![]() ![]() That’s because they are reductions of what they represent. Stick with it, and you’ll find that your ability to understand reality, make consistently good decisions, and help those you love will always be improving. To help you build your latticework of mental models so you can make better decisions, we’ve collected and summarized the ones we’ve found the most useful.Īnd remember: Building your latticework is a lifelong project. ![]() You’ve got to hang experience on a latticework of models in your head.” You may have noticed students who just try to remember and pound back what is remembered. And you’ve got to array your experience both vicarious and direct on this latticework of models. If the facts don’t hang together on a latticework of theory, you don’t have them in a usable form. In a famous speech in the 1990s, Charlie Munger summed up the approach to practical wisdom through understanding mental models by saying: “Well, the first rule is that you can’t really know anything if you just remember isolated facts and try and bang ’em back. Sharing knowledge, or learning the basics of the other disciplines, would lead to a more well-rounded understanding that would allow for better initial decisions about managing the forest. None are wrong, but neither are any of them able to describe the full scope of the forest. When a botanist looks at a forest they may focus on the ecosystem, an environmentalist sees the impact of climate change, a forestry engineer the state of the tree growth, a business person the value of the land. If we’re only looking at the problem one way, we’ve got a blind spot. By putting these disciplines together in our head, we can walk around a problem in a three-dimensional way. A biologist will think in terms of evolution. A psychologist will think in terms of incentives. By default, a typical Engineer will think in systems. ![]() Each specialist sees something different. Instead of a latticework of mental models, we have a few from our discipline. It turns out that when it comes to improving your ability to make decisions variety matters. The more models you have-the bigger your toolbox-the more likely you are to have the right models to see reality. The quality of our thinking is proportional to the models in our head and their usefulness in the situation at hand. We cannot keep all of the details of the world in our brains, so we use models to simplify the complex into understandable and organizable chunks. Mental models are how we simplify complexity, why we consider some things more relevant than others, and how we reason.Ī mental model is simply a representation of how something works. ![]() Not only do they shape what we think and how we understand but they shape the connections and opportunities that we see. The moment magnitude provides an estimate of earthquake size that is valid over the complete range of magnitudes, a characteristic that was lacking in other magnitude scales.Mental models are how we understand the world. The result is called the moment magnitude. The moment is then converted into a number similar to other earthquake magnitudes by a standard formula. The moment can be estimated from seismogram s (and also from geodetic measurements). Moment is a physical quantity proportional to the slip on the fault multiplied by the area of the fault surface that slips it is related to the total energy released in the earthquake. In particular, for very large earthquakes, moment magnitude gives the most reliable estimate of earthquake size. In its range of validity, each is equivalent to the Richter magnitude.īecause of the limitations of all three magnitude scales (ML, Mb, and Ms), a new more uniformly applicable extension of the magnitude scale, known as moment magnitude, or Mw, was developed. Each is valid for a particular frequency range and type of seismic signal. These include body wave magnitude ( Mb) and surface wave magnitude ( Ms). In order to take advantage of the growing number of globally distributed seismograph stations, new magnitude scales that are an extension of Richter's original idea were developed. This is what was to eventually become known as the Richter magnitude.Īs more seismograph stations were installed around the world, it became apparent that the method developed by Richter was strictly valid only for certain frequency and distance ranges. This magnitude scale was referred to as ML, with the L standing for local. The idea of a logarithmic earthquake magnitude scale was first developed by Charles Richter in the 1930's for measuring the size of earthquakes occurring in southern California using relatively high-frequency data from nearby seismograph stations. Earthquake size, as measured by the Richter Scale is a well known, but not well understood, concept. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |