Human Knowledge", 1710

[18] George Berkeley, "Three Dialogues", 1713

[19] David Hume, “Treatise of Human Nature”, 1738

[20] Immanuel Kant," Critique of Pure Reason", 1781

[21] Thomas Reid, "Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man", 1785

[22] Samuel T Coleridge, "On the Principles of Genial Criticism", 1814

[23] Samuel T Coleridge, "The Statesman's Manual", 1816 

[24] Hermann von Helmholtz, "Tonempfindungen" ["Sensations of Tone"], 1863

[25] Friedrich Nietzsche, "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense", 1873

[26] Heinrich Hertz, "The Facts in Perception", 1878

[27] Francis Galton, “Mental imagery”, 1880

[28] Gottlob Frege, "The Foundations of Arithmetic", 1884

[29] Ludwig E Boltzmann, “On the Significance of Theories”, 1890

[30] William James, “The Principles of Psychology”, 1890

[31] Heinrich Hertz, “The Principles of Mechanics Presented in a New Form”, 1894

[32] Charles S Peirce, “Kinds of Reasoning”, cca. 1896

[33] Henri Bergson, "Matter and Memory", 1896

[34] Wilhelm M Wundt, “Outlines of Psychology”, 1897

[35] Ludwig Boltzmann, "On the development of the methods of theoretical physics", 1899

[36] Théodule-Armand Ribot, "Essay on the Creative Imagination", 1900

[37] Charles S Peirce, “Fallibility of Reasoning and the Feeling of Rationality”, cca. 1902

[38] Charles S Peirce, “On Existential Graphs, Euler's Diagrams, and Logical”, 1903 

[39] Gottlob Frege, [in "On the Foundations of Geometry and Formal Theories of Arithmetic" 1971] cca. 1903-1909

[40] Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”, 1922

[41] Sigmund Freud, "The Ego And The Id", 1923

[42] Jean Piaget, "The Language and Thought of the Child", 1926

[43] Paul A M Dirac, "The Principles of Quantum Mechanics", 1930

[44] Werner K Heisenberg, "The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory", 1930

[45] Jean-Paul Sartre, “The Psychology of Imagination”, 1940)

[46] Kenneth Craik, “The Nature of Explanation”, 1943

[47] Kenneth E Boulding, "The Image: Knowledge in life and society", 1956

[48] Philip Johnson-Laird, "Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness", 1983

🔖Knowledge Representation: Beyond Mental Models (Part III)

Mental Models Series

Meaning is perceived, internalized, processed, externalized and communicated in, respectively by the mind through language. The morphological, syntactical and semantical structures as well the richness of the language(s) acquired have a considerable impact on our capability to describe and understand reality. Our mental space and structures evolve with the natural and diagrammatic languages used, the units of the language mapping to the units of our mental space.

At the base of any language are a set of signs and sounds we can easily recognize. Signs are written or printed marks that have standard meanings, while sounds are specific impressions we hear and which in given arrangements, when recognized, convey meanings. Signs together with shapes and objects form symbols that can be used to represent something else, their meaning being usually standardized, however one can assign them further meanings or create own symbols.

A word is a single unit of language that has meaning and can be spoken or written. Words are further grouped within expressions, sentences, propositions or phrases to convey a thought or idea, which are in turn further aggregated in simile, analogies, metaphors, parables and stories to convoy further meanings. A phrase is formed from multiple sentences that together convoy a certain meaning. An expression is a word or group of words used in a given situation or by particular people. A proposition is interpreted as either true or false.

A simile is the use of an expression that compares one thing with another using ‘as’ or ‘like’ in comparisons. An analogy is a comparison between things that have similar features or behavior, often used to help explain a principle or idea. A metaphor is an expression that describes one thing with the help of another thing considered to have similar characteristics. A parable is a short, simple story that teaches or explains an idea or truth, where a story is a description of a connected series of events and situations, either true or imagined.

Similes, analogies and metaphors are linguistic devices that add richness and further dimensions to our mental processes and meaning structures, from a literature as well a scientific aspect, if we consider that many of the scientific concepts are metaphors per se.    

Words or combinations of words can be used as labels for a concept. The totality of the words assimilated – for which a meaning is available – forms our vocabulary. Similes, analogies, metaphors, parables and stories can help clarify and enrich the meaning of a concept.

