Mental Models Flashcards by Thomas Meyer

Wie heißen die zentralen 3 psychologischen Grundbedürfnisse?

Als zentrale psychologische Grundbedürfnisse haben sich in der Forschung die Bedürfnisse nach

„Nähe“ (sich verbunden fühlen),
„Autonomie“ (Dinge beeinflussen können) und
„Kompetenz“ (etwas erfolgreich ausführen können) etabliert.

Tränen fließen immer, wenn zentrale psychologische Grundbedürfnisse nicht erfüllt werden.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Was sind die Big Five (Persönlichkeitsdimensionen) ?

Mit den sogenannten Big Five (Persönlichkeitsdimensionen) erfassen Psychologen die Persönlichkeit eines Menschen:

Extraversion und Introversion
Offenheit für neue Erfahrungen,
Gewissenhaftigkeit (wie nachlässig oder gründlich jemand arbeitet),
Verträglichkeit (wie kooperativ oder streitlustig jemand ist) und
Neurotizismus (wie sehr jemand angespannt ist oder in sich ruht).

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Quid-pro-quo-Strategy (Tit-for-tat-strategy)

Tit for tat is a strategy which, according to game theory, is the most effective choice for iterated games based on mutual cooperation or defection.

Under tit for tat, a player will begin by cooperating, then in subsequent iterations will replicate whatever their opponent did last time.

It teaches us that our best option when dealing with other people we cannot trust entirely is to reciprocate their choices.

However, straightforward tit for tat is not as effective as the strategy known as tit for tat with forgiveness. This strategy involves occasionally cooperating in the face of defection. It is easy for two opponents to get stuck in a cycle of mutual defection from which they cannot escape unless and until one decides to cooperate. If both are using tit for tat, a cycle of mutual cooperation will then commence.

Life is an iterative and compounding game. Inthe words of Peter Kaufman, it pays to “go positive and go first.” Also, remember that people make mistakes. Assuming there is no maliciousness, it pays to forgive.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Feyman-Methode

…ist eine Lernmethode, um Wissen sicher und dauerhaft anzueignen.

Vorgehen (Wiederholend):

Thema komplett erklären
Fehlendes Wissen notieren
Wissenslücken schließen
Thema komplett erklären

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Besonders wichtiges Verhalten in jeder Beziehung

Attention / Aufmerksamkeit nach Peter Kaufman:

All you have to do, if you want everything in life from everybody else, is first pay attention; listen to them; show them respect; give them meaning, satisfaction, and fulfillment. Convey to them that they matter to you. And show you love them. But you have to go first. And what are you going to get back? Mirrored reciprocation. Right? See how we tie this all together? The world is so damn simple. It’s not complicated at all! Every single person on this planet is looking for the same thing. Now, why is it that we don’t act on these very simple things?

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

The basic axiom of clinical psychology

The basic axiom of clinical psychology reads:

“If you could see the world the way I see it, you’d understand why I behave the way I do.”

Now there’s two corollaries to that axiom, they’re logical extensions.

(1) Corollary number one, if you want to understand the way someone’s behaving, you must see the world as they see it.
(2) But corollary number two, if you want to change a human being’s behavior, you must necessarily change how they see the world.

Now this sounds impossible. It’s not really that hard. You take a business. Most employees of a business see the world as employees. What if you could get them to see the world instead through the eyes of an owner? Do you think that’s going to change how they behave? It totally changes how they behave. Employees don’t care about waste. Owners do. Employees don’t self-police our place. Owners do.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Peter Kaufman’s Secret of Leadership

The secret to leadership is to see through the eyes of all six important counterparty groups and make sure that everything you do is structured in such a way to be win-win with them.

So here are the six:

Your customers,
your suppliers,
your employees,
your owners,
your regulators, and
the communities you operate in.

And if you can truly see through the eyes of all six of these counterparty groups and understand
- their needs,
- their aspirations,
- their insecurities,
- their time horizons—
how many blind spots do you have now? Zero.
How many mistakes are you going to make? You’re going to make zero. People don’t think this is possible. It’s really easy.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Wie heißen die zentralen 3 psychologischen Grundbedürfnisse?

