michael-dean-k/

Every online creator these days has a proprietary framework—they are catchy, dead-simple, sometimes flimsy, and often wrong. Somewhere exists a marketplace of mental models. Maybe Farnam Street. Is a mental model a framework? What even is a framework, and what makes a good one?

Consider the "frame-" prefix. A frame is a vantage point, a particular angle, a way of looking at something. Imagine holding out a picture frame that gives you a little glimpse of a vast national park. You can't hold an entire hyperobject in your mind, and so a frame compresses noise and gives you a shortcut for understanding. You can't see the whole park, but you can see a map. A framework is a system of lenses to decipher complexity. It lets you leapfrog in understanding.

By creator-economy logic, a framework is a valuable asset. Unlike a vague mush of regurgitated ideas, a framework is discernible, seemingly original, and something you can call your own—you can coin it as a phrase and repeat it over and over until you're known by it. This is a useful tactic! The evolutionary pressures of Internet feeds have forced conceptual ideas to become salient, simple, and tangible. Unlike the abstract frameworks of a physicist, these are fit for a TED talk, primed to leak into the memeplex and anchor your name in the annals of Internet-niche-celebrity history. This is, overall, good—it democratizes conceptual knowledge; the problem is when, beyond the positioning, it's intellectually flaccid.

You've probably seen frameworks pitched as "The Six Types of X," or "The Y Method." These are pseudo-frameworks; they are more like sets or lists. They assemble things within a domain, and increase their memorability through alliteration and metaphor. Maybe this helps with recall, but it doesn't reveal the inner structure of a domain. A real framework would give you a schema to classify incoming data in an unfamiliar field; but a set/list only refers to itself ... Compare this to something like "POP Writing," a simple concept that classifies writing as personal, observational, or playful; this acts a lens to help you analyze any piece of writing.

For something to be a framework, it need generalizability: the ability to explain things beyond itself. The earlier examples are merely "collections"—things are presented, but we don't understand what Aristotle calls "the four causes": what it's made of, how it's arranged and interconnected, why it exists, and what's it's purpose? When Plato writes about conceptual forms, he says there are collections and divisions. Making frameworks are a matter of dividing; a framework's goal is to divide an incomprehensible whole into human-sized parts.

I spent some time this morning thinking through a "framework of frameworks." The first thing to grok about this meta-architecture is that it's broken into three levels of escalating sophistication. After that I'll explain how levels have shapes, and how any shape can be evaluated through a set of qualities.

So it's level, shapes, and qualities—that's the gist.

To expand on levels: a framework can be a heuristic, a model, or a paradigm. Now that I think about, I suppose HMP (not quite meme-ready) is an attempt at making a "paradigm for frameworks," which will soon make more sense, and sound less like bashed buzzwords.

The three levels of frameworks:

Heuristics—mental-shortcuts that lets you decipher complexity through a single property. When Aristotle was classifying animals, he'd offer differentiate them across single properties: blood or bloodless, horned or hornless. A heuristic is something you derive a posteriori, from experience, from empirical facts. You might observe a bunch of essays, or companies, or girlfriends, and notice that you can compare and contrast items in a set based on single attributes. There are many shapes a heuristic can take: it can be a classifier (type A, B, or C), a boolean (on/off), a spectrum (A<>B), a rubric (I, II, III, IV, V), a score (1-100).

The benefit of a heuristic is that, since it's often anchored on a single property, it's simple and easy to learn. The downside is that it's a very limited frame on the scope and purpose of your domain. For example, if you're trying teach craft (purpose) for online nonfiction writers (scope), then POP writing is an excellent heuristic to classify writing voice, but it doesn't teach you how to scope ideas or structure an essay. A heuristic is a shortcut to understand one facet of a domain, but it's not an attempt to model the whole domain. 

Models—a series of interlocking properties, all organized with a larger frame. Write of Passage was set up like a cabinet of heuristics (POP writing, Shiny Dime, Write from Conversation, etc.), but they weren't organized within a single higher-order framework. Think of a model as a group of heuristics organized in hierarchy, where each one is named (what is it's essence?), labeled (what other concepts is it similar to?), located (what is it's parent concept?), interlinked (who are it's cousins?), and excavated (if we go infinitely deep, what are the variations?). Models can take many shapes: an XY graph, a taxonomy, a multi-step recursive workflow (like an OODA loop).

