----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
이상엽 한국과학기술원(KAIST) 교수와 덴마크 공대(DTU) 공동 연구진은 국제 학술지 '네이처 커뮤니케이션즈' 7일자를 통해 "살모넬라균·식중독균과 같은 병원균이 다른 세균으로부터 항생제 내성 유전자를 전달받는 과정을 확인했다"고 발표했다. 내성 유전자의 존재는 예전부터 많이 알려졌지만, 구체적으로 어떤 과정을 통해 병원균에 들어가는지는 밝혀지지 않았다.
연구진은 항생제 내성 유전자를 가진 방선균을 골라냈다. 방선균은 항생물질을 분비하는 세균으로 자신의 몸을 지키기 위해 항생제 내성 유전자도 갖고 있다. 연구진은 방선균과 병원균을 섞어 항생제가 뿌려진 접시 위에 배양했다. 그러자 내성 유전자가 없던 병원균들이 방선균과 함께 살아남았다. 연구진은 병원균이 내성 유전자를 획득했기 때문이라고 설명했다.
그렇다고 병원균은 바로 방선균으로부터 내성 유전자를 전달받는 것은 아니었다. 연구진이 밝힌 내성 유전자 획득 과정은 이렇다. 세균들이 함께 있으면 서로 몸이 연결되는데 이때 병원균의 유전자 가 방선균으로 들어간다. 이 과정에서 병원균의 DNA 일부가 방선균의 항생제 내성 유전자 양쪽에 결합한다. 나중에 방선균이 죽으면 유전자들도 밖으로 나온다. 이때 병원균은 자신의 DNA가 붙어 있는 내성 유전자를 쉽게 받아들일 수 있다는 것이다.
출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/06/22/2017062200900.html
--------> 전형적인 횐원주의적 발상이다. 이런 식으로는 백 년이 가도 제대로 된 약을 만들 수 없고, 설사 만들었다 해도 부작용이 너무나 큰 약을 만들어 사람들에게 고통을 준다. 발상의 전환, 패러다임의 변화가 있어야만, 옳바른 의학이 탄생한다.
---------------------------------------------------------
반면 나사(NASA)의 기후학자 제임스 한센(Hansen)은 상업 원자력 발전소들은 공기 오염을 줄임으로써 지난 수십년간 180만명 이상의 목숨을 구했고 21세기 중반까지 42만~700만명의 목숨을 구할 수 있다고 내다봤다.
지난 40년간 우리 원전도 값싸고 안전하게 전력을 공급했다. 그간 사용후핵연료 1만4000t이 발생했다. 같은 양의 전력을 석탄으로 공급했다면 석탄회(灰) 2억2000만t이 더 발생했을 것이다. 석탄 12억t을 썼을 것이고 차이인 9억8000만t은 대기로 방출됐을 것이다. 그러나 이러한 원전의 기여를 원전에 대한 공포가 압도했다.