A phrase can attempt to describe a mental model, while a mental model can be built to understand or describe a phrase, however the two are not equivalent. In fact, to describe a model will be needed to describe its elements and the relations existing between them, together with the assumptions, beliefs and the constraints that hold. Often, despite the richness of a natural language’s vocabulary a description might need to use metaphors to convey an approximate meaning.

The given definitions are simplistic attempting to reflect the simplicity of the associations we hold between the various concepts, and together, concepts, associations and the meanings we hold form a mental model. Of course, the inner workings of the mind are much more complex, evidence for this complexity being the huge volume of books written over the centuries for the same purpose. There are also many intentional and unintentional gaps and probably misunderstandings, however the definitions are just an attempt to depict my understanding in the form of an externalized mental model. Luckily our mental models don’t need to be accurate in handling the reality and accomplishing the various tasks.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Disclaimer: Most of the definitions were adapted from the Cambridge Dictionary, however there can be important deviations from the respective source.

🔖Knowledge Representation: Beyond Mental Models (Part II)

Mental Models Series

One can regard the mind as a mirror which mirrors what a person perceives, however the representations don’t necessarily reflect the reality faithfully, but are simplified to the degree we are able to incorporate the reality within our mental structures and their content. We can assume that the mind represents to some degree the physical as well the inner reality, such representations being hold within the mental space – the combined aggregation of such representations. Of interest are especially mental space’s basis units and their further aggregations.

The most important unit is the one of concept. A concept is an idea having a given meaning or set of meanings, considering that concepts can have different meanings when framed in different contexts, where the context is the situation or frame in which the specific meaning can be extrapolated. A concept can be associated with multiple language-specific and context-dependent labels, where a label can be a symbol, a name or a phrase used to identify the concept. The labels associated with a concept belong to the same class of meaning as they point to the same meaning.

Meaning is by itself a unit, denoting the (personal) interpretations we associate with perceptions, concepts, symbols, events, beliefs, opinions, thoughts, understandings or aggregates of them. Meaning is formed rather by the relations existing between these elements and the place they occupy in the network formed by their relations. Think of a complex network of such components in which the associations between the components together with the components allow us grouping them together in units (of meaning), which by aggregation can form further units over and over.

Typically, a unit of meaning is associated with a concept within a given context. Meaning is created within this complex network, each change in the network having the potential to result in a change of meaning that can further propagate into the network and lead thus to further changes, though usually the changes and their impact are small, almost neglectable.

Another type of unit of meaning is represented by the mental models we form to explain, describe or model reality’s phenomena. When one attempts externalizing a mental model into a form of representation then it becomes an external model, multiple external models may thus result depending on the level of abstraction or understanding used. A mental model has the role of delimiting the scaffold that attempts explaining the concept. The essence of understanding a concept is having a mental model that reflects the structure of that concept and the meanings associated with it.

In the attempt to understand the reality, we are forced to advance theories on how the phenomena work. A theory is a reasonable explanation for facts, conditions and events carrying with it the various assumptions (ideas accepted as true) and beliefs we hold, directly or indirectly. A theory can be associated with one or more models, and thus further with mental models.

Several (mental) models can be grouped within a broader structure called a view, structure that reflects our beliefs on how one or more related concepts depict the reality. When the concepts represent the backbone of a domain then the view becomes a worldview. When together with the (mental) models are considered the theories as well other tools used in the process one talks about a paradigm. Paradigm shifts involve fundamental changes in the basis concepts, theories or models of a domain, and thus can a greater impact within our networks of meaning.

The concepts considered by all these (meta-)structures have a representation also within our mental space, even if the space can’t be clearly delimited.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Disclaimer: Most of the definitions were adapted from the Cambridge Dictionary, however there can be important deviations from the respective source.

🔖Knowledge Representation: Beyond Mental Models (Part I)

Mental Models Series

Many definitions can be quite abstract, especially those that attempt defining abstract things like a mental model, however, definitions are essential in obtaining a common ground to understand the concepts used. There are many attempts to define what a mental model is, however, to understand its place within the mental space is needed to describe at high-level how the mind works, in other words to create a mental model for it.

Probably the most important delimitation that needs to be made is the one between the physical and mental reality. The physical reality refers to the state of things as they are outside the mind, typically in the environment we live in, in opposition to the inner reality – the world of the mind, and on how the physical reality is perceived, imagined and reflected by the mind.

Reality concerns given environments and their main constituents – objects, situations, events, facts, and phenomena associated with it. The environment is the physical or mental space in which something exists or takes place. An object is an inanimate, animate or mental thing that can be perceived, a pattern that allowed us drawing a boundary around it. An event is something that happened, happens or will happen. A fact is something that is known to have happened or to exist. A situation is a set of things that are happening, respectively the conditions that exist in environment. A phenomenon is an observable fact, situation or event.

