That doesn't negate the value of mental models. Mental models are absolutely required for understanding any complex system. They are literally how we think. They should be refined through direct experience. Listening to experts doesn't hurt either.
What has me worked up is that the examples in the article are just garbage.
A person skilled in tennis or MMA will have no problem communicating to you what it takes to acquire their skill. It so happens the most efficient way to communicate complex physical motions is to model them, then allow the student to attempt them, then critique the student's form. Finally the student will require many hours of practice of the correct forms to build muscle memory. There is nothing in here that says anything about mental models.
"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."
You absolutely better have a mental checklist and solid technical reasons for why it's badly designed. Imagine going to your boss, asking to do a complete re-write because you feel disgusted by the code base. How is that going to work out for you? Maybe it's algorithms that are not performant. It has inconsistent abstractions, too much abstraction, or too little. It may not accurately model the problem domain. A feeling of disgust is not going to get you anywhere. Technical knowledge and experience will.
Ok. Clearly this article hit one of my buttons. I think I'm done now.