What are the differences between how a beneficial, robust mental
model works, versus how robust-yet-harmful mental models (like victim
mentality) or non-robust mental models yet clung-to models work?
I’ve been analyzing mental models a lot
recently.
In particular, how people can have extremely different, yet robust or
at least unyielding mental models, and how each different kind of
mental model
produces different kinds of results.
For instance:
-
Victim mentality is actually an
extremely robust mental model. Individuals who view themselves as
victims – and such individuals are extremely common across societies,
of every sex, race, age, and creed – continually find reason to view
themselves as the recipients of misfortune, find justification for
their models, and receive feedback from
the world that reinforces rather than disabuses them of their models
-
Conversely, what I’d call winner, or success-driven,
individuals also have extremely robust mental models. Individuals who
view themselves as successes tend to be quite good at finding ways to
pull victory out of defeat, at avoiding situations where they would
suffer setbacks, and don’t spend much time dwelling on setbacks, other
than from a problem-solving mentality. As a result, they spend little
time in defeat and quickly dust themselves off even after most
reasonably catastrophic failures
But it’s not just someone’s victim/winner orientation. It’s also the
reliability of his predictions.
For instance, someone who sees himself as a victim has confidence in
his mental model because his predictions are either correct, or he
explains them away if they aren’t. He sees a pretty girl and says,
“Well, she’ll reject me, of course,” and if he approaches and she does
reject him, he says, “See? I knew it. Women always reject me.” If
instead she’s friendly, he’ll be inclined to explain it away: “She
must’ve been drunk” or “She doesn’t really
like me... she was probably just being polite.”
Both victims and winners make predictions and their predictions
either come true, or they attempt to explain to themselves (and others)
why in this case the prediction failed, yet the failure does not
violate their mental model overall. This makes these models robust.
Obviously, if they receive enough
feedback to crash the model, they’ll be forced to reassess. But most
people adopt models that seem to justify their experiences, and avoid
experiences that may invalidate their models.
However, prediction is only the surface here – largely because it
doesn’t give us a way to qualify the differences between different
mental models (like victim and winner mentalities). So we need to add
two more pieces.
I propose any robust, success-oriented mental model is comprised of
three (3) bits:
- Predictive accuracy,
- Confidence in the model, and
- Harmonious choices and outcomes
In a comment
on my article “