Mental models are representations of a separate reality, “a simplified explanation of how something works.” They are a “way of looking at the world […] the set of tools that you use to think.“
We inevitably all have and use mental models. They shape how we look at and reason about the world around us.
A model is of course not the thing itself. The map and territory relationship reminds us of that. Every model necessarily omits details, simplifies and draws attention to aspects of the modeled reality.
As such, strictly speaking, every model is wrong. Some are useful. Given multiple different models for the same reality, they are all wrong – and useful (!) – in different ways. Some models are more useful than others, depending on context.
We benefit from using better models, or multiple, complementing models, because that helps us get a better view of what we are trying to explain.
The reality of our world is not neatly divided into separate disciplines of discourse. That categorization into individual disciplines is a human invention, another model that can be useful but is also wrong.
None of those individual areas have a monopoly on useful models and ways of looking that help make sense of the world. There is tremendous value in multi-disciplinary thinking, and likewise, there is value in exploring a variety of areas to discover what models they produced. That is one of the big insights of books like The Great Mental Models, Super Thinking, Seeking Wisdom, and so forth.
Many disciplines have interesting models to offer. That should not be surprisingly at all, because, again, reality itself does not actually distinguish between categories of discourse.
Your thinking is effective to the extent that you have effective thinking tools at your disposal. Some mental models are useful only in very specific, constrained contexts, but others travel remarkably well and far from their origins.