Als zentrale psychologische Grundbedürfnisse haben sich in der Forschung die Bedürfnisse nach

„Nähe“ (sich verbunden fühlen),
„Autonomie“ (Dinge beeinflussen können) und
„Kompetenz“ (etwas erfolgreich ausführen können) etabliert.

Tränen fließen immer, wenn zentrale psychologische Grundbedürfnisse nicht erfüllt werden.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (1) about:

Address the important, ignore the urgent

Urgent things are

mostly coming from others,
Small, easy to do, giving feeling of satisfaction
Should when possible be delayed or delegated
Lead to confusion of priorities (see Eisenhower Matrix)

Maintaining constant operation is considered generally as important

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (2):

First order and second order effects

Most of the time only first order effects are considered
Think further with higher order effects (um die Ecke denken)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (3):

Make reversible decisions

Reversible decissions can be done fast because negative results can be corrected
Reversible decissions lead to speed over indecission
Regard reversible decission as an experiment, so that next decission is based on better information from the experiment.
Jeff Bezos:
Typ I decisions: Heavy big decission,
Typ II decissions: reversible decissions
Typ I decission making process is often and wrongly used for Typ II decissions

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (4):

Seek satisfiecing

Goes back to Herbert Simon 1950
There are two types of people:

(1) Satisfyers:

Focus on what is important
Good enough and stop there

(2) Maximisers:

Everything what possible is
Try, try, try
Picky, endless researching
Wants perfect decission
37% rule: when you have checke 37 from 100 option without outliers you can stop there

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (5):

Stay within 40 to 70%

Colin Powell: When need to make a decission, do it not before 40% of information are available and not after 70%:
< 40%: fast shooter, unüberlegte Entscheidung
> 70%: slow, overthinker without increasing the quality of the decission significantly

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (6):

Minimise Regret

J. Bezos Prozess:

(1) Project yourself to the age of 80
(2) Look back from that age to the decission at hand
(3) Ask yourself: Will I regret that decission ?

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (7):

Ignore Black Swans

*Definition of black swan event:

Surprise
Major effect
Outlier, very rare

*Ignore black swan events in your life

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (8):

Look for equilibrium points

*Law of deminishing returns: Increase in input does not gurantee increase in output

No linear relation of in- and output

*The more resources we put in, the less we get out

*When focussing on one thing to much, an other thing will get lost

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (9):

Wait for the regression to the mean

*Sometimes extremes are considered and be planned for

*Work and focus on the mean and not on the outlier

*Compare the honeymoon and a old marriage

*Let the cycle (hype, trend) play out and then see

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (10):

What would Bayes say?

Bayse formular (statician)
Baysian thinking

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (11):

Doing like Darwin

*Conflicting information collected and analysed to avaoid confirmation bias

*Embracing both sides

*Golden rule: Equal attention to opinions opposed to the own

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (12):

Thinking fast – Thinking slow

Daniel Kahneman
Sytsem 1 and System 2
Think with system 2

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (13):

Peer review your idea or plan

Helps to overcome blind spots

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (14):

Find your own flaws

Look at extreme positions

What would a bystander say (3. point of view)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (15):

Separate Correlation from Causation

Self evident

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (16):

Story telling reverse

Use the fishbone diagramm

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (17):

SCAMPER

Bob Emeral
Come up with something new by modifying the old
Substitute – combine – adapt – minimise / magnify – put to another use – eliminate - reverse

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What is Peter Hollins mental model (18):

Go back to first principles

*Elon Musk

*Breaking down assumption

*Removing oppinions

*Process:

(1) Identify underlying assumptions

(2) Break down the problem in first principles

(3) Create new solutions from scratch

What is Peter Hollins mental model (19):

Avoid direct goals

Karl Jacobi (1804-1851) used it to solve math problems
Define what you want to avoid, what is not possible
Identify drivers of failure and avoid them rather than looking for drivers of success
Instead of what makes a good manager ask, what does a bad manager and avoid these

What is Peter Hollins mental model (20):

