思考的框架：席捲華爾街的思維鍛鍊，減少盲點與認知偏誤，把經驗提煉成智慧 by Shane Parrish

思考的框架：席捲華爾街的思維鍛鍊，減少盲點與認知偏誤，把經驗提煉成智慧 Reviews

• 
  Simon Eskildsen

  If you've read Charlie Munger's Almanack this is the book you deeply crave in its wake. Shane's done a wonderful job over the past few years making mental models approachable through FS.blog. A mental model is a way to look at a problem through a certain lense: an economist will look at a problem one way, a biologist another, and a statistician yet another. Learn the big ideas from the big disciplines and you'll be able to twist and turn problems in interesting ways at unprecedented speeds. His blog already documents a subset of models, but in this book Shane goes in even more depth with rich examples of each under the umbrella of 'General Thinking Concepts', e.g. Occam's Razor. This is the first in a 5-part series: the encyclopedia of the big ideas from the big disciplines. One that I hope to be recognizable on bookshelves around the world. You owe yourself this book.
• 
  Philip Joubert

  I listened to the audiobook, which Shane unfortunately narrated. He's super smart but a terrible narrator and it sounds like he's actually bored reading his own book.
  
  The content is not super well presented, but the mental models themselves are super good. Here are a few of them:
  
  Maps are not the territory - All models are wrong, but some are useful
  1. Reality is the ultimate update
  2. Consider the cartographer
  3. Map can influence territory
  
  Circle of competence
  If you want to improve your odds of success in life and business then define the perimeter of your circle of competence, and operate inside. Over time, work to expand that circle but never fool yourself about where it stands today, and never be afraid to say “I don’t know.”
  
  Inversion - Approach situation from opposite end of the natural starting point
  
  Occam's razor - simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones. "When you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras"
  
  Hanlon's razor - Don't attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity. It's less likely for two things to be true than one
• 
  Carl Rannaberg

  This is what non-fiction books should aspire to be like. Informative, concise, universal, practical, visual, sharing stories and examples for context etc.
  This book consists of 9 mental models which can be used to better understand the world and make smarter decisions. It references numerous books and other resources where you can dig deeper.
  This book is the first volume of the series and covers these mental models:
  1. The map is not the territory
  2. Circle of competence
  3. First principles thinking
  4. Thought experiment
  5. Second-order thinking
  6. Probabilistic thinking
  7. Inversion
  8. Occam’s razor
  9. Hanlon’s razor
  Definitely a must-read if you’re into universal multi-disciplinary thinking.
  Unfortunately it’s currently available only from Audible (print volume of 3000 is sold out). In autumn it will be released in Kindle form and probably a new print version also. I read it as hardcover which was beautifully designed and very high quality.
• 
  Robin Jose

  This book does not necessitate an extensive review.
  
  Here’s an easy way to sum it up:
  - a lengthy introduction on the benefits of mental models
  - a motley collection of mental models thrown around, with hardly any insights or application
  
  I guess this is one of those books which takes even less time to write that it takes to read it. That about sums it up.
  
• 
  Yrjo Ojasaar

  Short introduction of a few popular mental models to provide you with some basic prisms of analysis. Snack-size and superficial (Blinkist style) - so it should be accessible for absolutely everyone.
• 
  Lup

  Short, but good foundations.
  
  Notes below:
  
  Mental Models book, by Shane Parris:
  *
  Keep in contact with reality if you want to draw strength
  *
  We usually are in the way of ourselves, because of our blindspots
  
  *
  1. Not having the right perspective or vantage point
  
  *
  Be open to other perspectives
  *
  2. Ego-induced denial
  
  *
  We have too much investment in our opinion, and discredit other's points of view
  *
  We don't benefit from the world's knowledge as much as we want
  
  *
  1. We fear what others will think if we put ourselves out there, and subject ideas to criticism
  
  *
  If you never seek different ways to be wrong, you will never be wrong
  *
  2. We become defensive of our ideas, instead of trying to upgrade them
  *
  3. Distance from consequences of our decisions
  
  *
  If the consequences of our actions are far away, it's easier to stay with our current views, habits and methods than update them
  *
  "A man that has committed a mistake, and is not correcting it, is committing another mistake." ~ Confucius
  *
  Model example: Gravity (physics, influence, marketing, etc.)
  *
  Flawed models are not only useless, they are damaging and cause harm
  
