Kent Beck's: https://www.facebook.com/notes/kent-beck/a-searching-and-fea...
Another one: https://www.defmacro.org/2016/12/22/models.html
I don’t mean that people are dishonest. It’s more that we mostly learn about one another’s internal mental lives by telling each other about them. And our ability to maintain a consistent theory of mind is limited. We walk around worrying about this or that, and then we expose our mental states to one another with a snippet of a stream of consciousness. So it’s only natural we are constantly exposing our personal fears to one another.
After having experienced it I'll never let someone use mw in that manner ever again as I've learned how to call them out and use their own logic and tactics against them and I've built some solid internal heuristics for spotting the methods sociopaths employ to deceive people. Pretty fascinating subject, can anyone relate to my experiences/expand on the topic?
-- Hannah Arendt
Just read about them, make some notes, try some of the ones you didn't know about, and so on. If you did found them useful, revisit over time.
1. Understand the problem
2. Devise a plan
3. Execute said plan
4. Review and reflect
This is a nice framework to attack any problem with. It won't necessarily give you a solution but it provides a nice springboard.
"I find mental models are useful to try to make sense of things and to help generate ideas."
I think that in instances like this, who "I" is is important context to HN readers scrolling through the front page. Perhaps it would be better to do the brackets thing editors do when clarifying something in a quote:
"Mental Models I [the founder of DuckDuckGo] Find Repeatedly Useful"
On HN, the first person in a title refers to the author of the article, not the submitting account. That seems simple and sufficient. It isn't necessary, nor possible, nor even desirable for an 80-char title to explain everything. It's good for HN readers to have to work a little. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20%22work%20a%20little....