Avoid thinking like an expert occasional

Avoid missing the forest for the trees
Boris Goldowski err can only be spottet by people lacking expertise
Separate you thinking into two modes:
Expert
Novice: Does not skip steps and goes slowly, picking out details

What is Peter Hollins mental model (21):

Avoid your non genius zone

It is not about growth, but about the actual performance
Know your limitations, accept them and avoid them and exploit your strength to the max.
Ch. Munger: „Why should we play in a field, where we have a disadvantage?“

What is Peter Hollins mental model (22):

Avoid to do lists

Set up Not-to-do-list:
Task, where you cant do anything about the circumstances
Tasks without value, bussy work
Current task with deminishing value
Task at 90% quality reached

What is Peter Hollins mental model (23):

Avoid the path of least resistance

Seek the resistance, seek the hard work; usually long term benefit over short term satisfaction
Doing the right thing not the easy thing. The easy thing is usually the wrong think
How does the easy thing feel in 10 min., 10 h and 10 day?

What is Peter Hollins mental model (24):

Murphy‘s Law

Edward Murphy (Airforce engineer)
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong
Everything can fail therefore
create fail safe systems
Plan for the worst case scenarios

What is Peter Hollins mental model (25).

Occam’s Razor

William of Ockham, a 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar
The more factors you have the less the probability is, that it is correct
The fewer the factors involved the higher the probability of being correct
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one; the more assumptions one needs to make the more unlikely the explanation is

Histoty:
Ptolemy (c. AD 90 – c. 168) stated, “We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible.”

In January 1950 composer Sessions used the words “everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler” and stated that Einstein communicated this phrase “in effect”

In medical school many doctors are taught the old saying “when you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras”, which means that doctors should consider the most likely possibility first when thinking of a diagnosis. Coined in the late 1940s by Dr. Theodore Woodward, professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

What is Peter Hollins mental model (26):

Hanlors Razor

1774 Robert Hanlor
Giving others the benefit of the doubt (incompetence or neglect)
Hanlon’s Razor is an adage that states, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” In other words, when something goes wrong or an error occurs, it’s usually not because someone intended for it to happen, but rather because they made a mistake or didn’t have enough information. This principle encourages people to avoid jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst of others, instead opting for a more charitable interpretation of events.

MRI-Principle:
Most Respectful Interpretation: Assume the best of others, considering only the best, kindest, most helpful interpretation of every communication and responding solely to that version.

“Give a good deed the credit of a good motive; and give an evil deed the benefit of the doubt.” — Brander Matthews

What is Peter Hollins mental model (27):

Pareto-Principle

Self evident

What is Peter Hollins mental model (28):

Sturgeon‘s Law

his law was coined by science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon in response to a criticism of the quality of science fiction literature.
90% of everything is crap
10% is meaningful and good
Vast amount of information is waste not woth the time

What is Peter Hollins mental model (29):

Parkinsons Law of Triviality

Parkinson’s Law of Triviality, also known as the “Bike Shed Effect,” is a concept in management that states that people tend to give disproportionate attention to trivial or minor issues while neglecting more important ones.
The reason for this phenomenon is that trivial issues are often more familiar and easier to understand, which makes them more accessible for people to form opinions and offer suggestions. In contrast, more complex and technical issues may require more knowledge and expertise, making them more difficult to comprehend and discuss.
Measures: Set an agenda with priority and time

What is Peter Hollins mental model (30):

Parkinsons Law

there is another well-known Parkinson’s Law, which is “Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.” This law was also coined by Cyril Northcote Parkinson in his book “Parkinson’s Law: The Pursuit of Progress.”
This law suggests that if we have a certain amount of time to complete a task, we will take up that entire amount of time, regardless of the actual complexity or amount of work required to complete the task. In other words, the time available for a task determines how long it will take to complete, rather than the actual amount of work involved.

What is Grice‘s razor

Grice’s razor
“Conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations.” — Paul Grice

Grice’s razor says that when in conversation, it’s best to address what the speaker actually meant, instead of addressing the literal meaning of what they actually said.

This is a good rule of thumb because most people are poor communicators, and struggle to find just the right words and examples to express themselves. Even despite our best efforts the words don’t always come out right, or the way we intended them to. Sometimes people are also trying to express an idea they don’t yet know how to articulate.

So don’t take everything someone says literally and get into silly arguments over semantics, and the most minute, insignificant of details, whilst completely missing the main point of the speaker. Instead listen carefully and look to where the finger is pointing. The person you’re speaking with may not be using the right words or examples, but what is it they’re trying to say? What questions could you ask to clarify?

What is Hitchens Razor?

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Christopher Hitchens

What is Sagan’s Standard?

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

Carl Sagan

What is Occam’s Duct Tape?

Occam’s duct tape

The opposite of Occam’s razor is Occam’s duct tape which is when someone approaches a problem with a ridiculously large number of assumptions.

What is Hume’s Razor?

Hume’s razor
“If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not sufficient to produce it, we must either reject that cause, or add to it such qualities as will give it a just proportion to the effect.” – David Hume

Hume’s razor states that causes must be sufficiently able to produce the effect assigned to them e.g. a slight gust of wind isn’t enough to cause a Boeing 747 to crash, and a fallen power line isn’t enough to cause a nationwide blackout.

If a proposed cause isn’t sufficiently able to produce the observed effect, we must either eliminate the cause from consideration, and come up with another hypothesis, or show what needs to be added to the cause to create the effect.

What is the Duck-Test?

Duck test
“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” – Duck test

The duck test is about abductive reasoning and drawing the most likely conclusion given the evidence, instead of denying the obvious. It’s sometimes used to counter arguments that someone or something isn’t what they appear to be.

I know that in the world of deep fakes, fake news, fake people, scams etc. it might be considered unwise or even dangerous to take appearances for reality, however, although appearances can be deceiving, there is generally no need to deny reality or what’s right in front of your eyes. Generally speaking, what you see is what you get.

If someone or something seems a certain way, they probably are that way

What is Poper’s Falsifability Principle?

Popper’sfalsifiabilityprinciple

_**“It is easy to obtain confirmations or verifications for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it.” –Karl Popper

What are Karl Poper’s Rules for Falsification?

In this article nine philosophical razors you need to know:

Occam’s razor: Entities should not be multiplied without necessity
Sagan standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Hitchens razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Hume’s razor: Causes must be sufficiently able to produce the effect assigned to them
Duck test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck
Popper’s falsifiability principle: For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to disprove or refute it
Newton’s flaming laser sword: If something cannot be settled by experiment, it is not worth debating
Grice’s razor: Address what the speaker actually meant, instead of addressing the literal meaning of what they actually said
Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity
What is a “philosophical razor”?
In philosophy, a razor is a principle or a rule of thumb, that allows for the elimination (the “shaving off”) of unlikely explanations for a phenomenon.

A philosophical razor is not an unbreakable law or rule, it is not always right 100% of the time, but it is right more often than not, and is therefore a useful mental shortcut that allows you to make decisions and solve problems quicker and easier.

Let’s begin:

Occam’s razor
“Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.” – Occam’s razor

Occam’s razor is a problem solving principle that states that when you’re presented with multiple competing hypothesis for a phenomenon, or explanations for an event, you should start by selecting the simplest and most likely one, the one that makes the fewest assumptions.

Why? Because the more assumptions there are, the more possibilities there are for error, and the simplest explanation is usually – but not always – the correct one.

For example, which is more likely to be true:

A woman drowned her five children in the bathtub because:

a) God or Satan told her too

b) She is insane and is suffering from psychosis and schizophrenia

A UFO in the sky is:

a) Aliens from another galaxy

b) A type of aircraft or drone you haven’t seen before, maybe one that the air force is flight testing

Paleontologists have discovered dinosaur bones in the earth because:

a) Dinosaurs once lived on the earth

b) God or Satan put the dinosaur bones in the earth to test the faith of Christians

Yep, the simplest explanation is usually – but not always – the correct one, therefore you should always start by asking:

“What is the simplest and most likely explanation?”

Instead of starting with complex or far fetched theories which are less likely. That doesn’t mean that you have to eliminate complex or far fetched theories completely, it just means you should start with the simplest and most likely ones. If someone has a headache, it could be brain cancer, but let’s start off by assuming it’s just a headache.

Note: Occam’s razor doesn’t allow for the exclusion of data or evidence, so if the simplest explanation doesn’t account for all of the available data and evidence, then it’s not the best explanation.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” – Albert Einstein

Occam’s duct tape
The opposite of Occam’s razor is Occam’s duct tape which is when someone approaches a problem with a ridiculously large number of assumptions.

Sagan standard
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – Carl Sagan

If someone claims that their name is Michael, or that their dogs name is Charlie, that’s not an extraordinary claim. It’s reasonable to simply take them at their word.

However, if someone claims that they, or their guru/religious/spiritual teacher, can contact the dead, see the future, read minds, cure or heal any disease or sickness including AIDS or cancer, talk directly with God (and have God talk back unambiguously), perform miracles, or that they have supernatural powers of any kind, than these are extraordinary claims, and they must be backed up by extraordinary evidence such as a live demonstration to prove it.

It’s not good enough for new-age/religious/spiritual teachers and their followers to simply assert that these things are true, or to imply that their guru or teacher possesses these supernatural abilities, extraordinary claims like these must be backed up by extraordinary evidence.

Unfortunately new-age/religious/spiritual teachers and their followers frequently make extraordinary claims like these, and have them believed by millions of people without the slightest bit of evidence or proof. However, if most people were critical thinkers that demanded evidence for their beliefs, this wouldn’t happen.

The James Randi foundation had a $1 Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge from 1964-2015 that offered the money to anyone who could demonstrate any occult, paranormal or supernatural ability of any kind, under agreed-upon scientific testing criteria. Over a thousand people applied to take it, but none were successful.

Hitchen’s razor
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens

Hitchen’s razor ties in nicely with the Sagan standard.

If someone is going to assert something without evidence, especially an extraordinary claim that demands evidence, you can dismiss it without evidence.

This is because the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim, not the other way around.

For example: If I claim to be able to contact the dead, predict the future, read minds etc. it’s not up to you to prove that I can’t – it’s up to me to prove that I can.

I’m the one making the claim – therefore it’s up to me to prove it.

However, if someone is making extraordinary claims that demand evidence, but is unable or unwilling to provide that evidence, you can dismiss those claims without evidence. There is simply no need to waste time arguing against unsubstantiated claims.

Hitchens razor will save you a lot of time, because most people don’t have any evidence to back up their assertions.

Duck test
“If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” – Duck test

If someone or something seems a certain way, they probably are that way.

Popper’s falsifiability principle
“It is easy to obtain confirmations or verifications for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it.” – Karl Popper

Karl Popper’s Falsifiability Principle is that for a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable, that is, it must be possible to disprove or refute it.

Hypothesis that are impossible to disprove, refute or test are unfalsifiable, and are therefore not scientific e.g. “Aliens that exist in other dimensions outside of our reality secretly control our minds and everything we think, say and do.”

Falsification is a good rule of thumb to apply when you’re presented with any claim or theory. Ask yourself: How can I test this theory? What would disprove it? What would refute it? e.g. a single black swan would falsify the theory that “all swans are white”.

However, if someone makes a claim that is unfalsifiable and can’t be tested, proven or disproven, verified or falsified e.g. an extraordinary new-age/religious/spiritual claim or conspiracy theory about aliens in other dimensions, it’s probably best to dismiss it instead of speculating and taking it seriously.

Karl Popper’s rules for falsification
The criteria for when a theory should be considered scientific, and for how to distinguish between science and pseudoscience:

It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations
Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory–an event which would have refuted the theory
Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice
Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks
Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers–for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

What is Newton’s laser flaming swort?

Newton’s flaming laser sword
“That which cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating” — Mike Alder

Australian mathematician Mike Alder coined the term “Newton’s flaming laser sword” in this article for Philosophy Now, in which he advocates only focussing on problems which can be settled by a combination of experimentation and reasoning, and not just argumentation.

