Maps and Models Are Not Really Reality

The map is not the territory.

Alfred Korzybski

I recently came across this quote and find it to be quite interesting. It expresses an idea that many of us have considered at one point or another in an short, elegant fashion. I’d like to spend a few moments expanding upon the idea to see how it impacts our relationship with the world and our ability to succeed in it.

Maps

Let’s consider this quote at face value: imagine a large printed map of New York City that details every road, bridge, and subway station. You use it almost every day to find new things to do in Manhattan, until one day, you notice one of the roads outlined in the map no longer exists. You purchase a newer map from a nearby vendor and notice other small differences between the maps, such as the precise proportions of street lengths in certain parts of the map.

Printed maps are snapshots of our estimations of some part of the world at some point in time. Now consider Google Maps, an application that constantly keeps itself updated to include newly created roads and exclude roads that no longer exist. Google Maps also provides real-time traffic updates. This is much more useful than a printed map, but it ultimately suffers from the same problems as printed maps: it can’t ever be a “true and complete” representation of the real world, it can only approximate it.

This limitation applies to all kinds of maps: printed maps, electronic maps, auto-updating electronic maps, and even maps you form in your own mind as you are actually traversing the territory. Now, let’s generalize this idea and explore its implications for mental models, a kind of “map” between your ideas of the world and the world itself.

Mental Models

A mental model is a simplified representation of some aspect of reality. Everyone has mental models for everything they think about. For example, Occam’s razor, which states that the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one, is a mental model that would help you to draw a conclusion when you have competing ideas and cannot conclusively prove which one is correct. Mental models come in many forms, such as mathematics, physics, philosophy, psychology, and finance.

Mental models are maps of reality, and the “territory” of these models can be anything about reality. There are countless agreed-upon models in all fields of study, such as mathematics, and there are countless more models that each individual has formed form themselves over the years based on their own experiences. That kind of model doesn’t need to be mathematical or formal in any way. Many of these models will be conflicting. For example, if I believe the rate of inflation will increase based on my models, and you believe it will decrease based on your models, one or both of us must be wrong, and therefore one or both of our models will be inaccurate.

Models Are Not Knowledge

Alfred Korzybski originally put forward the idea that “the map is not the territory” to outline the fact that people often confuse their beliefs of the world with reality, even when their beliefs are based on little to no evidence. This can be very dangerous, as public opinion influences decisions that are made by organizations and governments. Mental models are similar to opinions: everybody has them, but they are not all equally valid. Mental models and opinions are only as correct as the supporting evidence and reasoning that forms them.

The best mental models are the models that stand the test of time, such as Occam’s razor. Longstanding mental models typically endure because they are accurate enough to be useful to many people, while short lived mental models, including some models that never extend beyond one person, wither away because they are not useful and are potentially based on biases. However, even long lasting models need to be updated or replaced from time-to-time.

Consider the laws of physics as formulated by Isaac Newton. His framework for gravity has enabled astronomers to accurately predict the motion of planets and stars for centuries. His framework is still widely used today and is sufficiently accurate for most applications. However, in some situations, it falls short. During the 20th century, astronomers discovered that there were circumstances in which Newtonian Mechanics did not align with what astronomers were actually seeing. Albert Einstein’s “General Theory of Relativity” corrected these errors, but its mathematics involving gravity are much more complex.

These two mental models both seek to describe the same thing: gravity, but they have their own benefits and drawbacks. Newton’s equations for gravity are much simpler than Einstein’s, but in some situations, are not accurate enough and paint an incomplete picture. Einstein’s equations are significantly more complex and are not suitable or needed for most ever-day tasks, but are crucial in situations where Newton’s equations fail. There are many such scenarios where multiple models describe the same thing in different ways and are each suitable under different circumstances.

There are countless more scenarios where multiple mental models describe the same thing, but one is a clear winner. This comes into play when considering pseudoscience or when considering individual opinions. Focusing on the latter, consider how often people discuss matters that they are not knowledgeable on. I have discussions with my family, friends, and colleagues on a wide range of topics, including education, economics, biology, astronomy, etc. In some of those discussions, I’d have only a small amount of knowledge on the topic of conversation. The opinions I’d express would be based on a very limited mental model I’d created. By itself, there is no problem with that, as discussing unfamiliar topics is a great way of learning, and as you learn, you can update your models to become more accurate. However, if I failed to make the distinction between my models and the reality they describe, that would be very problematic.

When people fail to recognize the distinction between the map and the territory, or the model and the reality it describes, they are liable to become entrenched in their beliefs and look at the world from a dogmatic mindset.

Driving Your Goals with Mental Models

Mental models play an active role in the entire process of planning, executing, and achieving your goals. At the initial planning stage, your research and the decisions you make are driven by the mental models you have when starting the project as well as any updates you may have made to them while researching. The less accurate your mental models are, the less likely you will be able to complete your goal on-time and with the plan you laid out. During the execution stage, your plan will drive your actions. As you undertake tasks, you may find that your plan didn’t account for something correctly, at which point, you’ll need to update your mental models and proceed. When you complete your goal, or fail to do so, you should reflect on your experiences and see what you can take away to improve your chances of success in the future.

Your plan of completing a goal is not equivalent to the process of completing it. The work you need to do may not be the same as the work you planned to do, either because you’ve omitted something or have included something that is not necessary. If you are working on a team, every person’s model of the plan itself will also be different, based on their own understanding of the field they are employed in and their own personal experiences.

To increase your chances of achieving your goals, you must ensure that you never confuse your plan of completing the goal with the reality of completing the goal. Deadlines and expectations must always be subject to scrutiny and adaptability. While working to complete your goals, you must always be open to changing your opinions based on new information. Overall, you must be open to updating your mental models, even if it means you will not be able to complete your goal.

Conclusion

In navigating the complexities of our world, both literal and metaphorical, it’s crucial to remember that our maps are not perfect representations of the territory they represent. Korzybski’s insight, “the map is not the territory,” serves as a vital reminder of the gap between our perceptions and reality. As we’ve explored, whether it’s through the evolving streets of New York City on Google Maps or the shifting paradigms of scientific understanding, our models of the world are inherently limited and subject to change.

In our personal and professional lives, acknowledging the imperfection and fluidity of our mental models is not just a philosophical exercise but a practical strategy for success. It encourages us to stay adaptable, question our assumptions, and embrace new information, all of which are crucial for achieving our goals. By distinguishing between our plans and the reality of their execution, we can navigate challenges more effectively and reach our objectives with greater clarity and flexibility. In a world of constant change, our greatest asset is our ability to redraw our maps in response to ever-evolving landscapes.