Models cover far more than any heuristic can, but it risks collapsing into complexity. Conceptual schemas can bloom, sprawl, and contradict—becoming illegible or incoherent. To solve this, you have to shift from empiricism to rationality; you can notice infinite ways to subdivide a thing, but to make an elegant model, you need to shift to abstraction and question the fundamental truths behind it. Why might one set of properties be more elegant than another? Ultimately you have to make a hypothesis, test it across dozens of examples, and see if it holds. If some foreign object can't be reconciled into the schema, you have an issue. Consider how the taxonomy of Carl Linnaeus was able to classify the animal world into kingdom, class, order, genus, and species, but it wasn't unable to find a home for the platypus. Even though it works across thousands of animals, the original assumptions aren't able to handle edge-cases.

Paradigms—comprehensive systems that can explain or predict any phenomenon within a domain. How is this possible? I think you achieve this when (1) you find enough instances to represent the domain; (2) you analyze them deeply enough to understand their underlying nature; and (3) you can arrange all your findings into a coherent architecture with maximum explainability. Consider how Darwin improved over Linnaeus: he shifted us from a static taxonomy to a dynamic model, a new paradigm that explains the origin of species, and even the potential future of a species. Paradigms can also take on many shapes, from living systems, to digital networks, to compositional pattern languages.

A good paradigm often finds simple root causes underneath complexity. For example, even though Essay Architecture has 27 patterns (3 patterns within the 3 elements of 3 dimensions), every tier is explained through the rhetorical appeals of ethos, logos, pathos—the whole thing can be summarized as "Aristotle all the way down." Maximum compression has a degree of a recursion: a single heuristic works as a fractal and organizes complexity at multiple scales.

Regardless of how you simplify and package a paradigm, it's still as hard to learn as a language; it's the least accessible, but it's the level that enables mastery of a domain, and the level most suitable to build a school around.¹

No matter how confident you are around a paradigm, it's always fragile. It's explainability is limited by the data set you test it against. As society develops new tools, it brings new data that eventually breaks a paradigm, even if it's held true for centuries. The telescope cracked the geocentric paradigm. A shattered paradigm is disorienting, but fundamentally good—it means you've discovered some new heuristic of reality, and humanity has to restart from new axioms.

So that's a first attempt to map the three levels, and it might help to think of them as geometric dimensions. A heuristic is like a one-dimensional line, a ray of insight that you perceive in a field. A model is a two-dimensional plane to understand a multi-property condition within a domain. But a paradigm is the three-dimensional totality of a field. A paradigm contains all possible heuristics and models, and so when you can think in 3D, you're able to match any circumstance with the correct solution.

But a paradigm isn't necessarily a great framework! It might be the most successful in compressing reality into a particular shape, but it might fail along other qualities. (To reiterate, levels are about  "compression sophistication," where shape is the particular form of compression...) Qualities capture how a compression framework interacts with society as a whole (the point of a framework is, in the end, to spread understanding).

Regardless of the level or shape, some qualities to consider:

• Tangibility: have you made it graspable through metaphor and lexicality?
• Salience: is it rewarding or effective to understand?
• Transferability: does it explain things in other domains?
• Correctness: is it actually right?
• Approachability: how would you walk someone through it via curriculum?

Are these the right qualities? Are these all the qualities? Can I reduce these into more fundamental qualities? I don't know. Realistically, this isn't a "paradigm of framework" yet; it's more so a "model of frameworks." I only conceived of this today, and so naturally it's sprawled into a series of properties:

A framework compresses complexity in a domain, exists at a level of explainability, taking on a particular shape to achieve a purpose within a scope, and can be judged along a set of qualities on how well it's memed.

To properly turn this into a paradigm, I'd have to test this hypothesis against hundreds of frameworks—ie: creator economy memes, among other disciplines—to see if it holds up. I imagine the concepts would melt and reform several times until it's simpler, sharper, and better at explaining a wide range of frameworks. A paradigm isn't solid until it's a domain has run through its pipes. A paradigm is really just a reflection of a domain's dataset and the mind making sense of it.

Sometimes the coolest website is the least readable.¹

I recently came across gwern.net and quickly sensed it would be a personal-website-as-labyrinth that I'll venture into for weeks. It has an alien feel to it, or at least foreign relative to the optimized and foolproof UIs you find across templated social networks. He is a Wikipedia editor with 34,569 edits (on English Wikipedia as of 6/1/26) and so naturally his personal website is a personal wiki, documenting his self, his site, his links, his tech stack and writing, each adorned with hierarchical outlines on the left (1, 1.2, 1.2.6, ... ). I sense him to be something of a techno-Montaignean, capturing his mind and culture, interweaving quotes, and pseudonymously appearing on the Dwarkesh podcast as a real-time avatar.

So yes, lots of diving and mapping to do, but I need to note one observation of my experience here, which I want to be careful not to recreate on my own site. Most of my time is spent marveling at the structure and navigating what exists, but I'm presented with so many hyperlinks that I can rarely ever focus on and absorb a single page. There are 53 links in my current view. Maybe I'm exposing myself as someone who reads linear essays a lot more than I read Wikipedia articles.