Mike came to this conclusion when he was ten years old, after a school teacher asked him the irresistible force paradox:

“What would happen if an irresistible force acted on an immovable object?”

Mike’s first response was that if the force was irresistible, then the object must move. “Ah,” said the teacher, “but the object is immovable.” He then continued to think about the problem for three days, and eventually concluded that reason alone was insufficient to solve the problem, we couldn’t just speculate on what would happen, we needed to perform an experiment to settle the matter, we needed to test out the irresistible force on the immovable object to see what would happen. Either the object would move or it wouldn’t, which would tell us whether the immovable object was really immovable, or the irresistible force was really resistible.

Mike stills holds this view today, that pure reasoning alone is insufficient to solve many important problems, as do the vast majority of scientists:

“The orthodox position of scientists: truth about how the universe works cannot generally be arrived at by pure reason. The only thing reason can do is to allow us to deduce some truth from other truths. And since we haven’t got many truths to start out from, only provisional hypotheses and a necessarily finite set of observations, we cannot arrive at secure beliefs by thought alone. Most scientists take the view that their professional life consists of finite observations, universal general hypotheses from which deductions can be made, and that it is essential to test the deductions by further observations because even though the deductions are performed by strict logic (mathematics usually), there is no guarantee of their correctness. The idea that one can arrive at reliable truths by pure reason is simply obsolete. Plato believed it, but Plato was wrong.” – Mike Adler

In a nutshell: Newton’s flaming laser sword says that you should generally only focus on problems that can be solved by a combination of experimentation and reasoning, and not just argumentation, and if it’s possible to perform an experiment to settle a matter you should. This will save you from wasting a lot of time on (currently) unanswerable questions and allow you to make progress faster.

Which horse is faster? Race them.

How many teeth does your dog have? Count them.

Which MMA fighter is better? Make them fight.

Do heavy objects fall faster than light objects? Perform the experiment

Reason alone isn’t enough. Engaging in untestable speculation is a waste of time.

Obviously Newton’s flaming laser sword excludes a lot of things (anthropology, history, politics, ethics etc.) and should therefore be used very cautiously. Not everything is observable, measurable, repeatable, testable etc. so as to be fit for the scientific method.

“While the Newtonian insistence on ensuring that any statement is testable by observation (or has logical consequences which are so testable) undoubtedly cuts out the crap, it also seems to cut out almost everything else as well. Newton’s Laser Sword should therefore be used very cautiously. On the other hand, when used appropriately, it transforms philosophy into something where problems can be solved, and definite and often surprising conclusions drawn.” – Mike Adler

What is Grice’s Razor?

Grice’s razor
“Conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations.” — Paul Grice

Grice’s razor says that when in conversation, it’s best to address what the speaker actually meant, instead of addressing the literal meaning of what they actually said.

What is Altman’s law?

ALTMAN’S LAW

“Moore’s Law is a doubling of transistors every two years. AI is growing at a rate of 10x per year in terms of model sizes and associated capabilities.”
—Sam Altman (paraphrased)

Was sind die Grice’schen Konversationsmaximen (Kooperationsprinzip) ?

Das Kooperationsprinzip lautet: Gestalte deinen Gesprächsbeitrag so, dass er dem anerkannten Zweck oder der akzeptierten Richtung des Gesprächs dient, an dem du gerade zusammen mit deinen Kommunikationspartnern teilnimmst.

Dieses übergeordnete Prinzip kann eingehalten werden, indem man sich als Sprecher an folgenden Maximen orientiert:

Maxime der Quantität (Maxim of Quantity)
Gestalte deinen Gesprächsbeitrag mindestens so informativ, wie es für den anerkannten Zweck des Gesprächs nötig ist.
Gestalte deinen Beitrag nicht informativer, als es für den anerkannten Zweck des Gesprächs nötig ist.
Maxime der Qualität (Maxim of Quality)
Versuche einen Gesprächsbeitrag zu liefern, der wahr ist.
Sage nichts, wovon du glaubst, dass es falsch ist.
Sage nichts, wofür du keine hinreichenden Anhaltspunkte hast.
Maxime der Relation / Relevanz (Maxim of Relevance)
Sage nichts, was nicht zum Thema gehört, wechsle nicht das Thema.[1]
Beachte den Gesprächskontext vorangegangener Kommunikation und das Vorwissen deines Kommunikationspartners.[2]
Maxime des Stils / der Modalität (Maxim of Manner)
Vermeide Unklarheit.
Vermeide Mehrdeutigkeit.
Vermeide unnötige Weitschweifigkeit.
Vermeide Ungeordnetheit.
Zusammengefasst: Sage nur, was informativ, wahr und themenbezogen ist, und sage dies klar und deutlich![1]

Die vier Maximen der Konversationslogik stellen eine Vereinbarung zwischen den Kommunikationspartnern dar, die eine optimierte Kommunikation garantieren soll.

Was ist das Parsimonitätsprinzip?

Allg. Grundsatz: In der Wissenschaft it bei zwei Hypothesen oder Modellen - unter ansonsten gleichen Bedingungen- stets die einfachere vorzuziehen

= Prinzip der Sparsamkeit/ Einfachheit

Siehe Occam’s razor

What is Ikigai?

What you love.
What the world needs.
What you can be.
What you are good at.

Small / big
Private / public

See Ken Mogi @youtube
The true ikigai diagramm

What is the Red Queen Effect ?

Now,here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.

The Red Queen hypothesis is a hypothesis in evolutionary biology proposed in 1973, that species must constantly adapt, evolve, and proliferate in order to survive while pitted against ever-evolving opposing species.

What is the boiling frog syndrome?

The boiling frog is an apologue describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of sinister threats that arise gradually rather than suddenly.

What is the path dependence model?

Path dependence is a concept in economics and the social sciences, referring to processes where past events or decisions constrain later events or decisions.

The second is a more specific claim about how past events or decisions affect future events or decisions in significant or disproportionate ways, through mechanisms such as increasing returns, positive feedback effects, or other mechanisms.

What is Green’s Trust Equation?

Named after Charles H. Green (Management Consultant)

Trustworthiness = Credibility x Reliability x Intimicy / Self-Orientation

Credibility (They know their stuff): Trust is based on perceived trustworthiness and expertise.
Reliability (They always deliver): Trust is built by consistently fulfilling commitments and meeting expectations.
Intimacy (I feel safe with them): Trust grows through personal connections, empathy, and understanding.
Self-Orientation (Are they focused on my or thier interests): Trust decreases when focus is primarily on self-interest rather than others.

What is the “Reward prediction errors in dopamine neurons”

The response to the reward itself disappears when the reward is predicted. But if more than the predicted reward occurs, the dopamine neurons show stronger responses. By contrast, their activity decreases if no, or less than predicted, reward occurs.

Anrdew Hubermann Goal setting:
(1) surprising positive event gives huge dopamine release
(2) anticipated positive event:
- before the positive event occurs dopamine is release, but only little
- when event takes place, dopamine is released, but less than if surprising event.

What is the luck surface area?

luck #Glück #Serendipity #Luck-Surface-Area

Sahil Bloom

Linkedin-Post: Post | Feed | LinkedIn

There’s a concept I often refer to as “luck surface area” in my writing.

The idea is that each of us has a surface area on which lucky events can strike.

There are a few baseline factors out of our control:
* Where you are born
* Who you are born to
* “Acts of God”

Beyond these, the size of our luck surface area is within our control.

In Dr. Wiseman’s study, the lucky people seemed to understand this:

They noted that they often took alternate routes to and from work so that they would meet new people and see new things.
They talked about unique strategies for talking to different groups of people at parties.
They bounced back from seemingly negative encounters and maintained a positive outlook for the future.

The luckiest people have engineered an enormous luck surface area.