An object can refer to a single thing or a group of related or connected things part of the environment, or to the whole environment. A group of related things can form a class, while a group of connected things between which exists certain dependencies can be regarded as a system. Within the group, the arrangement and organization of the elements depict groups’ structure. By arrangement is denoted how the elements are ordered or positioned in respect to each other, while by organization the relations existing between the elements.

In addition, one can discuss about patterns, the way in which something is done, organized, or happens, as well about configuration, the arrangement or pattern identified at a given moment, respectively about form, the shape or appearance of something. A state is a given configuration from the total combination of configurations possible, while a condition is a state that imposes a limitation.

Perception is the quality of being aware of things through the physical senses, especially sight, involving the ability to notice and understand things. Experience is what we gain in the direct interaction with the reality, the physical objects by observing the phenomena. Knowing is the ability to process information and manipulate symbols to experience the world, generating in the process further information and symbols that describe our experience. Understanding is the ability to make experience meaningful and useful in form of structures of meanings (aka understandings) to the degree that the experience can be reused in similar situations.

Thinking is the process of using understandings to arrive to new understandings, thought being the act of thinking as well the unit of thinking expressed as an idea. Beliefs are understandings we consider as true, while opinions are thoughts or beliefs one has on specific matters. An idea is an understanding, thought, belief or opinion.

Reasoning is the process of using facts to arrive to new facts or understandings. Intuition is the understanding or knowing of something without needing to think or reason about it. Imagination is the ability to form new concepts, ideas or mental models in the mind, independently whether they exist, whether they are valid or true.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Disclaimer: Most of the definitions were adapted from the Cambridge Dictionary, however there can be important deviations from the respective source.

🔖Knowledge Representation: Defining Mental Models (Part I: A Definition)

Mental Models

A mental model (aka mental representation/image/picture) is a mental structure that attempts to model (depict, imagine) how real or imaginary things look like, work or fit together. Thus, a mental model can correspond to an object, idea, a collection of information, objects or ideas, or anything else, concrete or abstract, that the mind is thinking about [1] consciously or unconsciously. The mental structure behaves likes an ‘analogical representative’ of the thing envisioned [2] being an abstraction as certain characteristics are eventually left out, either because are irrelevant, poorly understood, not perceived or simply forgotten.

A mental model is a blend of mental content – beliefs, assumptions, concepts, meanings, thoughts, intuitions, ideas, icons, symbols, analogs, metaphors, memories and even psychological or spatial-temporal contexts, together with the relationships existing between them.  I tend to believe that a mental model doesn’t necessarily have a definite structure within our mental space given the dynamics nature of its components. We are talking here about multiple substrata of meaning that can move beneath as the currents of a sea without the sailor being aware of it. The beneath currents are nothing but pulls, pushes and swings of the mental processing taking place inside the mind.

Even if they appear to have unity, mental models are rather amorphous or multifold. The unity is apparent, derived from their iconic aspect – when we look from above, they seem to have unity, however when we look under microscope at them the unity dissipates into the multitude of relations. To delimit a mental model’s structure one can make a cut when the relationships become weaker and weaker however also this weakness is apparent. Moreover, the mental space seems to be a combination, recombination, aggregation and overlapping of mental models that resemble the structure of a hypergraph.

A mental model is also a mechanism of explaining how the mind works, how it can perceive and represent reality, think, imagine, etc. Therefore, the mental models we hold are mainly unconscious unless we make them conscious when we start to evaluate their structure, delimitate their boundaries in one form or another, respectively identify the effect they have on us.

When one attempts to externalize a mental model into a form of representation then it becomes an external model, however it might need several adjustments spread over several iterations before it can become self-contained. During this process our internal model might change as well as new understanding is gained, as gaps in understanding are filled with facts, assumptions or other mental content.

In reverse, one attempts understanding a model, the internal projection being one or more mental models depending on our understanding and its various interpretations we depict. This might happen unconsciously as we acquire knowledge or the mind does its inner workings, or consciously when an active component is involved – playing with the model, analyzing its advantages, disadvantages, areas of applicability, presumptions, etc.

Some suppose that there’s a one-to-one mapping between an external and a mental model, thing which is not necessarily true. A many-to-many relation is more plausible considering that there can be multiple interpretations of an external model, and a mental model can result in multiple external models with different abstraction levels.

Several resources consider the mental models only as representations of external things though they can be also representations of fictitious things or even processes that take place within the mind. In the end, mental models are mental analogs of physical models as they attempt to abstract some of the important features of the reality or some aspects of it. Moreover, many of the characteristics of external models apply to mental models as well.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Resources:
[1] Anders Ericsson & Robert Pool (2016) "Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise"
[2] Jean-Paul Sartre (1940) "The Psychology of Imagination"

🔖Knowledge Representation: Mental Models’ Fallacies (Part III: Professional Defects)

Mental Models

We perceive and interpret the world also through the knowledge and beliefs of our profession as many of the mental models we’ve acquired derive or relate to it. These mental models can help us make better sense of the quotidian life, however they can become a burden when they make us start ignoring or misinterpreting some (important) aspects of it.

This typically happens when the mental models derived from our profession lose their validity or accuracy when translated automatically from one environment to another, especially when we aren’t aware of the implications of this extension and the effect it has on us. When this happens, we can talk about a fallacy I arrived to know as a ‘professional defect’.

For example, a mathematician or somebody with strong mathematical background arrives to think of the world around him in terms of probability for an event to happen. On one side this can prove as a powerful tool to quantify and predict certain events, and evaluate complex situations, though might make the person ignore the area of impossible, expressed maybe in opportunities with small chances to happen, opportunities that when considered could have a huge impact on his live.

Not far from the previous example, a philosopher builds in his mind a world of ideas, and sooner or later arrives to evaluate the world around and his personal interactions with the world based on the philosophical currents he adheres to. No matter how complete and well-established a philosophy is, it’s a human based system of beliefs and models, with its loops and wholes. Sooner or later the philosopher will find himself trapped in the threads of his own philosophy as long he applies it too deep und unaware into his personal life. From this perspective it will be hard for a philosopher to be happy and content with his life.

A psychologist or somebody with a similar background may arrive to judge the people outside his praxis based on the traits they reveal. A doctor may start to see in people the predispositions to or existence of a given disease, arriving maybe to judge people based on certain health predispositions. A dentist might start evaluating people based on the denture they have. An artist may treat as inferior people those who don’t exhibit any artistic skills. Each profession comes with its own type of similar fallacies.

We spend an important part of our lives at work or thinking about work. For sure, models’ transition from professional to personal life may seem natural as the professional life extends itself sometimes beyond the borders of our profession – some coworkers become our friends, we spend more and more time in communities related to our profession. Moreover, we meet same type or similar situations in which the models we learned seem to apply naturally.

The problem comes usually when we ignore that we deal with a different type of environment with its own characteristics, with different groups of people having higher diversity reflected in their beliefs, skillset, hobbies, expectations and other characteristics than the ones we typically meet in professional life. An environmental change implies also changes of assumptions, setups, behavior, rules, aims, etc. When we are not aware of these nuances, then more likely we don’t adapt our models to the new situations derived from such changes.

It’s important to identify the professional defects we hold, especially those that have a considerable impact on our lives, become aware of them and address the feedback we receive accordingly. It’s up to us to do the work, to challenge and adapt our models as the environment changes.

Previous Post <<|>> Next Post

Note:
This was adapted after an older post on professional defects.

🕸️Web x.0: From Einstein to Web's Challenges

I read yesterday a short humorous biography of Einstein [1] and, even if relatively well-written, combining some facts from Einstein’s life with a few comical exaggerations and wordplays, in the end it left a sour taste. When put in a broader context, the respective piece adds to the volume of false information available on the Web. Therefore, I felt the need to share with you a few personal observations made during the past decade.

The average Web user seems to be more interested in being entertained than learning interesting facts or information. This seems to be reflected also in the material shared on the social medias – a silly cat, dog or situation have the potential of bringing more likes than a well-written piece of fiction or non-fiction, and this by several factors of magnitude. On one side, this reflects the needs for shorter pieces of “useful” content, while on the other side, it kind of reflects the superficiality of the average consumer, superficiality sometimes understandable though.

It’s also true that for a writer it’s easier to exploit some superficial facts, especially when they can become good material for a piece of work. Digging for the truth or truthful content takes time and quite an effort, considering the number of sources that need to be consulted and the information that needs to be extracted, aggregated and put to good use. To make the truth or information understandable by the average reader, the writer needs to find the right words, ideas, metaphors and representational forms.

