When do we update our Mental Models?

Have you ever pondered the precise moment you realized your career path was your true calling? Or why certain songs resonate with you deeply? Perhaps you've questioned why your taste in food evolved over time. Here's the kicker: Emotional attachments can cloud our judgment, obstructing clear vision and preventing us from grasping the root cause of a problem.

In our journey through life, we encounter a multitude of experiences, challenges, and opportunities. Along this path, we develop mental models—frameworks through which we interpret the world around us, make decisions, and navigate complexities. But how often do we stop to consider the validity of these models? When should we update them? These questions are well within the realms of philosophy and psychology, offering insights that can guide us in our personal and professional growth.

Let's examine three common career-decision models that are often discussed in various contexts:

1. the Tiger Woods Model,
2. the Roger Federer Progressive Development Model, and
3. the Whitney Houston Model. Each of these models represents a different approach to specialization and excellence in one's field, influenced by factors such as innate talent, diverse experiences, and environmental influences.

The Tiger Woods Model suggests that early specialization and dedication to a particular discipline can lead to extraordinary success. Tiger Woods himself epitomizes this model, having shown exceptional golfing prowess from a very young age. However, this model raises questions about the pressure to specialize early in life and the potential limitations it imposes on exploration and personal development beyond routine.

Contrastingly, the Roger Federer Progressive Development Model advocates for a more diversified approach. Federer's journey from experimenting with various sports (e.g., pro-wrestling, soccer, skiing, skateboarding etc.) to ultimately excelling in tennis demonstrates the value of broad-based learning and adaptability. This model emphasizes the importance of exploring diverse interests before committing to a specific path—a philosophy aligned with the concept of lifelong learning.

Then there's the Whitney Houston Model, which highlights the influence of surroundings and available opportunities on one's specialization and success. Whitney Houston's early exposure to music in her community and church paved the way for her remarkable singing career. This model underscores the significance of environmental factors and societal influences in shaping individual trajectories—a concept deeply rooted in social psychology.

But beyond these career models lies a broader question: when do we update our mental models?

In philosophy, the notion of epistemology—the study of knowledge and belief—provides valuable insights. Epistemological theories such as foundationalism, coherentism, and pragmatism offer different perspectives on how we acquire and revise our beliefs.

Foundationalism posits that knowledge is built upon a foundation of indubitable beliefs, suggesting that we update our mental models when new foundational truths emerge. Coherentism, on the other hand, argues that beliefs are interrelated and should be assessed for coherence within a broader framework. According to this view, we update our mental models when inconsistencies arise or when new information challenges existing beliefs.

Pragmatism, as championed by philosophers like William James and John Dewey, emphasizes the practical consequences of beliefs. From a pragmatic standpoint, we update our mental models when doing so leads to better outcomes or aligns with our goals and values.

In psychology, cognitive processes such as cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and schema theory shed further light on how and when we update our mental models. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that when faced with conflicting beliefs or information, we are motivated to reduce discomfort by adjusting our mental models. Confirmation bias, on the other hand, leads us to seek information that confirms existing beliefs, potentially hindering the update process.

Schema theory proposes that our minds organize information into mental frameworks or schemas, which shape our perceptions and interpretations. When new experiences challenge existing schemas, we may revise or expand them to accommodate new information.

So, when do we update our mental models? The answer lies at the intersection of philosophy and psychology—where we critically evaluate our beliefs, remain open to new perspectives, and strive for coherence, pragmatism, and adaptability in our thinking.

In a world characterized by rapid change and complexity, the ability to update our mental models becomes essential for personal growth, innovation, and resilience.

In many professional circles, it's not uncommon to encounter prominent scientists and engineers who dismiss certain techniques without fully grasping their mechanics or appreciating their efficacy. For instance, some experts in disciplines such as geostatistics, geophysics, geology and statistics have disregard the potential of machine learning, attributing its utility solely to speeding up processes or identifying superficial patterns lacking substantial value. This tendency to dismiss unfamiliar methodologies extends beyond technical domains and permeates our approach to challenges. When confronted with new situations, do we rely solely on ingrained mental models, or do we remain open to updating them based on evolving circumstances and the perspectives of others?

As I continue with introspection and discovery, ever mindful of the profound words of philosopher Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing", I hope to continue to update my mental models.

This article was inspired by Malcolm Gladwell and David Epstein on Career Decision-Making Insights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaVey1bV5e8&ab_channel=NextBigIdeaClub