대명천지에 핵 마피아라는 가상의 집단이 가공되더니 마치 자신들의 이익을 위해 국토와 국민을 위험에 몰아넣는다는 식의 말도 안 되는 거짓이 퍼지고 있다. 후쿠시마 원전사고에서 단 한 명도 원전의 방사선으로 사망하지 않았음 에도 쓰나미로인한 사망자 2만7000명과 가옥·농토의 파괴를 마치 원전사고 결과인 양 덮어씌웠다. 열댓 명이 자행한 원전 부품의 납품 비리 사건을 10만 원자력 사회 전체의 일로 포장했다
출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/06/20/2017062003638.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
덴미크의 트리탑 워크웨이
欲穷千里目，更上一层楼
아름다운 세상을 보려면, 한 층 한 층 더 올라가야 한다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
시호계지탕
名醫胡希恕先生的《傷寒論講座》（節選）
柴胡桂枝湯
柴胡桂枝湯出自《傷寒論》第146條，經文簡樸，但蘊義豐富，臨床運用當靈活變通，不可拘泥文字表面，否則大大限制了其運用範疇，本文從「突出主症，參以病機」、「謹守病機，不拘證候」、「根據部位，參以病機」、「循其經絡，參以病機」等方面討論擴大柴胡桂枝湯臨床運用範圍的具體途徑，旨在探求仲景心法，彰顯仲景原意。
《傷寒論》146條曰：「傷寒六七日，發熱微惡寒，支節煩疼，微嘔，心下支結，外證未去者，柴胡桂枝湯主之。」按仲景原意，此方為少陽兼太陽表證之主方，其發熱微惡寒，支節煩疼，是太陽輕證；微嘔、心下支結，是少陽柴胡輕證；因病及少陽，不宜峻汗，故欲解太陽之邪，必舍麻黃而取桂枝，因二證皆輕，故以柴胡、桂枝二方原劑量減半相合，名曰柴胡桂枝湯；傷寒六七天的時候，全是由表傳入半表半里或里，發熱微惡寒，表不解，支節煩痛也是太陽病，微嘔，心下支結，支是樹枝，是旁邊，不只是心下的部位，二側謂之「支」，心下二側，心下支結就是心下苦滿的另一種說法。微嘔，柴胡證喜嘔，微嘔，心下支結皆為柴胡證，上面是表未解，太陽病，故用二方合方。
小柴胡湯寒溫並用、升降協調，攻補兼施外證得之，重在和解少陽、疏散邪熱；內證得之，有疏利三焦、調達上下、宣通內外、運轉樞機之效，故臨床應用極為廣泛，只要病機符合膽熱內郁，樞機不利者，用之多能獲效。桂枝湯辛甘合用，一開一斂，外調營衛、內補脾胃，外證得之，重在解肌祛邪、調和營衛；又因肺主氣屬衛、心主血屬營，故內證得之，還有調和氣血、變理陰陽之功。柴胡桂枝湯以二方相合，故其功效，當是二者之總括。至於臨床運用，有因外感病而用者，自然不越146條宗旨。有因雜病而用者，包括內婦諸科，則必然會其意，引伸用之，如此才可得仲景心法，擴大《傷寒論》的臨床應用範圍。而其西醫病名近30種，如神經、血管性頭痛、急、慢性胃炎、胃潰瘍，頸椎、腰椎骨質增生、冠心病，急、慢性膽囊炎等。
一般在臨床上，少陽病不能發汗，不能瀉下，但有表證，太陽少陽同時用藥是可以的。如用小柴胡湯配發汗藥可，加薄荷、桑葉、菊花都行的。表證需要發汗，用柴胡桂枝湯非常好用。小兒感冒常有此種情況，既有無汗之表證也有柴胡證，這裡用柴胡桂枝湯就得了，只是用發汗藥而不用柴胡是不行的。這是定法，此書上有例子，把比二方合在一起是治柴胡桂枝只有的證候，就是合併證，支節煩痛，身體疼痛皆為桂枝湯證。
桂枝、黃芩、人參、甘草、半夏、芍藥、大棗、生薑、柴胡、是各半湯，桂枝湯減半，黃芩、甘草原二兩，現為一兩，半夏原為半升，現在二合半，桂枝沒有分量，也應是一兩半，柴胡給四兩為原來的一半，人參一兩半、生薑一兩半，都是給一半，就是各半湯，柴胡桂枝湯就是柴胡一半桂枝一半，既有柴胡證，又有桂枝湯證，可以把二方合起來。
-------------------------------------------------------
２.水腦症 (뇌수종(hydrocephalus)
有一病案是嘉義某一同道診治的。一位住嘉義小嬰兒，經大醫院電腦斷層檢查，腦部有0.8公分的腫瘤，導致水腦，醫院建議開刀引流，經過嘉義我們中醫同道施予柴胡桂枝湯、清震湯治療而痊癒。小患者的水腦除柴胡桂村湯疏通三焦之外，主要應是清震湯的作用。清震湯出自清朝汪昂先生的《醫方集解》，至今數百年，可惜鮮有人了解清震湯主治「雷頭風」與現代醫學何種病名相同。即使前全聯會理事長林昭庚博士主編的《中西醫病名對照》五大冊，內容也未能列舉正確病名。我本人則從其藥物作用及其機轉體會，應該可以治療水腦症，結果臨床運用效果竟然很好 。
清震湯組成的荷葉有上升化瘀作用，升麻有上升解毒作用，蒼朮則有燥濕作用。所謂燥濕就是對人體分泌物增強吸附的功能，也是對淋巴組織有吞噬作用。我們從平胃散的蒼朮作用即可了解，腸胃系統如充滿水份，容易造成腹瀉，但用蒼朮後，因為燥濕作用而止瀉。同理邏輯，如腦組織液過多，不及疏導，就易形成水腦，用蒼朮吸收及吞噬後，症狀就改善了。
曾有位一歲大的小男生患水腦症，前後手術十三次，醫院做引流，肉眼很明顯看出腦皮層埋管。服了清震湯，小嬰兒母親告稱經醫院確診，四個腦室積水已通了二室。另有一位特考及格的黃姓同學，在中國醫藥學院受訓，因為父親中風出現水腦，我上課當天他請假照顧其父，課中我提到清震湯的妙用，同學下課即轉知服用，結果用升麻、荷葉、蒼朮各二錢，其父之水腦竟然消除。
前段提到的嘉義這位中醫同道，用柴胡桂枝湯合清震湯治療的水腦症，服了三週藥，由0.8公分縮為0.5、0.3，家屬興奮不已。同道來上課時向我告知，當初對患者也不知該用何藥治療，未料引用課中所學，柴胡桂枝湯可疏通三焦，清震湯治療水腦，臨床運用，治好病者，其喜悅心情，讀者當可體會。
청진탕: 升麻5錢 蒼朮5錢 荷葉1枚
主治: 治雷頭風，頭面疙瘩腫痛，憎寒壯熱，狀如傷寒。
３.一氧化碳中毒 (일산화탄소 중독, 연탄가스 중독)
近年來社會有奇特且令人擔憂的現象，即自殺率與日俱增，更令人難過的是年齡層下降到小學生階層。我還是希望媒體多報導積極正面奮鬥有成的人物，供年輕人或一時挫折的民眾借鏡學習。否則儘是自殺鏡頭，反有渲染傳染作用。有一位小姐因夫妻感情生變，一時想不開竟燒炭自殺，幸被家人發覺送醫院急救，但腦部缺氧，又一氧化碳中毒，醫院一籌莫展。
類此症狀，通常我們會用強心劑，以活化腦細胞。這個病案是同道謝醫師的病患，問我如何處理？我答道，可予柴胡桂枝湯及生脈飲二個主方，加遠志、菖蒲、丹參、田七、荷葉。謝醫師照處方藥，該病患服後，竟醒過來，一日我們陳高會(金門陳年高粱品嘗會)謝醫師談到該病患病情好轉很多，已可自己打電話，只差兩腳運動神經傳導欠靈活，腳掌反張不易伸直，問我如何處理。我建議他在上方中加鉤藤、秦艽以鬆解僵直現象 。
本病案的病者，能在一氧化碳中毒且腦部缺氧狀況下甦醒，主要是柴胡桂枝湯疏通三焦，並加菖蒲、遠志、丹參、荷葉通腦竅，搭配生脈飲強心活化細胞，所以能在意識昏迷症狀下，日漸清醒復原。
作者：張步桃
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