Expand yours in two ways:

Remove Anti-Luck: Anti-luck includes all the actions, behaviors, and people that shrink your luck surface area. Pessimism and “blinders” are two common sources of anti-luck. People who tell you to be realistic are another common source.
Add Pro-Luck: Pro-luck includes all the actions, behaviors, and people that expand your luck surface area. Getting out and meeting new people, sharing your thoughts and ideas publicly, and sending more cold emails and DMs are all common sources of pro-luck. People who encourage you to think bigger are another common source.

What follows from the black-White-fallacy?

super-thinking #mental-model #Gabriel_Weinberg #Polarity_Concept

Sometimes called the “either-or” fallacy, afalse dilemmais a logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides when there are many options or sides. Essentially, a false dilemma presents a “black and white” kind of thinking when there are actually many shades of gray.

–Think of other options
–Zero sum versus win–win
– thinking of many dimensions gives more options for give and take or win-win solutions.

Wie lauten Caldini’s 7 Prinzipien des Überzeugens?

Prinzip 1: Reziprozität = Gegenseitigkeit

Prinzip 2: Sozialer Beweis = Glaubwürdigkeit

Prinzip 3: Konsistenz = Verlässlichkeit

Prinzip 4: Sympathie = Emotionen

Prinzip 5: Autorität = Überlegenheit

Prinzip 6: Verknappung = Angst

Prinzip 7: Identifikation = Zugehörigkeit

What does Joy’s Law say?

Joy’s lawis the principle that “no matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else,” attributed to[Sun Microsystems] Bill Joy

What does Rumsfeld’s Rule say?

You have to got to war with the army you have not the army you want or you wish to have.

Zitiert nach Supertinking, Gabriel Weinberg

Was ist der Pygmalion-Effect?

DerPygmalion-Effektist einPhänomen, bei dem eine vorweggenommene Einschätzung eines Schülers sich derart auf seine Leistungen auswirkt, dass sie sich bestätigt. Es geht auf ein Experiment von[Robert Rosenthalzurück. Der Name entstammt der mythologischen FigurPygmalion.

Rosenthal und Jacobson wiesen experimentell nach, dass ein Lehrer, dem suggeriert wird, einige Schüler seien besonders begabt, diese unbewusst so fördert, dass sie am Ende auch tatsächlich ihre Leistungen steigern.

Was ist die Dunbar Zahl?

Der britische Anthropologe Robin Dunbar hat in den 90er Jahren zur Gehirngröße und der durchschnittlichen Größe sozialer Gruppen geforscht. Dabei hat er die sogenannte „Dunbars Number“ geprägt.

Dunbars Number ist ein Vorschlag für die kognitive Grenze der Anzahl der Personen, mit denen man stabile soziale Beziehungen aufrechterhalten kann. Stabile Beziehungen bedeutet in diesem Kontext, dass man weiß, wer jede Person ist und wie jede Person zu jeder anderen Person in Beziehung steht. Die Dunbars Number liegt zwischen 100 und 250 Personen, wobei häufig ein allgemeiner Wert von 150 verwendet wird.

Die anthropologische Forschung zeigt also, dass die Art und Tiefe der Beziehung, die wir zu anderen Menschen haben können, klare Grenzen hat:

Etwa fünf Personen: Das ist die Grenze der Menschen, mit denen man enge persönliche Beziehungen und ein Arbeitsgedächtnis haben kann.
Etwa fünfzehn Personen: Das ist die Grenze der Menschen, zu denen wir tiefes Vertrauen empfinden können.
Etwa fünfzig Menschen: Das ist die Grenze der Menschen, zu denen wir gegenseitiges Vertrauen haben können.
Etwa 150 Personen: Das ist die Grenze der Personen, an deren Fähigkeiten wir uns erinnern können.

Diese Gruppengrößen sollten also bei der Organisationsstruktur (Team, Tribes, Value Streams, Business Units) beachtet werden, um Vertrauen zu fördern. Denn je größer die Gruppe ist, desto geringer ist das Vertrauenslevel.

Mehr Vertrauen steigert das Verantwortlichkeitsgefühl, verbessert die Kommunikation und letztlich das Ergebnis. Deshalb sollen Teams stabil und klein bleiben, um das Vertrauen zwischen den Menschen in einem Team zu maximieren.

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Mental Models Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM