The core of this series stems from the observation that all expertise is tacit. Polanyi and Papert has the best articulated expression of these ideas, and they match up to my experience in actually pursuing expertise.
You might find interesting the concept of “legibility” as discussed on the Ribbonfarm blog.
As per Papert, you're either ready to learn something or you aren't. The more people who do not get this, the larger the competitive advantage for those of us who do.
In fact, simple online searches give ample references to Buffett and Munger writing at length about their models, going all the way back to Graham C's original Intelligent Investor.
He's probably trying to explain the guidance from Farnam Street. The most popular answer on their internal forum on how to use/apply mental models was to treat mental models as checklist. I was a Farnam Street member until last year.
This is really a very poor and missguided assertion. It's as if the only person worth learning from with regards to how to invest is Warren Buffer, because all those poor miserable bastards who are 1% as successful as Warren Buffet, with their pathetically underperforming $1.2 billion fortunes, certainly can't teach you nothing that will help you improve yourself as an investor. No, no. Either you learn from the guy with a $120B fortune or you are better off doing something else like sitting on your ass browsing Instagram or reading drivel posted on a blog.
I have bought and read nearly every book about Charlie Munger. My conclusion is that 'have a checklist of mental models' is how he says he does what he does. He reasons a lot by analogy to things he's seen or read before, or to ideas in other fields. This does not mean it is the core of his expertise.
The second nuance is that checklisting works better in 'wicked' fields of expertise (I'm using the definition from Hogarth et all, 2015 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721415591878). Stockpicking is one of those. If you are attempting to gain expertise in a field that isn't wicked, well ... good luck improving by having a checklist of mental models.
I've read multiple biographies of Buffett, I've read criticisms of his approach, and I've read Hagstrom's book on Focused Portfolios (which Munger said was the most representative of what they were doing).
I have attempted to emulate Buffett in the past. It is difficult. Hagstrom failed as well, rather publicly, with his mutual funds.
I've begun to see Buffett not as a stock picker, as he hasn't really done such plays over the past decade or so. Rather, he is a capital allocator in the true sense of the word: he buys companies with high FCF, and reinvests the FCF in either stock if he finds an underpriced opportunity, or ownership of private companies if he does not. In the previous decade, he has mostly done the latter, as it has become more and more difficult to generate alpha in the former. He has also been willing to enter into advantageous contracts (warrants, etc) in times of economic turmoil.
I have demonstrated some understanding of the topic.
Now my question to you is this: are you as well read on this as I am? If so, point me to a chapter in one of the biographies and I will self correct.
I do think you successfully communicate that you struggle with some of the concepts you're trying to refute.
Just looking at your highlighted statements:
> The most valuable mental models do not survive codification. They cannot be expressed through words alone.
Close to stating a premise but you've gone and blown away the the subject of models. I think you're trying to say farnam street is selling snake oil, but you're now arguing experience can't be taught, which is tangential and generally uninteresting
> When Warren Buffett studies a company, he doesn’t see a checklist of mental models he has to apply.
1) You don't know that and 2) "warren buffet studies a company by running through a checklist of mental models" is a claim you've just come up with to refute (strawmen seem to make up the majority of this post)
> How do you know if a computer program is badly designed? You don’t go through a mental checklist; instead, you feel disgust, coloured by your experience.
No. You've indicated you don't understand design, and again that a model = mental checklist, which is your own assertion