  *
  Most models are wrong
  *
  Flawed models compound together
  *
  Understanding reality is the name of the game.
  *
  ---paused---
  *
  Buckets of knoweldge
  
  *
  1. Inorganic systems (Physical universe)
  *
  2. Organic systems (Genetic)
  *
  3. Human history (Cultural and Memetic)
  *
  Maps are not the territory
  
  *
  All models are wrong, but some are useful
  *
  1. Reality is the ultimate update
  *
  2. Consider the cartographer
  *
  3. Map can influence territory
  *
  Circle of competence
  
  *
  Not static, the world is dynamic
  *
  1. Curiosity to learn
  *
  2. Monitoring
  *
  3. Feedback
  *
  Socratic questioning
  
  *
  1. Clarifying your thinking and explaining the origins of your ideas (Why do I think this? What exactly do I think?)
  *
  2. Challenging assumptions (How do I know this is true? What if I thought the opposite?)
  *
  3. Looking for evidence (How can I back this up? What are the sources?)
  *
  4. Considering alternative perspectives (What might others think? How do I know I am correct?)
  *
  5. Examining consequences and implications (What if I am wrong? What are the consequences if I am?)
  *
  6. Questioning the original questions (Why did I think that? Was I correct? What conclusions can I draw from the reasoning process?)
  *
  The power of Why -
  
  *
  The 5 why's
  *
  Thought experiments
  
  *
  Historical changes
  *
  Veil of ignorance - You don't know who you will be in society, but you start out as someone random. How do you like society to be.
  
  *
  Conservatives focus on the self
  *
  Nationalists focus on the people in the nation
  *
  Liberals focus on flattening the chances for everyone, to make it fair
  *
  Trolley problem
  *
  Neccesary vs sufficient
  
  *
  Luck plays a big role
  *
  For greatness, you need more than luck and the basic ingredients
  *
  First-order thinking vs. Second-order thinking
  
  *
  Seeing in perspective and deeply
  *
  Consider unintended consequences
  
  *
  Ex: Snake problem in india - British officials had a snake problem in india, and put bounty on snakeskin. The indians started breeding them for reward, and the original problem got worse.
  *
  "You can never do only one thing with your actions"
  *
  Prioritize long term vs short term
  *
  Constructing effective arguments
  
  *
  What if?
  *
  Put effort in second-order effects
  *
  Care of the slippery slope
  
  *
  In pratical life everything has limits
  *
  Avoid analysis paralysis
  
  *
  Diminishing returns
  *
  Ask "And the what?"
  *
  A little time of thinking ahead can save you massive amounts of time later.
  *
  Think of win-win and trust, don't focus on the short term if you will fail long term
  *
  Probabilistic thinking
  
  *
  Estimate likelihoods of outcomes
  *
  How to do: Roughly identify what matters, assign probability, do a check on a decision, act on it, learn from the experience, update probabilities, repeat
  *
  Future is unpredictable, chaotic and we have imperfect information
  *
  Add in a layer of probability awareness
  *
  3 Concepts of probability
  
  *
  1. Bayesian thinking
  
  *
  How to adjust probabilities with new data?
  
  *
  Take into account what we already know (also probabilities)
  *
  Take into account new information, based on its likelihood (bayes factor)
  *
  2. Fat-tail curves
  
  *
  Ends of bell curves (normal distribution)
  *
  Careful of situations with more extreme events
  *
  Fat-tails = power law distribution
  
  *
  Tails can stretch to the extremes far-far from the median
  *
  How far can it stretch?
  *
  3. Asymetry
  
  *
  meta-probability - the probability that your probability estimates are good
  *
  asymetries - far more probabilities are wrong on one end, than on the other
  
  
  *
  ex
  
  *
  traffic estimates
  *
  investment return estimates
  *
  spyworld
  
  *
  spy's are great at assigning probability to information
  *
  since stakes are high
  *
  officers had to make educated judgements, based on constantly updated factors
  *
  conditional probability
  
  *
  be mindful of dependent events that preceded a piece of information
  *
  antifragile
  
  *
  Those systems that gain from chaos and volatility
  *
  We should strive to be antifragile
  *
  Try to prepare, instead to prepare
  *
  improve your odds
  
  *
  fail properly, to learn
  *
  seek opportunities
  *
  seek motion
  *
  trial and error
  *
  fast iteration
  *
  create scenarios when uncertainty and randomness are your friends
  *
  insurance companies
  
  *
  companies know probability, and fears
  
  *
  they know the right price for profit
  *
  Causation vs Corelation
  
  *
  Bad conclusions
  
  *
  Studies of factors only prove relationships, not that one causes the other
  *
  We misattribute the cause of an effect, when that effect would've happened anyway or because of other things
  *
  Root vs Proximate cause
  
  *
  Correlation coefficient (-1 to 1)
  *
  Regression to the mean
  
  *
  ex: Depressed kids drinking red bull become happier
  
  *
  Why: Depressed kids are an extreme group, so the likelihood of them reverting to the mean is high, and you will see that effect
  *
  It is not the redbull
  *
  that's why you need Control groups
  
  *
  to account for normal regression, by looking at averages and isolating the effect tested
  *
  Inversion
  
  *
  Approach situation from opposite end of the natural starting point
  *
  Start with the end in mind
  *
  How to apply:
  
  *
  1. Identify the problem
  *
  2. Define the objective
  *
  3. Identify forces that move you closer to your objective
  *
  4. Identify forces that move you away from your objective
  *
  5. Strategize a solution, by amplifying #3, and reducing #4
  *
  "We can't see atoms and quarks, but we can assume they exist, predict their behavior, and then test that behavior"
  *
  Think backwards
  *
  Think unconventionally
  *
  Approaches
  
  *
  1. Reduction ad absurdum. Assume the thing is true/false, and see what else changes
  *
  2. Think what you want to avoid, and see options left.
  *
  Example: Bernaise, from the Tobacco companies, made women smoke by riding backwards on the wants of women at the time: Getting slim, replacing deserts with cigarettes, looking fashionable, emancipation of women, making women feel empowered, cigarettes were marketed as torches of freedom, normalized it, made it desirable, shifted entire american public perception
  
  *
  Instead of going straight ahead "How to sell cigarettes to women?", he asked "How can I get women to think cigarettes make you slim?"
  *
  Appeals of indirection
  
  *
  He focused on indirect needs and wants of clients, and focused on that instead
  *
  What to avoid?
  
  *
  example: Index funds avoid bad funds, don't beat the market
  
  *
  avoid on minimizing loss
  *
  avoid on not losing, instead of focusing on wining
  *
  Occam's razor
  
  *
  "When you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras"
  *
  Probabilistic principle, related to number of dependant variables
  *
  If something cannot be broken down, deal with it as is
  *
  Hanlon's razor
  
  *
  Don't attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity
  *
  Fallacy of conjuction / Availability Heuristic
  
  *
  Less likely for two things to be true than one
  *
  Shotgun effect
  *
  Linda experiment
  *
  Alternatively, less likely for people to do something AND wanted to be evil, than doing something AND nothing else assumed
  *
  The Devil Fallacy
  
  *
  Men are constrained by necessity, not by evil
  
  
• 
  Sara Bakhshi

  کتاب به طور کلی شاید چیز جدیدی نمی‌گفت ؛ همون‌طور که اولش خودش هم گفته بود. اما واقعن گاهی نیاز داریم یه سری چیزهایی که میدونیم رو، با دسته بندی درست و بررسی های بهتر دوباره از یه جای دیگه بشنویم/بخونیم.
  البته تو مثال هاش خودم کلی چیز جدید یاد گرفتم.
  یه تیکه هاییشو میذارم بمونه:
  
  داستانی که برنیز برا افزایش فروش سیگار به خانم‌ها راه انداخته بود خیلی توجهم رو جلب کرد:
  طرف شروع کرده بود با تبلیغ اینکه سیگار لاغر میکنه، هماهنگی با رستوران ها که تو منوشون کنار مثلن شیرینیجات چاق کننده به عنوان دسر، سیگار هم بذارن که کسایی که می‌خوان چاق نشن استفاده کنند و هماهنگی با سازنده های کابینت های خونه ها که محلی برا سیگار به طور دیفالت درست کنند و... ادامه داده بود؛ و موفق شد.
  

  Bernays’s efforts to make smoking in public socially acceptable had equally startling results. He linked cigarette smoking with women’s emancipation. To smoke was to be free. Cigarettes were marketed as “torches of freedom.” He orchestrated public events, including an infamous parade on Easter Sunday in 1929 which featured women smoking as they walked in the parade. He left no detail unattended, so public perception of smoking was changed almost overnight. He both normalized it and made it desirable in one swoop.
  

  
  
  بخوایم بگیم منتال مدل چیه خودش یه توضیحی داده بود:
  

  A mental model is simply a representation of how something works. We cannot keep all of the details of the world in our brains, so we use models to simplify the complex into understandable and organizable chunks. Whether we realize it or not, we then use these models every day to think, decide, and understand our world. While there are millions of mental models, some true and some false, these volumes will focus on the ones with the greatest utility—the all-star team of mental models.

  
  
  
  این تیکه برا این‌که چرا یه سری چیز رو یاد نمی‌گیریم هم جالب بود:
  

  The biggest barrier to learning from contact with reality is ourselves. It’s hard to understand a system that we are part of because we have blind spots, where we can’t see what we aren’t looking for, and don’t notice what we don’t notice.
  Our inability to learn from the world because of our ego happens for many reasons, but two are worth mentioning here. First, we’re so afraid about what others will say about us that we fail to put our ideas out there and subject them to criticism. This way we can always be right. Second, if we do put our ideas out there and they are criticized, our ego steps in to protect us. We become invested in defending instead of upgrading our ideas.
  

  
  
  اینرسی ای که آدم داره برا فکر کردن/نکردن
  
  

  ▪ It’s much easier to go on thinking what we’ve already been thinking than go through the pain of updating our existing, false beliefs.
  
  ▪ We also tend to undervalue the elementary ideas and overvalue the complicated ones. Most of us get jobs based on some form of specialized knowledge, so this makes sense. We don’t think we have much value if we know the things everyone else does, so we focus our effort on developing unique expertise to set ourselves apart. The problem is then that we reject the simple to make sure what we offer can’t be contributed by someone else. But simple ideas are of great value because they can help us prevent complex problems.

  
  
  ▪ Understanding only becomes useful when we adjust our behavior and actions accordingly.
  
  

  ▪ We are afraid to learn and admit when we don’t know enough. This is the mindset that leads to poor decisions.

  
  یاپ. همین که میگه.
  
  

  The Map is not the Territory
  ▪ We can’t use maps as dogma. Maps and models are not meant to live forever as static references. The world is dynamic. As territories change, our tools to navigate them must be flexible to handle a wide variety of situations or adapt to the changing times. If the value of a map or model is related to its ability to predict or explain, then it needs to represent reality. If reality has changed the map must change.

  
  
  

  ▪ The reason we have such difficulty with overconfidence—as demonstrated in studies which show that most of us are much worse drivers, lovers, managers, traders (and many other things) than we think we are—is because we have a problem with honest self-reporting. We don’t keep the right records, because we don’t really want to know what we’re good and bad at. Ego is a powerful enemy when it comes to better understanding reality.

  
  
  

  ▪ When it comes down to it, everything that is not a law of nature is just a shared belief. Money is a shared belief. So is a border. So are bitcoin. So is love. The list goes on

  
  
  
  

  Fallacy of Conjunction:
  we’re deeply affected by vivid, available evidence, to such a degree that we’re willing to make judgments that violate simple logic. We over-conclude based on the available information. We have no trouble packaging in unrelated factors if they happen to occur in proximity to what we already believe.

  
  
  

  Failing to prioritize stupidity over malice causes things like paranoia. Always assuming malice puts you at the center of everyone else’s world. This is an incredibly self-centered approach to life. In reality, for every act of malice, there is almost certainly far more ignorance, stupidity, and laziness.
  
• 
  Rick Sam

  So, I came across this work again!
  
  I was reading,
  Regression to Mean
  
  So, I kept reading, and then, I had a deja vu.
  
