Two great illustrations of this concept from literature come to mind:<p>* Borges's 'On Exactitude in Science' [0] about a map that is as large and as precise as the territory, which renders it useless;<p>* the wonderful Eschaton scene in Infinite Jest [1], with Pemulis screaming: "It’s snowing on the goddamn <i>map</i>, not the territory, you <i>dick</i>!<p>This point gets made enough over time that one suspects it's an enduring trait of our cognition to mistake the two. It certainly comes up when people present and talk about epidemiology models.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJpfK7l404I" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJpfK7l404I</a> -- I think this Decembrists music video does Eschaton wonderfully.
I wonder if it's even useful anymore to consider mental models in the context of financial markets, even if it's just used as a metaphorical warning sign.<p>I read an assertion recently that of all the "markets" in human civilization/culture, the financial one is the only one where we have truly have brought maximum resource and human capital to bear. With that in mind, no one is ever surprised when the next fat tail undoes hundreds of millions in mere moments, even when the capital was managed by ostensibly "smart" individuals.<p>The map is certainly not the territory there, but for the average individual they're going to have a hard time understanding the map, the territory, the map legend, anecdotes about the map etc...
One of my favorite sayings is the old Swiss Army aphorism:<p><i>"When the map and the terrain disagree; believe the terrain."</i><p>It features in this screed I wrote: <a href="https://medium.com/chrismarshallny/concrete-galoshes-a5798a55af2a" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/chrismarshallny/concrete-galoshes-a5798a5...</a><p><i>(Scroll down to "Story Time." It's in that section.)</i><p>I also enjoyed learning about Farnam Street. I've bookmarked it.
A.E. van Vogt wrote a fantastic SF novel based on the concept of "the map is not the territory". It's called "The Players of Null-A", if I remember correctly. It became a trilogy. I've re-read it multiple times and in fact, had just started reading it again. Some things did not age well since it was written in 1946, but overall fascinating stuff.
Two implications:<p>1. We have many maps, models, or concepts - different ways of viewing the same situation. How we choose which map is often more important than the overall accuracy of our maps. Changing perspective often beats getting more accurate data.<p>2. There is no reason to have any emotional or sentimental attachment to one’s knowledge. Think of “your knowledge” the same way you would think of “your map collection”. Edit (or discard) them with extreme prejudice!
This type of epistemology is that of a naive realist and is much more wrong than the Platonist the author tries to ostensibly criticize. Naive realism is outdated by almost 240 years.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism</a>
What’s interesting are cases where the map is the territory. The Facebook map of your friends just is the graph of your Facebook friends. The chain of command for the military just is the chain of command. Etc.
even better resource, learn wardley mapping
<a href="https://medium.com/wardleymaps" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/wardleymaps</a><p>how to use maps in business