up:: Mental Models
The Map is not the Territory
Transclude of The-map-appears-to-us-more-real-than-the-land
Maps help us reduce complexity to simplicity. They are models that simplify some complex territory in order to guide you through it.
The map of reality is not reality. Even the best maps are imperfect. That’s because they are reductions of what they represent. If a map were to represent the territory with perfect fidelity, it would no longer be a reduction and thus would no longer be useful to us. A map can also be a snapshot of a point in time, representing something that no longer exists. This is important to keep in mind as we think through problems and make better decisions.
Just because maps and models are flawed is not an excuse to ignore them. Maps are useful to the extent they are explanatory and predictive.
In 1931, the mathematician Alfred Korzybski presented a paper that introduced and popularized the concept that the map is not the territory, the description of the thing is not the thing itself. The model is not reality. The abstraction is not the abstracted.
Specifically, in his own words:
- A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of the territory. Maps describe a territory in a useful way, but with a specific purpose. They cannot be everything to everyone.
- Two similar structures have similar “logical” characteristics.
- A map is not the actual territory.
- An ideal map would contain the map of the map, the map of the map of the map, etc., endlessly.
The truth is, the only way we can navigate the complexity of reality is through some sort of abstraction. We often consuming abstractions created by other people. The authors consumed vast amounts of information, reflected upon it, and drew some abstractions and conclusions that they share with us. But something is lost in the process. We can lose the specific and relevant details that were distilled into an abstraction. And, because we often consume these abstractions as gospel, without having done the hard mental work ourselves, it’s tricky to see when the map no longer agrees with the territory. We inadvertently forget that the map is not reality.
We forget there is a territory that exists separately from the map. This territory contains details the map doesn’t describe. We run into problems when our knowledge becomes of the map, rather than the actual underlying territory it describes.
When we close off or ignore feedback loops, we don’t see the terrain has changed and we dramatically reduce our ability to adapt to a changing environment. Reality is messy and complicated, so our tendency to simplify it is understandable. However, if the aim becomes simplification rather than understanding we start to make bad decisions.
We can’t use maps as dogma. Maps and models are not meant to live forever as static references. The world is dynamic. As territories change, our tools to navigate them must be flexible to handle a wide variety of situations or adapt to the changing times. If the value of a map or model is related to its ability to predict or explain, then it needs to represent reality. If reality has changed the map must change.
Maps can’t show everything
Some of the biggest map/territory problems are the risks of the territory that are not shown on the map. When we’re following the map without looking around, we trip right over them. Any user of a map or model must realize that we do not understand a model, map, or reduction unless we understand and respect its limitations. If we don’t understand what the map does and doesn’t tell us, it can be useless or even dangerous.
Economist Elinor Ostrom wrote about being cautious with maps and models when looking at different governance structures for common resources. She was worried that The Tragedy of the Commons model, which shows how a shared resource can become destroyed through bad incentives, was too general and did not account for how people, in reality, solved the problem. She explained the limitations of using models to guide public policy, namely that they often become metaphors.
“What makes these models so dangerous … is that the constraints that are assumed to be fixed for the purpose of analysis are taken on faith as being fixed in empirical setting.”
This is a double problem. First, having a general map, we may assume that if a territory matches the map in a couple of respects it matches the map in all respects. Second, we may think adherence to the map is more important than taking in new information about a territory. Ostrom asserts that one of the main values of using models as maps in public policy discussions is in the thinking that is generated. They are tools for exploration, not doctrines to force conformity. They are guidebooks, not laws.
Transclude of Remember-that-all-models-are-wrong
In order to use a map or model as accurately as possible, we should take three important considerations into account:
- Reality is the ultimate update.
- Consider the cartographer.
- Maps can influence territories.
Reality is the ultimate update
When we enter new and unfamiliar territory it’s nice to have a map on hand. But territories change, sometimes faster than the maps and models that describe them. We can and should update them based on our own experiences in the territory. That’s how good maps are built: feedback loops created by explorers.
We do have to remember though, that a map captures a territory at a moment in time. Just because it might have done a good job at depicting what was, there is no guarantee that it depicts what is there now or what will be there in the future. The faster the rate of change in the territory, the harder it will be for a map to keep up to date.
Transclude of Viewed-in-its-development-through-time
Consider the cartographer
When we look at the world map we have today, we tend to associate societies with nations, assuming that the borders reflect a common identity shared by everyone contained within them.
Models are most useful when we consider them in the context they were created. What was the cartographer trying to achieve? How does this influence what is depicted in the map?
As a branch of human endeavor, cartography has a long and interesting history that well reflects the state of cultural activity, as well as the perception of the world, in different periods. … Though technical in nature, cartography, like architecture, has attributes of both a scientific and artistic pursuit, a dichotomy not satisfactorily reconciled in all presentations. - Norman J.W. Thrower
Maps can influence territories
Jane Jacobs in her groundbreaking work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. “It became possible also to map out master plans for the statistical city, and people take these more seriously, for we are all accustomed to believe that maps and reality are necessarily related, or that if they are not, we can make them so by altering reality.”
Jacobs’ book is, in part, a cautionary tale of what can happen when faith in the model influences the decisions we make in the territory. When we try to fit complexity into the simplification.
In general, when building statistical models, we must not forget that the aim is to understand something about the real world. Or predict, choose an action, make a decision, summarize evidence, and so on, but always about the real world, not an abstract mathematical world: our models are not the reality. - David Hand
In a nutshell
Maps have long been a part of human society. They are valuable tools to pass on knowledge. Still, in using maps, abstractions, and models, we must always be wise to their limitations. They are, by definition, reductions of something far more complex. There is always at least an element of subjectivity, and we need to remember that they are created at particular moments in time.
This does not mean that we cannot use maps and models. We must use some model of the world in order to simplify it and therefore interact with it. We cannot explore every bit of territory for ourselves. We can use maps to guide us, but we must not let them prevent us from discovering new territory or updating our existing maps.
While navigating the world based on terrain is a useful goal, it’s not always possible. Maps, and models, help us understand and relate to the world around us. They are flawed but useful. In order to think a few steps ahead we must think beyond the map.
We need maps to condense the territory we are trying to navigate.
See also: The Tragedy of the Commons, Strong Opinions Weakly Held