I suppose there are two ways to know a person, in breadth and in depth. Technically this site has both; once you wade through the peculiar structures and get a gestalt of the person, you do find linear essays that are well written. But even those are nested in scaffolding; 60% of the opening view is dedicated to metadata: nav links, title, tags, a summary, ratings of completion, certainty, and importance, links to similar notes and a bibliography (many of which, if clicked, opens a pop-up with more information), and then an opening quote, all before the opening sentence.

Even if I think this meta-data is misplaced, I personally love having it all accessible. I get frustrated by a popular online writer (/marketer) who refuses to date the essays on his website, probably from the thought that datelessness is timelessness, or the fear that the median reader will see something dated 2019 and think ugh, that's old, and click away. Marketers want a simplicity that's legible at scale; I am a complexophile. A personal website (or anything, really) should be as dense as can be contained, for that gives the super-reader the ability to grok you at a resolution closer to reality, but only as long as it can be progressively revealed, giving the first encounter an on ramp into the beast.

I'm now arriving at what I think I believe: if your website contains a collection of essays, then drop the reader directly into prose, and withhold structure until the end of an experience. "Prose before portals" could be a simple, multi-scale maxim. A standalone essay page should have a header of only 15% metadata, and even the frontpage, instead of providing a traditional orientation, could drop you directly into a stream of recent essays (a design decision I haven't committed to yet, but am leaning towards). Perhaps portals could exist minimally at the beginning, but maximally at the end. An essay's footer should be entirely portals.

Another debatable decision is that an essay should rarely include internal hyperlinks. Contrast this to Justin Hall's links.net of the mid-90s, whose whole website was a hyperlink maze. Gwern's site, much like Wikipedia, is also maze-like. These are conceptually neat, and of course native to the Internet, but I always catch myself skimming rather than reading deeply. I am astonished at the size and grandeur of the park, but I am distracted. Essays demand depth. My ideal would be to fuse the medium of physical reading with the navigation of the web: uninterrupted prose, bookended by optionality. Maybe you could refer to this as "extrastitial" instead of "interstitial": the internal modules aren't connected, but the wholes are connected end-to-end. (This actually mirrors how ChristopherAlexander structures his chapters in A Pattern Language, the original wiki: the beginning and end points out to other chapters, but the body is uninterrupted.)

A final note on skimming: I catch myself doing "Inspectional Reading" a lot here, the second level of Adler's How to Read a Book. There are many possible causes for this. To start, it could just be my fault: right now I'm reading as I write this essay, and I have much to do this morning, and so to some degree I'm reading to the level that it enables me to write, for if I read everything full, all the tabs, I could become absorbed for hours and get nothing else done before it's time to watch my 5-month-old daughter for the rest of the day. But aside from self-blame, there's a FOMO that comes with any thriving website: when you're aware of a sprawling network of high-quality information, it becomes hard to sink into any one piece because you're too aware of what you're missing. And so there might be something to intentional concealment and revelation.

I want a reader to come to my site and experience flow, not analysis paralysis, but this opens a new question. Who is a personal website for? The answer is in the name. The reason I'm shifting from Substack back to a site of my own is because I want to write in a place where I set the rules. And so there's a risk of leaning too far into becoming a self-archivist, where I try to convey to you the totality of myself, the full hyper-object, instead of letting you compile me one file at at time. If the full extents of my writing are something like a national park, I need to make sure you get on the curated trails and experience nature, instead of presenting you a network of maps.

Ironically the first essay I read by Gwern was on Tools for Thought, a wonderful takedown or Rome, Zettlekasten, and networked thought:

"Most people simply have no need for lots of half-formed ideas, random lists of research papers, and so on. This is what people always miss about “Zettelkasten”: are you writing a book? Are you a historian or Teutonic scholar like Niklas Luhmann? Do you publish a dozen papers a year? Are you the 1% of the 1%? No? Then why do you think you need a Zettelkasten?"

A rule I've had to set for myself is to never link my notes; they should live scattered in an epiphany swamp of atomic ramblings, only to be given name, date, and tag at the moment of publishing. Most won't make it out of the swamp. So many writers suffocate themself in PKM hell; instead they should open the pipeline to get finished prosed onto their website. And now, I find myself reaching for heuristics on how to present essays, a whole body of work, and the very self behind it. I think there are similar risks with public hyperlinked structures, along with ways to let the atomic nodes of a network speak for themselves, without severing from the hive.

This is all just first wind from second impressions, but as I understand Gwern more deeply and build out my new site—after existing only on Substack for 3.5 years—, I'm sure I'll come away with something useful.