We all want to avoid making bad decisions. We want to avoid making bad investments. Avoid failure, losing money, etc.

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger (may he Rest in Peace) have a mental model for this. It’s called the “Circle of Competence”.

Here is a short video of their explanation of the topic.

What’s so great about this principle is that helps you to stick to what you know.

It allows you to operate where you are best, and avoid where you’d make stupid decisions.

Here is a breakdown of the rules and how it applies:

Your Circle of Competence is an area you know well. You’re an expert in. You have a lot of experience in.

You Know Less Than You Think You Do

We naturally think we know a lot more than we do.

Our ego gets in the way.

We get overconfident.

We think we’re smarter than we are.

We end up thinking our expertise in one area applies to other areas, then we end up making bad decisions.

It’s important to know the difference between what you think you know vs what you actually know.

Know Your Limits

Building a Circle of Competence takes years to cultivate. There are not shortcuts. It takes hard work and experience to build one.

And once you have one, it takes work to maintain, otherwise it atrophies and you can lose (or shrink) your circle.

Further, when you’re in your Circle of Competence, it becomes much clearer what you don’t know.

If you don’t know what you don’t know, chances are you are already outside of your Circle of Competence.

Thus, when making important decisions, it is critical to understand where the edges of your competence lie.

Grow Your Circle of Competence

As Farnam Street’s The Great Mental Models Vol. 1 points out, there are three keys to building your circle of competence:

• Curiosity and desire to learn
• Monitoring
• Feedback

Underpinning all of this is hard work and practice. However, staying curious and trying new things, monitoring progress and getting feedback on what you need to improve on will grow your Circle of Competence over time.

Operating Outside of Your Circle of Competence

Life becomes boring if we never venture outside of our Circle of Competence. We also stifle our growth and learning.

We’ll also naturally find ourselves outside of our Circle of Competence from time to time, or maybe even often.

So how do you survive when you’re outside of it?

Firstly, know that you’re outside of it. Then:

1. Learn the fundamentals of the subject matter your in. But be transparent with others (and yourself) that you’re a beginner
2. Learn from the experts. And ask them good questions to learn faster
3. Use mental models—these are no substitute for expertise, but they arm you with a variety of tools to think through problems in a lot of different, powerful ways.

The post Circle of Competence appeared first on Matthew Montaruli.

Carl Jacobi was a 19th century mathematician who was famous for inventing the mental model: Inversion.

While he used this for mathematics, it has broad applications outside of math as well.

What’s so great about this principle is that it gives you tools to think about a problem from multiple angles.

It allows you to find vastly simpler ways of solving problems.

Here is a breakdown of the approaches to Inversion and how it applies.

Inversion involves thinking about the opposite of the end goal or starting point. You can do this in two different ways:

Approach #1: What do you want to avoid?

Instead of thinking about what you want to achieve, think about what you want to avoid.

Some classic examples of this could be:

• Instead of “How do I become rich?”, think “how do I not become poor?”
• Instead of “How do I make a smart decision?”, think “how do I not make a stupid decision?”
• Instead of “How can I be successful?”, think “how can I avoid failing?”

Asking yourself questions in these terms can help open up new avenues to problem solving you hadn’t thought of before.

Answering these questions (or others like it) will give you a list of things you SHOULDN’T do, increasing the likelihood you’ll succeed.

Approach #2: Work backwards

Instead of starting from the beginning of a scenario, think about the end and work your way backwards.

A practice that’s often used when working backwards is what’s sometimes referred to as a “Pre Mortem”.

When you start a project, imagine you’ve fast-forwarded six months in time and the project has failed.

Then tell the story of what went wrong.

The answer to this question will help you identify what you need to do in order to have a successful project.

Example of Applying Inversion

Let’s take an example and apply both approaches to it.

Imagine you are shopping for a house. You are in the early stages and just starting to look around.

Approach #1: What do you want to avoid?

What you may want to avoid while buying a house:

• Mortgage payments you can’t afford
• A house requiring too much work where it will be too expensive (or time consuming) to fix up
• A house without enough rooms to fit you and your family
• An ugly house architecture that doesn’t fit your tastes

These are some generic examples, and will obviously be way more specific to suit individual needs.

But what this exercise does is make it clear which houses you can immediately disqualify and not consider.

You may be house shopping and find a house with decor you fall in love with, but you can’t afford the mortgage payments.

This becomes an emotional decision that you may regret later. The above criteria will help you disqualify the house before you get too emotionally invested in it.

Approach #2: Work backwards

Imagine you bought a house that you regret. What went wrong?

• The mortgage payments were too expensive because the interest rates are too high
• The house needed way more work than expected—there was a plumbing issue the home inspection didn’t pick up
• The neighborhood is much noisier than expected

Now, what can you do preemptively to avoid these problems?

• Calculate the absolute maximum mortgage payments you can afford, inclusive of interest, real estate taxes, PMI, etc. Don’t deviate from that maximum no matter what the house looks like.
• Hire a plumber (who you trust or one recommended to you) to give an extra look at the house before going into contract.
• Visit the neighborhood at different times in the day to hear if things get noisier

The value of this exercise is to explore things that might become problematic later on that can be typically missed during the home buying process.

And more broadly, it allows you to approach a decision at more angles than you otherwise would have.

Further Reading

• The Great Mental Models Volume 1: General Thinking Concepts
• Inversion and The Power of Avoiding Stupidity – Farnam Street
• Inversion: The Crucial Thinking Skill Nobody Ever Taught You – James Clear

The post Inversion appeared first on Matthew Montaruli.

William of Ockham was an interesting guy.

Born in 1287 in Ockham, Surrey (where he got his name), he studied theology at Oxford, was a philosopher, logician, and a Franciscan Friar. Due to some disagreements with the papacy on certain catholic doctrines, some called him a heretic, and he was excommunicated in 1328.

Ironically, while leading what seems to be a very complicated life, he is best known for a mental model all about simplicity: “Occam’s Razor”.

What’s so great about this principle is that it provides guidelines for when one should prefer a simple versus complex explanation.

Let’s dive in.

Rule #1: Prefer the Simple

The core tenant of Occam’s Razor is that when all things are equal, and presented with two hypotheses or explanations that both describe a scenario equally well, you should prefer the simpler explanation to the more complex one.

Here is a quick YouTube video that provides a great summary of Occam’s Razor.

This can be applied to science, statistics, behavior, medical diagnoses, business and many other areas.

Example:

• You’re standing in line at your local convenience store. The person behind you, a stranger, is rude to you.
• Theory 1: You worry this person actually knows you, hates you and has been rude to you because they have a vendetta against you.
• Theory 2: You then think maybe this person is just having a bad day.

Occam’s Razor suggests you prefer Theory 2 over Theory 1. Both explain the situation, but Theory 1 is more complicated.

Rule #2: Simple Explanations are More Likely to be Correct

Based on pure probability, the simpler explanation is more likely to be correct.

A complicated explanation requires a lot more variables to be correct. Each additional variable present increases the likelihood of an entire theory being false.

A simpler explanation, by definition has fewer variables, fewer things that can be false, and thus less likely to be false when compared to a complicated theory.

Let’s look at the above example and break down their variables:

With Theory 1:

• The person has to know you
• The person has to hate you
• The person has to have a personal vendetta against you

That’s three different components that need to be true in order for Theory 1 to prove out. If any one of these are wrong, the whole thing is wrong.

With Theory 2:

• The person has to be having a bad day

That’s just a single thing that needs to be true in order for Theory 2 to prove out.

More things that can go wrong = less likely to be true.

Rule #3: Not a Law

It’s important to remember that Occam’s Razor is a tendency, NOT a law.

It’s a heuristic, a rule of thumb, a bias. It is not something to live by.

Going back to our example above, Theory 1 CAN be true. It’s just less likely to be true when compared to Theory 2.

Rule #4: Avoid Artificial Simplicity

Since Occam’s Razor is a tendency and not a law, avoid over prescribing it.

Don’t oversimplify things that shouldn’t be.

Some things in life just aren’t that simple.

And to that end, as Farnam Street puts it in The Great Mental Models Vol. 1, “An explanation can be simplified only to the extent that it can still provide an accurate understanding.”

So, if your explanation no longer covers the full picture, you’ve oversimplified.

The post Occam’s Razor appeared first on Matthew Montaruli.

Jeff Bezos has a process for making decisions. He asks if a decision is a one-way door or a two-way door.

What’s so great about this principle is that it provide guidance on how much deliberation should go into a decision.

It allows you to make certain decisions much more quickly than you normally would.

Lets dive in.

Rule #1: One Way Doors

One way doors are decisions that are not reversible. Once you decide, you either can’t change course, or it would be expensive (or time consuming) to do so.

Bezos calls these “Type 1 Decisions”.

Examples might be:

• Buying a house
• Getting married
• Selling your company

These decisions require you to slow down. Analyze and look to get more information.

With Type 1 Decisions, you want to make sure you aren’t making a choice you’ll regret later, since there is practically no turning back.

That said, avoid analysis paralysis. Look to get just enough information. If you wait to get ALL information, you’ll never make a selection.

Rule #2: Two Way Doors

Two way doors are decisions that ARE reversible. You can change course fairly inexpensively and/or quickly.

Bezos calls these “Type 2 Decisions”.

Examples might be:

• Buying a different brand of cereal at the grocery store
• Learning a new skill
• Changing the price on an offering

How often do you buy a new house vs buy cereal at the grocery store?

Turns out most decisions are more reversible than we realize. But we often treat most choices like Type 1 Decisions, when they aren’t.

You learn most when taking action. And since Type 2 Decisions can easy be reversed, take action, learn, and adjust course when necessary.

Fast decision making is often a competitive advantage, so when you can afford to decide faster (ie: the decision is reversible) speed up and learn along the way.

A good way to summarize the approach for Type 1 and Type 2 Decisions:

• Type 1 Decisions: Ready, Aim, Fire
• Type 2 Decisions: Ready, Fire, Aim

The post One Way and Two Way Doors appeared first on Matthew Montaruli.

Howard Marks has a process for making better investment decisions. He uses the mental model: Second Order Thinking.

This mental model provides a great toolset for thinking through a decision more thoroughly, and understanding longer term consequences.

It allows you to seem like you’re seeing into the future.

Let’s dive in.

Rule #1: First Order Thinking is superficial

First Order Thinking is knowing the immediate cause-and effect of ones actions.

It is understanding the immediate-term consequences of something.

Everyone does this. It’s a pretty easy way to go about decision-making.

But if everyone does this, no one separates themselves from the pack—everyone’s quality of decision making is the same.

Rule #2: Second Order Thinking is hard, but worth it

Second Order Thinking involves considering what happens after the effects of ones actions or decisions.

It’s thinking about the consequences of the consequences. The effects of the effects.

Warren Buffet provides a great and simple example of Second Order Thinking, courtesy of The Great Mental Models, Vol 1:

• Imagine standing in a crowd at a parade. You have a hard time seeing the parade from behind the crowd.
• You decide to stand on your tip toes to see better.
• More and more people follow suit so they can see better.
• Soon, everyone is standing on their tip toes.
• Now, no one can see any better, but everyone is worse off.

First Order thinking would be deciding to stand on your tip toes in order to see.

Second Order (or even Third+ Order thinking) would be considering that if you stand on your tip toes everyone will, no one will see any better, but now everyones toes hurt.

This level of thinking is naturally a lot harder to do—it requires more brainpower and more deep thinking on a problem.

However, taking the extra time to think further ahead will translate to much higher-quality decisions.

And since fewer people think in Second or Third-order consequences, you’re making better decisions than most.

Rule #3: Ask The following questions to think in Second Order

There are some easy-to-remember techniques for Second Order Thinking. Farnam Street Blog suggests:

• Always ask yourself: “And then what?”
• Ask yourself: “What do the consequences look like x days, weeks or years from now?”
• Write down the consequences of the consequences—which are positive vs negative? This will help give you a better accounting of which decision has the best long term result.

Rule #4: Long term gains are usually better than short term gains

By leveraging Second Order Thinking, you are thinking further ahead.

You’re considering impacts days, weeks or even years from now.

You’ll often find decisions having the best outcomes means improved long term gains, at the cost of shorter term pains.

Thinking in second-order consequences will help you to better consider when you should prioritize the short term vs the long term, and know which are the better yields.

Rule #5: Beware of analysis paralysis

Second Order Thinking will yield more quality decision making, but be careful not to go too crazy with it.

If you think of all possible effects of something, you might end up never acting and constantly analyzing.

Instead, consider all the likely effects of something.

Avoid the tendency over-analyze, and be mindful of the right balance of analysis vs action.

The post Second Order Thinking appeared first on Matthew Montaruli.

What does Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Immanuel Kant and Richard Feynman all have in common? They all use the same mental model for deep learning and solving complex problems: First Principles Thinking.

What’s awesome about this model is that it disregards all assumptions and gets to the heart of the matter.

It allows you to reduce a concept to it’s core foundational components.

Let’s dive in. And for further reading, Farnam Street has a great detailed chapter on this concept, as well as on the details below on techniques for determining First Principles.

First, let’s talk about what a First Principle is, and how you know you’re thinking in First Principles.

What Is a First Principle and How Do You Know You’re Thinking in One

Step 1: Deconstruct

First Principle Thinking is all about breaking concepts down to their core parts.

They are the building blocks of a skill, idea or discipline.

They are the fundamental components that all the other parts of a concept are built on.

• They are the punches, kicks and holds in Martial Arts
• They numbers and operators in math
• It’s physics in architecture and engineering

Once you get to a core component of something that can’t be reduced any further, you have arrived at a First Principle.

This is important because First Principles avoid assumptions or bias that might block you from solving something.

It’s also important as if you learn the fundamentals in a discipline, you gain a strong foundation in building up a skill.

Step 2: Test

How do you know you’ve arrived at a First Principle?

You test it: challenge it, then reconstruct it.

If the principle you are inspecting cannot be reduced any further, you’ve arrived at a First Principle.

If you land on a statement that is a falsifiable fact, you have a First Principle.

A falsifiable fact has the capacity to be proven wrong. It has no dependencies or biases. But there is a clear way to test whether the statement is right or wrong.

Step 3: Reconstruct

Now it’s time to apply your First Principle to a more complicated problem, or a collection of other First Principles for skill acquisition.

You must reconstruct your problem with these First Principles in mind, then experiment.

Example

Let’s run through an example from start to finish:

Let’s say you want to improve the design of a bicycle wheel.

1. Identify the fundamental components:
   • The wheel rim
   • The spokes
   • The hub
   • The tire
   • The axle
2. Break down the problem into basic principles:
   • The wheel rim must support the tire and distribute the rider’s weight.
   • The spokes must connect the rim to the hub and maintain structural integrity.
   • The hub must allow the wheel to rotate smoothly on the axle.
   • The tire must provide traction and cushioning for a comfortable ride.
   • The axle must support the wheel and allow it to rotate.
3. Challenge assumptions:
   • Why does the rim have to be circular? Could it be a different shape?
   • Do we need spokes, or is there a more efficient way to connect the rim and hub?
   • Can we improve the hub design to reduce friction and increase durability?
   • What if we explore different tire materials or designs?
   • Is there a way to make the axle lighter or stronger?
4. Reconstruct the solution based on these principles:
   • You might decide to experiment with a non-circular rim shape to improve aerodynamics or weight distribution.
   • You could research new materials and manufacturing methods to replace traditional spokes.
   • Redesign the hub to incorporate advanced bearings or materials for smoother rotation.
   • Investigate alternative tire designs or materials to enhance performance and comfort.
   • Explore high-strength, lightweight materials for the axle.

Here, you’ve deconstructed the elements of a bicycle wheel, and why those elements are important. Then you test the assumptions of the principles, then reconstruct those principles into experiments to attempt to arrive at a better design.

Note that you may even have to challenge very basic assumptions (ex: does a wheel have to be circular) to be sure you’ve arrived at core foundations of a problem, concept or skill.

Okay, now let’s go over some methods for how you can deconstruct a concept into it’s First Principles.

How to Establish First Principles

Method #1: The Five Whys

The Five Whys is a well known strategy for breaking something down. And it is especially effective in getting to a First Principle.

The concept is simple—repeatedly ask why. Every time you answer the “why”, ask “why?” again.

Repeat this process until you’ve landed on a statement of falsifiable fact, and something that can’t be reduced any further.

If you land on a statement that says “that’s just the way it is”, you’ve landed on an assumption based on culture or dogma, not a First Principle. This needs further inspection.

Method #2: Socratic Questioning

From the well-known Ancient Greek philosopher, Socratic questioning follows this process:

1. Clarify your thinking—what do you think and why do you think it?
2. Challenge your assumptions
3. Provide evidence to support arguments
4. Consider alternative perspectives
5. Explore consequences and implications of being wrong
6. Question the original questions

First Principle Thinking has many applications—from learning complex skills to breaking down complicated, seemingly unsolvable problems in more simplified chunks.

It’s a skill that takes a lot of practice (it’s tempting to just rely on assumptions), but pays off the more you do it.

Further Reading:

• Farnam Street: The Great Mental Models, Vol. 1
• Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman by, by Richard P. Feynman
• Principles by, Ray Dalio

The post First Principles Thinking appeared first on Matthew Montaruli.

Alfred Korzybski was a philosopher and scholar from the early 20th century. He invented the mental model: “The Map is Not the Territory”.

What’s so great about this principle is it teaches us the limits of tools and guides.

It helps you recognize that these guides, as Farnam Street writes about, don’t fully describe the messiness of reality.

Here is a breakdown of the rules and how they apply:

Before we get to the rules, maps and territories are metaphors for simplifications and reality. They have many applications including:

• News vs current events
• Financial Statements vs Acme Corporation
• Mental Models vs expertise

Rule #1: Maps are useful

Maps are useful BECAUSE they are simplifications of the territory. Physical maps are foldable and fit in your pocket. Digital maps fit on your phone.

They don’t contain every single detail of the territory, otherwise they will cease to become practical.

The map makes it easier to navigate a territory in that it serves as guidance, all while being portable.

The simplification that a map provides is a core feature.

Using an example from above, Financial Statements are helpful summaries of a company’s results at a certain point in time.

Using Financial Statements, you can get a better understanding of how a company is performing financially, what are the company’s priorities, and even get some sense of the company’s culture.

You can glean a lot of information about a company from just a few pages of their annual report.

Maps and Financial Statements exist because we need these “reductions of reality”, since consuming all the details of something can be overwhelming.

Rule #2: Maps have their flaws

Because maps are simplifications, they by definition, have their flaws.

They miss details.

They can be out of date.

Continuing from the above example, Financial Statements do NOT, give you the full picture of what it’s like to:

• Work at a company
• Lead the company
• Sell to the company
• Buy from the company

Relying on financial statements to draw firm conclusions about all aspects of a company would be a mistake.

Just like following a map blindly without looking right in front of you could lead you off a cliff, or into a lake.

Rule #3: Maps are subject to biases

Maps have authors (cartographers). Authors are not objective. Whether they mean to or not, they carry, and publish certain biases. These biases show themselves within the map.

Details that may seem important to you might not seem important to the author, so they don’t show up on the map.

Other details that are important to the author may seem irrelevant to you. And show up on the map, ultimately confusing you or changing your view of reality.

This happens in the news all the time. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally.

The news is a map of current events. In the news, certain details of current events are:

• Omitted
• Included
• Embellished
• Downplayed

Knowing this tendency when following maps will help us know it’s limitations.

Rule #4: Maps are tools for exploration, not dogma

Maps are a tool to help us explore. They’re also not the only tool for exploration. Compasses are tools, even clocks are tools.

Knowing of a maps limitations will help us realize that the map doesn’t govern how the territory SHOULD look.

• A Financial Statement does not govern how a company MUST operate going forward.
• The news doesn’t dictate how current events actually happened.
• Mental Models don’t define expertise.

The map serves it’s user, not the other way around. And the user is free to use multiple tools.

Knowing these four rules help us get a better grasp of reality. We can be more mindful of a tools usefulness, their limits, and inherent biases.

This also helps us get better at knowing the right tools for a job.

The post The Map is Not The Territory appeared first on Matthew Montaruli.

The Cynefin (pronounced ku-nev-in) Framework is a surprisingly little-known problem solving framework.

But it gives you superpowers in figuring out how to approach problems of any size or complexity.

What’s so great about it is that it helps you quickly categorize a problem, and gives you a formula for how to solve it.

Here is a breakdown of the model and how it applies.

Cynefin is Welsh for “habitat”. The Cynefin Framework was invented by an employee of IBM Global Services, David Snowden to manage Intellectual Capital.

You can read David’s article about Cynefin in the Harvard Business Review here. He’s also written a book on the framework.

It’s broken down into four “Domains”—categories for different types of problems you may encounter, and an approach for how to solve each type of problem.

Domain #1: Clear

When a problem and it’s solution is well-known, it’s part of the “clear” domain.

Instructions, best practices or established processes for addressing these sorts of problems already exist.

Some examples of problems in the Clear domain include:

• Building a paper airplane
• Paying a bill online
• Putting together a piece of Ikea furniture you’ve ordered

Each of these examples are solvable by following set processes or instructions. Expertise isn’t needed.

Here, you solve the problem by establishing the facts, determining if the problem is “Clear”, then following the prescribed formula. The framework calls this “sense, categorize, respond”.

A common mistake is to oversimplify a problem, and label it as “Clear”, when it really falls into one of the below domains.

Domain #2: Complicated

A problem is “Complicated” when it requires expertise in order to solve.

Solving this sort of problem isn’t as clear, and there may be more than one “right answer”. There is where experts come in to properly diagnose and fix the problem based on their experience.