It’s much easier to denigrate or joke about than constructing something meaningful, than building a piece of work that can make a difference. Unfortunately, the quality of the information available on the Web decreased during the past years and it became more and more difficult to find useful and reliable content. Of course, I find it good that people attempt expressing their creativity and sharing their knowledge, however lot of the content is poorly written and questionable.

Sometimes fiction, especially through its comical and story-like character, has more power to be outspread over the social media, enlarging the volume of myths or half-truths available on the Web. Even if human can still in theory differentiate between fictitious content and facts, for machines it will be difficult to bridge the gap. The greater the gap between the two the higher the risk of the gap having a bigger impact on the information and knowledge repository consumed by our society.

Unfortunately, the social networks and their characteristics started to be exploited for various purposes, purposes sometimes found at the border of morality. The social platforms seem to be disinterested in answering timely to behavior that has the potential to be dangerous, and typically react late, sometimes even too late, when the respective behavior became already a problem. When not treated timely, it will become more difficult to countermeasure the effects the respective problems have directly or indirectly on our lives.

The problem resides not only with the social platforms but also with the organizations responsible for monitoring and addressing the flagrant deviations from common-sense. Sure, it’s understandable that some policies take time, especially when are considered the political, economic and social aspects – aspects reflected also in the complex relations existing between these areas and the various ecologies existing within. It’s maybe difficult to define policies that don’t trench upon individual’s freedom of expression, however a way must be found – otherwise the problems will widespread and impact our society considerable.

The next decade will bring its challenges and opportunities – from a spectator’s perspective it will be interesting to watch and ponder.

References:
[1] New Yorker (2019) Einstein: The Untold Story, by Hart Pomerantz [Online] Available from: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/06/einstein-the-untold-story/amp

🔖Knowledge Representation: Mental Models’ Fallacies (Part II: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecies)

Mental Models Series

It’s in human nature to simplify the world around us, to identify patterns of behavior and to categorize further behavior based on the beliefs, perceived patterns and mental models we form. Furthermore, we tend to look for cues that accustom our believes, even if the cues aren’t there, and we find ourselves in the position of modifying the “reality” as it seems fit. The mental models we live by are powerful because they allow us identifying, explaining, handling and predicting situations we are confronted with almost in automatic modus. These models can prove to be useful in a range of situations, however their power has a double effect on us, as they can prove to be damaging for ourselves as well for the others.

As Thomas Jefferson remarked “the moment a person forms a theory [or mental model], his imagination sees, in every object, only the traits which favor that theory”. The mental models are used to filter the information around, and to reinforce the beliefs in respect to the formed models. We attempt to predict certain outcome and behavior, and, through our behavior and reasoning, we attempt to support the beliefs and facts behind the prediction, forcing the prediction to become true. It’s what is known metaphorically as a self-fulfilling prophecy, considering that a prediction can be considered as a prophecy and the person making the prediction kind of a prophet for his own world.

Wikipedia defines a self-fulfilling prophecy as “a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior” [2]. According to Robert Merthon, the first who coined the concept, “the self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true” [1]. The false definition can result from false or incomplete information, false assumptions, wrong identification of the context, and in the end from the limitations of the available models.

Unfortunately, the people who suffer the most from this fallacy are not the originators but the people around, and this from the early years of their childhood, when based on certain misconceptions their capabilities are evaluated and reinforced on them. It starts with the parents and the people found in the extended circle of their family, by teachers and later by colleagues or managers. However, the most influential time is the one spent in school, where teachers’ perceptions and behavior determine to high degree students’ performance.

When a teacher repeatedly declares about a student that he’s stupid or makes similar statements with negative effect, the student will either start believing them, question teacher’s judgment and event attempt proving that the teacher is wrong. It's deplorable when no matter of student’s effort the teacher persists in his impression(s) and further supports them. - in time the student will accept the situation and in extremis will stop trying. Unfortunately, the educational setup favors such scenarios.

When the originators persist in their mistakes then the fallacy can impact their lives as well as their behavior can be recognized by others as unjust, discriminatory, immature, etc. Feedback can prove to be helpful to identify that one has a problem, though usually it comes late. One’s chance is to become aware of his presumptions, reasoning and mental models one brings forth into the world and the effect they have on other people. Through effort, awareness, adaptation of the models, and continuous feedback, one can escape this circle of misconceptions and this might pay off, because in the end we reap what we sow.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post  

References:
[1] Robert K Merton (1948), "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy" , The Antioch Review Vol. 8 (2), [Online] Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4609267
[2] Wikipedia (2018) Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, [Online] Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy