Do We Need True Models – or Better Orientation?

A reconstruction of an irritation while listening to a conversation between Gert Scobel and Ulrich Ott

This text was inspired by the conversation “Meditation verändert dein Gehirn – und kann dein Ich auflösen” (“Meditation Changes Your Brain – and Can Dissolve Your Sense of Self”) between Gert Scobel and meditation researcher Ulrich Ott.

YouTube: https://youtu.be/gUXxb8UbYmU

I strongly recommend listening to the conversation itself. This text is neither a summary nor a critique. It is an attempt to reconstruct a particular moment of irritation that emerged while listening.

An Unexpected Irritation

About fifteen minutes into the conversation, I paused the video.

Not because I disagreed.

On the contrary.

Up to that point, I found much of the discussion about predictive processing, mental models, and perception remarkably close to my own way of thinking.

Then I realized that I was reconstructing the following implicit picture:

• We build models of reality.
• Better models are more accurate models.
• We act on the basis of these models.
• Acting ultimately means changing reality.

At that moment I noticed that this is no longer how I think about models.

The Saber-Toothed Tiger

Consider the classic example.

Someone hears a noise in the bushes.

A model immediately emerges:

“There might be a saber-toothed tiger.”

Is this model true?

I don’t know.

Perhaps there really is a tiger.

Perhaps it is only the wind.

Perhaps another animal entirely.

For the immediate decision, however, that is not the central question.

The more relevant question is:

Does this model help me orient myself reliably in this situation?

If it does, it has already fulfilled its purpose.

It does not need to be complete.

It does not need to be final.

And it may not even need to be true in any absolute sense.

Why the Concept of Truth Gives Me Pause

Human beings naturally seek truth.

There is nothing wrong with that.

The difficulty begins, in my view, when truth becomes the primary criterion by which models are judged.

Models are tools.

Tools are usually evaluated by their usefulness rather than by their truth.

A hammer is not a good hammer because it is “true.”

It is a good hammer because it serves its purpose.

Perhaps mental models deserve to be viewed in much the same way.

Orientation Before Action

Over the past months I have tried to reconstruct my own way of working more explicitly.

The result has gradually become the following orientation cycle:

Experience → Orientation → Decision → Execution → Experience

For me, this sequence has become more important than the question of whether a model is ultimately true.

Models contribute to orientation.

They are not orientation itself.

Orientation emerges from observations, experiences, models, dialogue, language, and many other influences.

Decisions are based on that orientation.

Only then do actions follow.

Sometimes actions change the world.

Quite often, however, they first change our own orientation.

Models as Instruments

Perhaps the real difference is only one of perspective.

Today I ask much less frequently:

Is this model true?

Instead, I increasingly ask:

Does this model improve my orientation?

This is deliberately a pragmatic question.

It does not dismiss the pursuit of truth.

It merely shifts the emphasis.

I can strive for truth while acknowledging that every concrete decision is made using provisional models.

An Open Question

It is entirely possible that I have misunderstood the conversation between Gert Scobel and Ulrich Ott.

Perhaps they would say that this is exactly what they meant.

Perhaps they would not.

That is precisely why I decided to publish this reconstruction.

Not as a counterargument.

But as an invitation to dialogue.

I would be genuinely interested to know whether the distinction between a true model and a model that provides useful orientation is merely a difference in terminology—or whether it points to two genuinely different views of the role that models play in human action.

Regardless of the answer, this brief moment of irritation helped me better understand my own way of thinking.

For that reason alone, listening to the conversation was worthwhile.