  I thought, Who wrote this?
  
  a. No, there is no shortcut to cognition
  b. No, you can't master something, without putting Herculean effort into it
  c. Cognition requires patience, consistency, curiosity
  
  So -- How?
  
  If you've read enough Philosophy, this book would come off as subpar.
  
  Philosophy would force you to think.
  Philosophers think, through arguments, issues, methodologies.
  Philosophers go into foundation of knowledge.
  
  Along with it, you will come across theories of epistemology, theory of moral issues.
  And guess what? Philosophers rigorously defend their position, with all kinds of logical tools.
  
  How?
  
  Try an example by,
  formulating your arguments against Swinburne's work
  
  Doesn't matter First-Principle or Abstraction.
  
  You'd be forced to learn how various Philosophers formulate arguments.
  
  So, this promises quick, easy way, No - it doesn't work that way
  
  I'd rather suggest Philosophy books than this book
  
  Irving is a popular textbook.
  
  Try this, to start,
  Aristotle’s logic, Introduction
  
  
  Deus Vult,
  Gottfried
• 
  Nelson Zagalo

  O título induz em erro porque a referir "grandes" parece que o autor fez um trabalho de análise alargado e aprofundado dos modelos mentais e selecionou para este livro apenas um conjunto dos mais relevantes. Contudo, quando lemos o livro percebemos que tudo não passa de um conjunto de ideias que o autor foi apontando a partir da sua experiência, e de algumas leituras, sobre modos de operar em situações de resolução de problemas, tomada de decisão ou resolução de conflitos.
  
  Ora isto quase nem livro se poderia chamar. É antes um guia de ideias gerais e genéricas, ainda que bem intencionadas, mas longe de poderem servir como fonte exaustiva no suporte aos modos de racionalização das pessoas. Claro que precisamos de obras mais diretas, mãos-na-massa, e nem só de academismos se vive, mas então usem-se título mais diretos, como a série de livros "For Dummies", ou pelo menos não centrados na linguagem académica.
  
  Já agora, se tiverem interesse por este assunto, não pela densidade académica que isto exige, mas pelo conhecimento destes modelos mentais aconselho um livro que é apenas uma listagem de modelos sem qualquer pretensiosismo:
  The Decision Book: Fifty Models for Strategic Thinking (2008) de Mikael Krogerus
• 
  Augustin Grigorov

  Not impressed by this book and not just because the narration in the audiobook sounds like it's made to actively try to get you to fall asleep. The "mental models" were really basic and while there were a few grains of good insight here and there it was mostly common sense stuff. What was by far the worst though, were the examples. They felt disconnected and not only not prioving the point but confusing me at times. Not an amazing read.
• 
  Tiago

  Resolvi ler esse depois de ver bastante conteúdo de qualidade na newsletter e nos posts do blog do autor (Farnam Street).
  
  A proposta do livro é trazer alguns frameworks ("Mental Models") para análise de problemas e situações que são transdisciplinares, simplificam a realidade e auxiliam na resolução de problemas.
  
  Tava esperando encontrar Mental Models arrojados, diferentes, que nunca tinha visto antes, mas muito do que o Shane Parrish trouxe já está meio manjado (ex: lâmina de Ockhan, Probabilidade, Inversão).
  
  São poucos os modelos apresentados (uns sete) e parece que em vários momentos o autor forçou a barra para encaixar um episódio histórico, descoberta ou façanha como exemplo de utilização do modelo.
  
  Outro ponto que não curti muito foi a organização do livro. Cada capítulo introduz um modelo mental, mas parece que um capítulo não leva naturalmente ao outro, falta liga, ou uma história legal/cativante para fazer o gancho. Além disso os capítulos tem umas subsessões com "supporting ideas", introduzindo conceitos menores (ex: Causa x Correlação), que apesar de relevantes, nem sempre encaixam bem e quebram o flow da leitura.
  
  Dá pra ver que o Shane tentou enriquecer o livro com várias histórias, figuras e citações. Acho isso super importante em livros de não-ficção para dar tempero e facilitar uma leitura as vezes árida, mas parece que faltou mais pesquisa e esmero pra deixar todos esses elementos bem-encaixados e trabalhados na profundidade correta (um cara que faz isso muito bem é o Malcolm Gladwell), o que acabou deixando a sensação de um livro meio raso, apesar da proposta ser massa.
  
  Ficou parecendo um caso clássico de ideia boa, execução mais ou menos.
  
• 
  Demi Yilmaz

  I recommend only the first chapter of this book. It is the best explanation of mental models and how they work.
  
  Each of the other chapters talk about a specific mental model where just reading a chapter won't even get the reader to understand 1% of what that mental model is. The book is written really well but each of those chapters should be a 20 hour lesson all on its own with examples, practices, assignments and everything a lesson would have.
  
  So while I recommend this book to everyone, I recommend only the first chapter. After understanding what mental models are the reader should focus on each mental model one by one learning it fully in a couple weeks rather than 20 minutes.
  
  I've created a mental model practice list where you can search for the ones you like to learn and practice them
  https://mmpractices.com/
• 
  Kintan

  A must-read book to inform and improve deep thinking and decision making. Shane has done a wonderful job in making useful mental models more approachable and applicable by packaging them in a easy-to-follow format. While much of the content can already be found on the FarnamStreet blog, I prefer the book as it makes these concepts easy to access, consume and reflect.
  
  I am looking forward to the second book in the series of five.
• 
  Mani

  One of the best books I have read. Can’t wait to read the next two books. Big fan of Shane’s blog, podcast and now his books as well.
• 
  Royal Sequeira

  2.5/3
• 
  Vivify M

  I found a lot that I was happy to engage with in this book. I had hoped to find more new ideas, but the subject matter is valuable enough to make up for that.
  
  My biggest gripe with the book was that it felt incomplete. If I understood correctly, this is the first volume in many. But, I couldn't help feeling that I'd paid too much for it.
  
  Somethings I found interesting while reading.
  First was that my definition of mental models was different to the authors. I thought of mental model more as a form of cognitive muscle memory, and metaphors. While the book describes what I would have termed, cognitive tools, or lenses.
  
  I fell into the trap of contaminating my thought on the book, before I'd finished it. After reading the intro, I didn't have a good feeling about the it. Not having good reasons I turned to the Internet - I should have waited. This resulted in a couple of things, it made me more positively disposed because people I respect had good things to say about it. Also after seeing the author engage with a critical review on goodreads, I found myself less willing to be critical.
  
  Another thing which influenced my opinion too emotionally, was the authors references to Nassim's Taleb. While, Taleb has some valuable insights, I am skeptical of people who are taken by him.
  But then he referenced Thuli Madonsela, and my heart sang. Suddenly I was adding a star to my review ;-)
  
  I enjoyed the discussion of slippery slope thinking and analysis paralysis with regard to second order thinking. This was an example were the book shone for me - connecting familiar concepts.
  
  Sighting Sherlock Holmes as example of inversion, didn't sit well with me. I think it made the point, but it's precisely the misuse of inversion in these stories that makes them feel week to me. Sure it's a useful tool, but too often writers use it as a convenient way for super hero detectives to skip directly to the answer.
  
  The IBM turn around story was new to me. I was very happy for that, particularly as it is useful information to me at present.
• 
  Omar

  This was somewhat disappointing. It’s just a plea for autodidacticism, expanding intellectual horizons, diving into new domains, and to think in a multidisciplinary way. It’s about surveying the knowledge landscape in the world to create many mental models in our minds to make better sense of things. The benefits are improved thinking and frameworks of the world, improved problem-solving skills, living a more fulfilled life, etc. The actual content is just a quick hits of other people's ideas from various unrelated domains (i.e. the arts, science, etc) to give you a clue as to how layering knowledge on top of each other creates a multitude of mental models for us to operate with. I think that most educated people and those who read broadly are already this way. Also, internet/technology has accelerated education in this information age so this has seemingly become a necessity. Lastly, humans and intelligent AI in the near to distant future will likely have a wider breadth of mental modules that will make us seem primitive in comparison.
• 
  Michal

  I'm biased here as I have followed Farnam Street's work for quite some time now. I often listen to The Knowledge Project Podcast and I really appreciate what they release.
  
  The book itself is beautiful and I'm glad that I decided to get a physical copy. Its content presents us with only 9 mental models. However, it delivers a lot of examples for each model, with accompanying illustrations and photos, seamlessly blended together.
  
  This is the first volume of the series and it’s focused on general thinking concepts. It’s a great introduction to the world of mental models. Implementing the concepts into our thinking helps us improve our decision making and solve problems better, which is the reason behind the books and the Farnam Street organisation as a whole.
  
• 
  Mirek Jasinski

  I should have read the reviews first, especially the critical ones. Listened to the audiobook and that was tedious (even though it's a short one). One of the reviewers suggested reading articles on Shane Parrish's blog instead, and this seems to be a much better option. Pity, as the title is great!
• 
  Brad Pierce

  I’m so happy this book exists. I’ve read many books on thinking and mental models and heuristics and self-delusions. I feel this series will be the anchor text for acquiring wisdom and not fooling yourself and I can’t wait for the next 3 volumes.
• 
  Phi Unit

  Years of wisdom from a quick weekend read. A good introduction to 9 useful mental models. Design of the hard copy is great.
• 
  Adam

  I'm going to have to revisit this several times, but some really valuable frameworks here. Some new to me, some not.
• 
  Việt Anh Nguyễn Lê

  What was the book about?
  - How to acquire wisdom, to reduce blind spots in our views
  - Brief introduction of some fundamental mental models
  
  Key takeaways:
  - We need to have a multidisciplinary view on every problem, because each of the disciplines hold some truth and none of them contain the hold truth
  - Having only one mental model in your mind when seeing a problem is dangerous, remember "to a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail", but in fact, not everything is a nail.
  
  Personal feeling about the book:
  Explanation of some models in the book did not really satisfy me, and I found some models too naive when applying in our chaotic life. However, I recall what the book was about. It was about having many mental models in our mind. Some models are only true in some specific problems, yet having many of them give us a holistic view.
  To anyone reading this, my review might seems abstract, but the content in the book is easy to understand. The mental models are very basic and they might seem very close to our daily thinking.
• 
  Abdullah

  Mental models help you focus on understanding how things are than how things should be.
  
  Three things need to be considered to use mental models/map better.
  
  a) Reality is the ultimate update: maps/models can become outdated. When reality changes, models should change too.
  
  b) Consider the cartographer: Think about the context in which the map was created.
  
  c) Maps can influence territories: models have limitation. Don't try to overfit it.
  
  Maps, or models, are necessary but necessarily flawed.
  
  Circle of competence
  
  When we operate within our circle of competence, we know what we don't know. We understand what is knowable and what is unknowable and can differentiate between the two.
  
  But this circle is NOT static. To build and maintain a circle of competence, remain curious, monitor your track record, and asses the feedback from your track record.
  
  While outside of your circle of competence, acknowledge you are stranger there and try to learn at least the basics. Beware though it's the basics that give the acquirer unwarranted confidence.
  
  Falsifiability
  
  The idea is If you can't prove something wrong, you can't really prove it right either. Any good theory must have an element of risk to it i.e. it must be able to be proven wrong in certain conditions.
  
  First Principles Thinking
  
  To cut through the dogma in a particular space, use Socratic questioning and the 5-Why's.
  
  5-Why's is children-like behavior to understand something. If you hear things like "it just is" or "because I said so", you have landed on dogma/myth.
  
  Thought experiment
  
  It is useful in:
  
  -Imagining physical impossibilities: Exercises such as The Trolley experiment help us prepare for similarly difficult situations.
  
  -Re-imagining history: Counter-factual narratives can convince us nothing is inevitable in history.
  
  -Intuiting the non-intuitive: John Rawl's "veil of ignorance" may help us formulate policies to build a better society.
  
  Necessity and Sufficiency
  
  To be really successful, hard work is perhaps necessary, but may itself not be sufficient as there are other factors that can come into play. The sufficient set is far larger than the necessary set.
  
  Second-Order thinking
  
  It's easy to anticipate the immediate result of an action. But the second and third order effects can prove to be far more important to consider.
  
  For example, during colonial period, the British wanted to address the cobra epidemic in India and declared rewards for every dead cobra. The locals started breeding cobras and then killed them to receive the rewards. The problem became worse than it initially was for not thinking the second-order effects.
  
  In short, it's the effect of effects. Beware of analysis paralysis though.
  
