This is a great example of bad writing. I think you have an inkling of a premise, but spread it weakly across three paragraphs while muddling through your feelings and misunderstandings about models. You never actually define or defend a position. Couple times you've come close to contradicting yourself, but the premise is so weak I can't say for sure.

I do think you successfully communicate that you struggle with some of the concepts you're trying to refute.

Just looking at your highlighted statements:

> The most valuable mental models do not survive codification. They cannot be expressed through words alone.

Close to stating a premise but you've gone and blown away the the subject of models. I think you're trying to say farnam street is selling snake oil, but you're now arguing experience can't be taught, which is tangential and generally uninteresting

> When Warren Buffett studies a company, he doesn’t see a checklist of mental models he has to apply.

1) You don't know that and 2) "warren buffet studies a company by running through a checklist of mental models" is a claim you've just come up with to refute (strawmen seem to make up the majority of this post)

> How do you know if a computer program is badly designed? You don’t go through a mental checklist; instead, you feel disgust, coloured by your experience.

No. You've indicated you don't understand design, and again that a model = mental checklist, which is your own assertion