Connection explorer
Why are two ideas connected?
Shared mental models: probability
The intersection of both concepts’ dependency foundations — not a common origin or ancestry.
- depends onEstablished
Risk combines how likely a bad outcome is (its probability) with how bad it would be; you cannot weigh risk without reasoning about probability.
- measuresEstablished
A correlation is measured as a number rooted in probability — how much more often the two occur together than chance would give.
- strong relations
- a longer chain
- well-established links
- explains the mechanism, not just the fact
Other ways they connect
Two ideas are often linked by more than one valid chain of reasoning. The route above is chosen for how well it explains — not for being shortest.
- applies to
- applies to
- measures
- is analogous to
Where else this idea appears
The idea you arrived at recurs elsewhere. Following it means reasoning about the same structure in a new context — that is transfer.
- shares a mental model
- shares a mental model
- shares a mental model
- shares a mental model
- shares a mental model
- shares a mental model
About this view
Choose any two concepts. Thinking OS traces the chain of reasoning between them — with the mechanism and epistemic status of every link — and shows that more than one valid path often exists.
A route is ranked by explanatory quality, not brevity — the clearest mechanism wins, not the fewest hops.
Every edge shows its mechanism and epistemic status; the “To” picker offers only reachable targets, so never a dead end.