[MilanoCookie]

1. For trying to explain riding a bike, that just shows the difficulty in describing how to coordinate and move your body parts. A software engineer can clearly explain why the code looks good, which is then clearly understood by anyone who has basic technical understanding. Implying this is some abstract phenomenon that you “just feel” sounds like witchcraft.

2. This Shane Parrish guy seems to be a practitioner hence he’s explaining the mental models to us. Or at least he’s relaying the information from folks like Charlie Munger, but the point is we are getting useful information that originated from practitioners.

3. Yes they are useful as guard rails for practice. I wouldn’t say that’s the only thing they’re good for, but even if that were true, I’d say that provides decent value.

[shadowsun7]

Hey, thanks for the comment! You should probably read the full post, though, as it pre-emptively deals with all three observations you've raised.

[MilanoCookie]

Your pre-emptive details may have been valid but your conclusions have been refuted.

We can read about mental models and then put them to use. You seem to be saying that is not possible.

[shadowsun7]

Are you sure that’s what I’m saying?

[MilanoCookie]

Your conclusions are entirely false. It’s obvious that any human can explain to another human how their thought process works and what their reasoning behind decisions were. You’re just wrong, and you spent a lot of time writing up conclusions that don’t make sense.