Good post, but you seem to be conflating frames, mental models, and theories. Lets take these in reverse order, starting with the most rigorous type of understanding first:
Theories: Cumulatively build abstract representations of reality that have been validated by testing (ideally experiments). Shannon’s Information Theory is one, as is Einstein’ relativity.
Mental models: More common frameworks used to understand reality. These tend to be a step (or more) below theories since they are either un-testable, or specified so poorly that testing is not feasible. These are low resolution understandings of reality. Boyd’ OODA loop is a famous one. Charlie Munger (Buffet’ partner at Berkshire Hathaway) popularized this term in the last couple of decades in his writings and speeches describing a lot of psychological “theories” as mental models. Not surprisingly, the VC/ angel investor crowd loves this type since it is not as rigorous as a hard scientific theory so easier to generate based on observational data.
Frames: This term has its roots in the social construction of reality using language. Shared frames help in the interpretation of reality. Erwin Goffman did a lot of pioneering work in this area. I would argue, that frames are often even less rigorous than mental models since they are dependent on synchronized interpretation within a group of people.
Bottomline, these are distinct terms with very different meanings. Its important to be precise, otherwise noise/ signal is too high.
Good post, but you seem to be conflating frames, mental models, and theories. Lets take these in reverse order, starting with the most rigorous type of understanding first:
Theories: Cumulatively build abstract representations of reality that have been validated by testing (ideally experiments). Shannon’s Information Theory is one, as is Einstein’ relativity.
Mental models: More common frameworks used to understand reality. These tend to be a step (or more) below theories since they are either un-testable, or specified so poorly that testing is not feasible. These are low resolution understandings of reality. Boyd’ OODA loop is a famous one. Charlie Munger (Buffet’ partner at Berkshire Hathaway) popularized this term in the last couple of decades in his writings and speeches describing a lot of psychological “theories” as mental models. Not surprisingly, the VC/ angel investor crowd loves this type since it is not as rigorous as a hard scientific theory so easier to generate based on observational data.
Frames: This term has its roots in the social construction of reality using language. Shared frames help in the interpretation of reality. Erwin Goffman did a lot of pioneering work in this area. I would argue, that frames are often even less rigorous than mental models since they are dependent on synchronized interpretation within a group of people.
Bottomline, these are distinct terms with very different meanings. Its important to be precise, otherwise noise/ signal is too high.