  Probabilistic Thinking
  
  Three important aspects of probability:
  
  a) Bayesian thinking: Always incorporate all the information you currently have to build your probability estimates.
  
  b) Fat-tailed curves: If the underlying distribution is fat tailed and not normal, it can be disastrous not to take that into account. For example, more people can historically die from stair-slipping than terrorism. But death from stair-slipping is largely normal distribution whereas terrorism related death can have fat-tailed distribution.
  
  c) Asymmetries: It's the probability that your probability estimates themselves are any good.
  
  Most people know correlation is not causation, but almost everyone mistakes or misinterprets correlation as causation. Learn to control this urge.
  
  Inversion
  
  Avoiding stupidity is easier than pursuing brilliance. Two ways to apply inversion:
  
  a) Assume what you're trying to prove is either true or false, then show what else would have to be true.
  
  b) Think deeply about what you want to avoid and see what options then are left.
  
  Here's an example of how inverting your goal can help you make decisions. If you really just want to avoid underperforming the market, investing in index funds perhaps makes more sense to you.
  
  Occam's Razor
  
  The idea is simpler explanations are more likely to be true than complicated ones. While this is mostly true, an important caveat is some things are simply not that simple. Pyramid/Ponzi schemes, for example.
  
  Hanlon's Razor
  
  The idea is try not to attribute to malice which is more easily explained by stupidity. The explanation most likely to be right is the one that contains the least amount of intent.
  
  Kahneman and Tversky posed the following question in 1982: "Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in Philosophy. As a student she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.
  
  Which is more probable?
  
  a) Linda is a bank teller.
  b) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.
  
  Most people chose B over A. But single condition is more likely to be true than multiple conditions. To say it differently, every feminist bank teller is a bank teller, but not every bank teller is a feminist.
  
  Kahneman and Tversky called it the fallacy of conjunction. We get so enamored by vivid narratives that we tend to violate simple logic.
  
  It's a short book, but certainly not short on content!
• 
  Harrison Dempsey

  Loved this. Took me forever to read it because every chapter made me want to sit and noodle on it a bit, so the whole thing took months. I'm glad I read it that way though. It's an excellent book for thinking about thinking and developing new tools and approaches to problem-solving and decision-making. Huge fan, can't wait to get into the other two volumes.
• 
  Jerome

  If you have read any of my other book reviews 1) sorry, I'm basically writing these for myself, I really didn't think anyone was going to read them 2) you'll know that I've referenced Shane Parrish and his fantastic blog farnam street (fs.blog) many times, whether it be from podcasts (Annie Duke - Thinking In Bets) or from book recommendations and his equal obsession with the nonagenarian, Charlie Munger.
  
  I feel like I have been getting dumber as I've grown older and this book is a great kick in the ass on how "not to be brillaint, but avoid stupidity" (brilliant was purposely misspelled in the previous quote for added entertainment. Ha. Ha.)
  
  Each chapter begins with a nice quote, applicable to the chapter which frames each of the mental models well. I was pleasantly surprised to hear (and surprisingly recognize) one of my favorite quotes I learned recently by F. Scott Fitzgerald - "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."
  
  I think that quote sums up this book perfectly. My summary of this book is that it tells you, "hey, you will be wrong, what you do with being wrong is up to you"
  
  Audiobook note: Mr. Parrish is Canadian and reads the book, so if Canadian accents annoy you, do not listen. Also really re-think your viewpoint on Canadian accents, they're lovely.
• 
  John Girard

  Such an important series - and a bit disappointed by the uneven execution. These mental models ARE a path to a better understanding of the world / reality; and to my knowledge they really AREN'T compiled elsewhere in an accessible way. So: this book is very much needed.
  
  Unfortunately, the delivery is a little off (and it really can't be with something like this - the language, examples, etc, have to be incredibly precise to pull it off).
  
  6 stars for how important it is; minus 3 for execution.
• 
  Shane Orr

  I’ve been subscribed to Shane Parrish’s newsletter and following fs.blog for a few years. This is the first in a series of books being published by Shane and the Farnham Street group focusing on mental models, which are thinking concepts that help us make good decisions. This volume covers nine, such as Occam‘s Razor, inversion, probabilistic thinking, and others. It‘s great, essential reading.