편두통에 효과적인 시호계지탕
中醫的方劑裡，是由小柴胡湯和桂枝湯的合方，叫柴胡桂枝湯，治療偏頭痛的效果明顯。小柴胡湯可疏通三焦，以通津液；桂枝湯有調和營衛的作用，又可調氣血。中醫所謂的營衛，是指在血管裡外行走的氣，血管裡外的氣血通暢，水分的運送平衡，病人的不適自然大幅改善，治療和西醫一樣。
再配上針對情緒障礙的鬱金、香附；心理及生理放鬆的秦艽、鉤滕；如果是前額部的頭痛，可加上白芷；頭頂的頭痛可加上藁本；兩側的頭痛可加上川芎、荊芥；後腦枕部的頭痛，用羌活，如果病人抱怨「頭重如裹」，羌活配上蒼朮常有奇效，疏風解表又含精油的川芎、荊芥可以促進血液循環，這些是依據中醫經絡理論，依不同的部位給予不同的藥。中醫另外的武器是局部穴位的按壓或針灸，如前額角上方的頭維穴、耳朵上方的率谷穴，頭頂的百會穴、兩眼中間偏上方的印堂穴，腕橫紋上的神門，腕橫紋上兩寸的內關，按壓或針灸這些穴道，都有不錯的療效
╱林鴻基／北縣鴻林中醫診所院長
------------------------------------------------------
郭子光醫案
祝某，女，27歲，農民。
半月前因受涼感冒，出現惡寒發熱，微汗出，頭身疼痛，尤以四肢疼痛更甚，去當地醫院診治，服中西藥物未效。更見心跳心累，口苦咽干，嘔惡欲吐，於1975年11月1 1日來院就診。
察其面色暗淡，精神欠佳，頭圍帕子，身著厚衣，有畏風之感，舌質淡、苔白，脈弦細而浮。此寒邪人里化熱，少陽兼表，營衛失和之證。治宜和解表里，調和營衛，方予柴胡桂枝湯。
處方如下：
柴胡12g 黃芩12g 法半夏12g 黨參15g
大棗6枚 桂枝12g 白芍藥12g 生薑3片
甘草3g
服上方1劑症減，2劑而愈。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
시호계지탕
【方證要點】
1、太陽少陽合病證：以發熱惡寒、汗出、腹痛、頭疼身痛、噁心納呆、心煩、胸脅苦滿為辨證要點。主要症狀為：腹痛，往來寒熱，胸脅滿悶，默默不欲飲食，喜嘔，煩躁易怒，口苦，咽干，目眩，汗出惡風，頭痛或者頭暈，鼻鳴，鼻塞流清涕；舌質淡紅，苔薄白或薄黃，脈浮弦。
2、常用於肩背疼痛、耳後神經痛、肩周炎、肋間神經痛、神經官能症、肝硬化、系統性紅斑狼瘡、慢性遷延性肝炎、膽囊炎、胰腺炎、膽道蛔蟲、闌尾炎、胃或十二指腸潰瘍、慢性胃炎、腸易激綜合徵、體虛感冒、冠心病、心絞痛、心律失常、更年期綜合徵、過敏性鼻炎、神經衰弱、腦缺血、癲癇等屬於太陽未解，邪犯少陽者。
3、體質要求：患者多數營養狀況一般或偏於瘦弱，部分患者情志不暢或者煩躁、失眠，有些會有周期性發作的規律。
4、江蘇省兒科名醫王益謙老先生認為：一切外感熱病寒熱稽留不退，或發熱4至5天，先是日晡惡寒，漸漸發熱，有時發熱至39℃左右，待天明方熱退，有輕微口渴，舌苔白或薄黃，脈浮，或弦，有時胸悶者，皆可用本方進行治療。尤其是開始發熱即靜點抗生素激素，熱退後再反覆發熱者，必用此方。
1、柴胡桂枝湯與小柴胡湯：都可以治療寒熱往來、胸脅苦滿、噁心嘔吐。柴胡桂枝湯證兼有發熱惡寒、肢節疼痛等太陽病證；而小柴胡湯證只有少陽病證。
2、柴胡桂枝湯與桂枝湯：都可以治療發熱惡寒、肢節疼痛。柴胡桂枝湯證兼有胸脅苦滿、噁心嘔吐等少陽病證；而桂枝湯證只有太陽表虛證。
---------------------------------------------------------------
리버럴리즘(좌파철학, 주의)은 징징거리는 악동들의 철학이다.
리버럴리즘은 자유주의가 아니다. 가끔 혼동하는 사람들이 있다. 미국에서는 더욱 그렇다. 좌파들이 리버럴리즘이라는 용어를 도용하면서, 진짜 자유주의자들은 리버테리언(libertarian)으로 스스로를 부른다. 하지만 영국에서는 일부 소수의 사람들이 아직 과거의 본래 의미대로 쓰는 경우가 간혹 있다.
또는 좌파 리버럴리즘과 구별하기 위해, 진짜 자유주의를 classical 리버럴리즘이라고 부르기도 한다.
-----------------------------------------------------------
On June 13th, the Manhattan Institute awarded the 13th annual Hayek Book Prize to Deirdre N. McCloskey for her book, Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World
올해의 하이에크 상은 데이더 맥클로스키에게 돌아갔다. 아래는 맥클로스키의 하이에크 강의.
https://youtu.be/68yBBhcxVUE
남자에서 여자로 성 전환 수술을 할 때, 무엇이 잘못되었는지 모르겠지만, 이 교수의 목소리가 변해서, 강의를 듣기가 좀 거북하다.
요점은, 인간의 자유와 생각의 변화가 현재의 경제적 번영과 기적을 만들었다는 것이다.
그래서 나는 자본주의의 맹아는 "자유"라고 주장하는 바이다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
더운 여름을 나는 방법, 삼국지 읽기
예로부터 더운 여름을 나는 방법 중의 하나가 삼국지연의같은 흥미진진한 소설 읽기였다.
나 역시 몇 년전, 뜨거운 여름 한 가운데에서, 삼국지 강의를 보며 더위를 잊었다.
내가 본 것은 百家讲坛의 易中天 品三国로, 삼국지연의가 아니라, 진짜 史書인 진수陳壽의 삼국지에 바탕한 삼국의 역사 강의였다. 삼국지는 소설이건 역사 강의이건, 흥미가 있다.
유튜브에서도 이 강의를 시청할 수 있다.
---------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
모든 모델은 현실이 아니고, 지도는 영토가 아니다.
All Models Are Wrong
How is your journey towards understanding Farnam Street’s latticework of mental models going? Is it proving useful? Changing your view of the world? If the answer is that it’s going well that’s good. There’s just one tiny hitch.
All models are wrong.
Yep. It's the truth. However, there is another part to that statement:
All models are wrong, some are useful.
Those words come from the British statistician, George Box. In a groundbreaking 1976 paper, Box revealed the fallacy of our desire to categorize and organize the world. We create models (a term with many applications), once to confuse them for reality.
Box also stated:
Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.
What Exactly Is A Model?
First, we should understand precisely what a model is.
The dictionary definition states a model is ‘a representation, generally in miniature, to show the construction or appearance of something’ or ‘a simplified description, especially a mathematical one, of a system or process, to assist calculations and predictions.’
For our purposes here, we are better served by the second definition. A model is a simplification which fosters understanding.
Think of an architectural model. These are typically a small scale model of a building, made before it's built. Its purpose is to show what the building will look like and to help people working on the project to develop a clear picture of the overall feel. In the iconic scene from Zoolander, Derek (played by Ben Stiller) looks at the architectural model of his propsed ‘school for kids who can’t read good’ and shouts “What is this? A center for ants??”
That scene illustrates the wrong way to understand models: Too literally.
Why We Use Models- And Why They Work
At Farnam Street, we believe in using models for the purpose of building a massive, but finite amount of fundamental, invariant knowledge about how the world really works. Applying this knowledge is the key to making good decisions and avoiding stupidity.
“Scientists generally agree that no theory is 100 percent correct. Thus, the real test of knowledge is not truth, but utility. Science gives us power. The more useful that power, the better the science.”
