Specific query about creating a useful note
Hi. I have been creating Zettels off and on for last 3 years (currently having 450 notes). Requesting your advice and suggestions on a confusion I often experience
I have heard that each note should only be about one idea. However, many times I am creating notes that might have multiple sub ideas but I don't feel each sub idea should be separately made a note. For instance, refer to the attached note.
I am discussing two components about the nature of growth - but I typically prefer to put them in a single note only. Would it be more beneficial for me to put the subpoints in separate notes? If so, why?
If you guys were creating the note that I just pasted, how would you create it? Would you make it single or multiple notes? If multiple, what all notes would you make from it?
Thanks!
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
@AayushPriyank Good question; one we've all struggled with at some point in our Zettelkasten journey.
I would say, in the end, it comes down to personal preference, what "feels right" to us. It is your ZK, after all, and it needs to work for you. Also, the less friction required to enter information, the better.
In my ZK, the length and number of "separate" ideas in each zettel varies a lot. Sometimes, when I'm dealing with highly technical information, my zettels are pretty short and pithy. At other times, when I'm trying to capture memories from my youth or memories of significant interactions with friends (this is all for a personal history), each zettel is longer and contains a few ideas that are knit together by the nature of what I am describing (so I don't want to further sub-divide the zettel).
If you are still unsure about a particular zettel, one way of deciding to is to write the zettel in "outline" form. If you have one main point and a bunch of (indented) sub-points, you've got one zettel. If you've got a couple of main points (each with its own sub-points), you've got two zettels. Etc. There's nothing hard and fast about this, i.e., it's not a "rule, but it is one way to think about it.
Two notes. each based on one concept. Note 1 accumulation. Note 2 critical threshold.
Learning occurs when you can "transfer" what you have learned to other contexts. If you have a clear idea of the concept of "accumulation" for example, you can start to wonder how it applies to other things: investments, stocks, savings accounts, collections, muscle growth, reforestation, sand accumulation on a river bank.
@AayushPriyank, @GeoEng51's suggestion about creating an outline is right on. The main bullet points represent separate notes. I would follow @JasperMcFly's advice and create two notes based on the reasons he mentioned. It's my practice to let each note sit and undergo a review process for about a week. This allows for thorough consideration. I've found that quite frequently, I end up completely reworking a note after this waiting period. What I thought was one note becomes two or three or maybe disappears entirely.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
Modeling notes according to atomicity follows personal feeling rather than rules.
The best example I can make, considering the photography of a landscape.
In such image there tipically are many elements (mountains, trees, sun) , but the intent of the image is transmit the idea of "landscape", not the idea of "mountains and trees and sun".
So, atomic idea doesn't necessarily mean "described representing only one item"
Having said that, anyway, for my taste I would write your notes as three notes (and even more, probably...)
And the first occurrence of "accumulation" and "critical threshold" become links to the second and third note.
And I already have two notes like this in my system, indeed :-)
(I have critical mass instead of critical threshold, but is pretty similar)
Why I do this in my system:
If I have all in the same note, I can't relate these two concept separately w into the notes I've cited.
I have a few rules of thumb that I think to decide if I need to split into a separate note:
And idea is a canditate for a note on its own:
Accumulation and Critical Threshold are catched by all the cited rules, so for me they are surely two relevant ideas on their own.
This might not end the work I feel the need to do in my case, anyway. (sometimes, not always. Other times what I write now is not needed)
I don't end creating [[accumulation]] and [[critical threshold]] links and simply moving related content into the two notes. Doing so they could be "too detached". I need to guarantee the meaning and expressiveness
of the main note even after the decomposition.
Near [[accumulation]] link I probably write few words or few rows about the contextualization of the (general) idea of accumulation into the context of the Stacking Nature of Growth note. The answer to the question "what does this link mean here? what does accumulation mean in this context?"
Sometimes I simply repeat the most meaningful sentence of the linked note. If it makes the relation clearer, redundance is not an issue.
I would consider, too, writing some of the examples you have taken in the main note, and in the other sub notes too, maybe rewritten a bit so they are more specific for each note. This is another type of redundancy that could be useful rather than an issue.
