What an odd article, I have to admit I spent a good while questioning whether i'd got the my own understanding of the value of mental models totally wrong. My first issue with the article is that i've never really seen any claims that by understanding mental models you will be furnished with the skill to either win at MMA or beat the stock market (or anything else for that matter). This leaves me wondering why these very narrow examples of the value of mental models are used as a foundation to the argument.

Knowledge and wisdom is built on abstractions (this is well established). When i think about how i have distilled the things i know, im certain that its finding the correct abstraction - the correct picture or mental model. for example a mental modal about winner takes all markets allows you to understand that certain markets have this trait and therefore the mental model allows you to identify this class of market efficiently due to a nice terse abstraction. I really don't see the link the author makes between understanding the mental model of a winner takes all market meaning that you should all of a sudden be an expert in how to beat one, you may know the basics but i think most people would also know there is experience, nuance and instinct involved - very indefinite things, unlike a the classification that the mental model portrays. Knowledge is built upon abstractions and therefore mental models are just that, its the classification of knowledge that captures a model (generally static) of the world. In understanding a mental model you get some insight distilled into a neat abstraction. Believing you can win at anything just by understanding a mental model... thats crazy surely !?