— Yuval Noah Harari
Time-tested models allow us to understand how things work in the real world. And understanding how things work prepares us to make better decisions without expending too much mental energy in the process.
Instead of relying on fickle and specialized facts, we can learn versatile concepts. The mental models we cover are intended to be widely applicable.
It's crucial for us to understand as many mental models as possible. As the adage goes, a little knowledge can be dangerous and creates more problems than total ignorance. No single model is universally applicable – we find exceptions for nearly everything. Even hardcore physics has not been totally solved.
“The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that “right” and “wrong” are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.”
— Isaac Asimov
Take a look at almost any comment section on the internet and you are guaranteed to find at least one pedant raging about a minor perceived inaccuracy, throwing out the good with the bad. While ignorance and misinformation are certainly not laudable, neither is an obsession with perfection.
Like heuristics, models work as a consequence of the fact they are usually helpful in most situations, not because they are always helpful in a small number of situations.
Models can assist us in making predictions and forecasting the future. Forecasts are never guaranteed, yet they provide us with a degree of preparedness and comprehension of the future. For example, a weather forecast which claims it will rain today may get that wrong. Still, it's correct often enough to enable us to plan appropriately and bring an umbrella.
Mental Models and Minimum Viable Products
Think of mental models as minimum viable products.
Sure, all of them can be improved. But the only way that can happen is if we try them out, educate ourselves and collectively refine them.
We can apply one of our mental models, Occam’s razor, to this. Occam’s razor states that the simplest solution is usually correct. In the same way, our simplest mental models tend to be the most useful. This is because there is minimal room for errors and misapplication.
“The world doesn’t have the luxury of waiting for complete answers before it takes action.”
— Daniel Gilbert
Your kitchen knives are not as sharp as they could be. Does that matter as long as they still cut vegetables? Your bed is not as comfortable as it could be. Does that matter if you can still get a good night’s sleep in it? Your internet is not as fast as it could be. Does that matter as long as you can load this article? Arguably not. Our world runs on the functional, not the perfect. This is what a mental model is – a functional tool. A tool which maybe could be a bit sharper or easier to use, but still does the job.
The statistician David Hand made the following statement in 2014;
In general, when building statistical models, we must not forget that the aim is to understand something about the real world. Or predict, choose an action, make a decision, summarize evidence, and so on, but always about the real world, not an abstract mathematical world: our models are not the reality.
For example, in 1960, Georg Rasch said the following:
When you construct a model you leave out all the details which you, with the knowledge at your disposal, consider inessential…. Models should not be true, but it is important that they are applicable, and whether they are applicable for any given purpose must, of course, be investigated. This also means that a model is never accepted finally, only on trial.
Imagine a world where physics like precision is prized over usefulness.
We would lack medical care because a medicine or procedure can never be perfect. In a world like this, we would possess little scientific knowledge, because research can never be 100% accurate. We would have no art because a work can never be completed. We would have no technology because there are always little flaws which can be ironed out.
“A model is a simplification or approximation of reality and hence will not reflect all of reality … While a model can never be “truth,” a model might be ranked from very useful, to useful, to somewhat useful to, finally, essentially useless.”
— Ken Burnham and David Anderson
In short, we would have nothing. Everything around us is imperfect and uncertain. Some things are more imperfect than others, but issues are always there. Over time, incremental improvements happen through unending experimentation and research.
The Map is Not the Territory
As we know, the map is not the territory. A map can be seen as a symbol or index of a place, not an icon.
When we look at a map of Paris, we know it is a representation of the actual city. There are bound to be flaws; streets which have been renamed, demolished buildings, perhaps a new Metro line. Even so, the map will help us find our way. It is far more useful to have a map showing the way from Notre Dame to Gare du Nord (a tool) than to know how many meters they are apart (a piece of trivia.)
Someone who has spent a lot of time studying a map will be able to use it with greater ease, just like a mental model. Someone who lives in Paris will find the map easier to understand than a tourist, just as someone who uses a mental model in their day to day life will apply it better than a novice. As long as there are no major errors, we can consider the map useful, even if it is by no means a reflection of reality. Gregory Bateson writes in Steps to an Ecology of Mind that the purpose of a map is not to be true, but to have a structure which represents truth within the current context.
“A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.”
— Alfred Korzybski
Physical maps generally become more accurate as time passes. Not long ago, they often included countries which didn’t exist, omitted some which did, portrayed the world as flat or fudged distances. Nowadays, our maps have come a long way.
The same goes for mental models – they are always evolving, being revised – never really achieving perfection. Certainly, over time, the best models are revised only slightly, but we must never consider our knowledge “set”.
Another factor to consider in using models is to take into account what they're used for.
Many mental models (e.g. entropy, critical mass and activation energy) are based upon scientific and mathematical concepts. A person who works in those areas will obviously need a deeper understanding of it than someone who want to learn to think better when making investment decisions. They will need a different map and a more detailed one showing elements which the rest of us have no need for.
“A model which took account of all the variation of reality would be of no more use than a map at the scale of one to one.”
— Joan Robinson
In Partial Enchantments of the Quixote, Jorge Luis Borges provides an even more interesting analysis of the confusion between models and reality:
Let us imagine that a portion of the soil of England has been leveled off perfectly and that on it a cartographer traces a map of England. The job is perfect; there is no detail of the soil of England, no matter how minute that is not registered on the map; everything has there its correspondence. This map, in such a case, should contain a map of the map, which should contain a map of the map of the map, and so on to infinity. Why does it disturb us that the map be included in the map and the thousand and one nights in the book of the Thousand and One Nights? Why does it disturb us that Don Quixote be a reader of the Quixote and Hamlet a spectator of Hamlet? I believe I have found the reason: these inversions suggest that if the characters of a fictional work can be readers or spectators, we, its readers or spectators, can be fictions.
How Do We Know If A Model Is Useful?
This is a tricky question to answer. When looking at any model, it is helpful to ask some of the following questions:
•How long has this model been around? As a general rule, mental models which have been around for a long time (such as Occam’s razor) will have been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny. Time is an excellent curator, trimming away inefficient ideas. A mental model which is new may not be particularly refined or versatile. Many of our mental models originate from Ancient Greece and Rome, meaning they have to be functional to have survived this long.
•Is it a representation of reality? In other words, does it reflect the real world? Or is it based on abstractions?
•Does this model apply to multiple areas? The more elastic a model is, the more valuable it is to learn about. (Of course, be careful not to apply the model where it doesn't belong. Mind Feynman: “You must not fool yourself, and you're the easiest person to fool.”)
•How did this model originate? Many mental models arise from scientific or mathematical concepts. The more fundamental the domain, the more likely the model is to be true and lasting.
•Is it based on first principles? A first principle is a foundational concept which cannot be deduced from any other concept and must be known.
•Does it require infinite regress? Infinite regress refers to something which is justified by principles, which themselves require justification by other principles. A model based on infinite regress is likely to required extensive knowledge of a particular topic, and have minimal real-world application.
When using any mental model, we must avoid becoming too rigid. There are exceptions to all of them, and situations in which they are not applicable.
Think of the latticework as a toolkit. That's why it pays to do the work up front to put so many of them in your toolbox at a deep, deep level. If you only have one or two, you're likely to attempt to use them in places that don't make sense. If you've absorbed them only lightly, you will not be able to use them when the time is at hand.
If on the other hand, you have a toolbox full of them and they're sunk in deep, you're more likely to pull out the best ones for the job exactly when they are needed.
Too many people are caught up wasting time on physics-like precision in areas of practical life that do not have such precision available. A better approach is to ask “Is it useful?” and, if yes, “To what extent?”
Mental models are a way of thinking about the world that prepares us to make good decisions in the first place.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기