Some examples of Complicated problems include:

• Fixing a car
• Building a piece of furniture from scratch
• Writing a short programming script to perform a few simple functions

Each of these examples have multiple different approaches, and require someone with some know-how or experience to take the right course of action.

Assuming you’re an expert, you solve the problem by establishing the facts, analyzing the problem based on your experience, then proceeding. The framework calls this “sense, analyze, respond”.

Domain #3: Complex

A problem is “Complex” when there isn’t a clear “right answer”. This is often the case when you’re in an environment in a constant state of flux.

Finding any answer in how to solve a Complex problem requires some investigation in it’s own right.

Some examples of Complex problems include:

• Mergers and acquisitions
• Saving endangered species in a rainforest
• Validating and launching a new business

None of these problems have clear right answers and are very context-dependent.

Here, you. solve the problem by experimenting first. After experimenting, evaluate the outcome of the experiment, then proceed. The framework calls this “probe, sense, respond”.

Domain #4: Chaotic

A problem is “Chaotic” when you are facing an emergency situation, and timing is of the essence.

It’s pointless to analyze anything about the problem. You need to act fast.

Some examples of Chaotic problems include:

• Putting out a (literal) fire
• Addressing a flooding basement
• Helping someone who is critically injured

Often, the right course of action in each of these examples are fairly obvious. Putting out a literal fire might involve stomping out the fire, using a fire extinguisher, or evacuating if there is nothing to put the fire out with.

You must act first, then sense where things are still unstable, then respond by bringing the unstable portions out of a state of chaos. The framework calls this “act, sense, respond”.

Next time you face a problem, categorize it, and take these approaches. You’ll find that it gives you a much greater degree of clarity on how to tackle the problem.

• Clear: sense, categorize, respond
• Complicated: sense, analyze, respond
• Complex: probe, sense, respond
• Chaotic: act, sense, respond

The post The Cynefin Framework appeared first on Matthew Montaruli.

Astro Teller, CEO of X Development (fka Google X) has a process for keeping or killing projects. He uses the mental model: “Monkeys and Pedestals”.

What’s so great about this principle is that it gives you clear next actions when evaluating a project. It also gives you a means to judge whether you pursue it further.

It allows you to get really effective at finding the right projects to pursue that will have the greatest impact.

Annie Duke write all about this mental model in her book, Quit: The Power of Knowing When to Walk Away.

Here’s how it works:

Pretend you’re tasked with training monkeys to juggle flaming torches on a pedestal you’ve built.

Rule #1: Building a pedestal is the easy part

It’s not hard to figure out how to build a pedestal. You can look up instructions online. It’s not something that requires a lot of engineering, thought or consideration.

It’s something you can easily do.

Rule #2: Training monkeys to juggle is hard

Training monkeys to juggle flaming torches is much harder. There is no instruction manual for that.

It’s something that will need a lot of consideration, thinking and work.

Crucially, it’s unclear if it’s even possible.

Rule #3: Train the monkeys first

When tackling this task, always focus on training the monkeys first. Don’t get distracted by the easier problem of building the pedestal.

It’s tempting to focus on the easy thing first to show progress. To feel good about moving the project forward.

Resist that temptation. It’s a red herring. Do the hard thing first. Figure out if it’s even solvable.

Rule #4: Quit if the monkeys can’t be trained

The sooner you try to train the monkeys, the sooner you’ll figure out if the monkeys can even be trained.

If they can’t be trained, there is no point in even building the pedestal.

If they can’t be trained, you should quit the project immediately, and find another one.

If the monkeys can be trained, but not feasibly, quit the project.

If the monkeys can be feasibly trained. Continue the project.

With this metaphor, think about a project you are taking on. Are you tackling the hard part or the easy part first?

Have you been sticking to the project too long? Is quitting it overdue?

Or are you focusing on training the monkey first?

The post Monkeys and Pedestals appeared first on Matthew Montaruli.

Over the last few months, I’ve become increasingly fascinated by Mental Models–frameworks for thinking.

Mental Models originate from some of history’s greatest thinkers, across a variety of disciplines, and are distilled into easy consumed, yet widely applicable tools for approaching problems.

Well-known businesspeople from Charlie Munger (vice-chair of Berkshire Hathaway) to Naval Ravikant (tech entrepreneur and investor) have championed the importance of mental models, and I’ve started a journey to learn as many as I can.

So, every Monday, I’ll be sending out a newsletter issue detailing a new mental model I’ve learned.

You can subscribe here.

See you there.

The post Introducing: Mental Model Mondays appeared first on Matthew Montaruli.