If one example has a relevant text, I often create a note of its own for the example itself, so I can use them in many notes :-)
The Guitarist example could be a note on its own. You could write, during time, other thoughts using this example as the pivot. You can see the example into your original context and into some of your guitar notes, if you have zettels about guitar study and practice...
I've promised to develop the example of the grow over time.
In your note you have written yourself "The accumulation is also subject to various factors". Oh, "various factors"... interesting...
This is a promising developing direction for accumulation idea. What I would do, really, is writing after that sentence each accumulation factor as a link to a note itself, all these links collected into the accumulation note. Maybe I just leave these notes blank, as a suggestion that I can develop them in the future.
So, accumulation note has become quite significant.
Ops, I forget to say an important thing.
My notes aren't often created in this way from the start. They almost always become in this form after a lot of revisions.
When I write a note I can't foresee, at start, all the developments I will capture today, tomorrow, next week. My notes change and grow during time, they rarely born in the final form I've described. One of my first versions of the note could be exactly like yours, as a single note with the sub ideas still written in there.
Another important thing. Not all my notes will grow in this way, too. as @GeoEng51 has said, different purposes can lead to writing zettels in very different ways.
My "Zettelkasten model" main zettel has 33 sections. It is... not atomic... but it is useful in his complex outline structure. I want it represents my "Zettelkasten model landscape" idea, in this sense it represents an idea of a single whole.
This is my personal taste, of course, it is not the rule how to write zettels.
Ten guys write ten different notes (and I would write the same note differently every year, even)
@andang76 that is so thorough and it addresses so many underlying questions I kept having.
I too felt that many small parts (such as examples of accumulation, and the factors) could be notes of their own.
But then it felt like kind of a headache that I need to write 7 different notes just to write one note.
I feel the ineffectiveness in my workflow is that I will typically start off by splitting - so I would write accumulation then I will create a new note on it, then I will try to create each factor note and so forth.
And doing it this way would derail me from my original flow of thought, thus creating friction in my note making.
@Will I found very valuable your suggestion of working on the notes over time - if I adopt a workflow where I create the note first and then try to chunk it down (instead of trying to create atomic ideas from the start) I will likely have a much smoother experience.
Another thing that mentally liberated me was the acceptance and even utility of 'redundancy'. That it's okay to repeat the content of the linked note while referring it frees me up from having to create unique expressions of the same idea.
@GeoEng51 The main point and sub point idea seems to make sense, but I'm curious what you do when your sub point also has sub points? I'm assuming any sub point with further sub points becomes a new note? For example -
Stacking nature
Accumulation
- Factor 1
- Factor 2
Critical threshold
Also, I didn't expect so much response and help - you guys have shared such detailed and thoughtful suggestions here. Very grateful for your help and insights 🙏
Yes, I know, approaching notetaking in this way can result in a never-ending work :-)
But this fertility is one of the most important benefits of using idea atomicity.
The process has to be managed.
For this reason I've highlighted an important thing, I start writing as simple as possibile (a note even simpler than yours), I don't immediately try to write the full network of of all the micro-notes that could come to my mind during an hypotetical stacking nature of grow idea. Evolving this note in the way I've suggested happens if and when I've the time, when I need it, when I'm inspired.
A note can start as a simple block of text, then segmented in sections or in an outline like already suggested (this is already a relevant form of atomic decomposition, even if it happens into a single note) in a second time, in the future sections can be further moved in their notes.
As I've said, for example, accumulation factors at start are simply leave as empty links without the notes written. They behave as suggestions for the future, not necessary a pressure for writing them now. Now I've only the idea that can be developed, I haven't time for writing their notes, I will write them in the future (maybe...).
The other technique to avoid the derailing from the original flow of thought is adopting a strategy for idea tracking during a brainstorm. I've written something in this forum some weeks ago.
@AayushPriyank
Rather than getting bogged down with the complications of rendering an idea into your ZK, we should rejoice and dance with glee when we stumble on such a rich trove of ideas.
When we combine the free-spirited creative flow of idea capturing with the minutia of refactoring, we battle our expectations, frustrate the creative flow, and become locked in internal arguments about atomicity, grammar, reference checking, redundancy, spelling, proper linkage, and presentation. Separating helps capture an idea because our expectations do not restrain us. It also helps with refactoring because the subconscious will use the time between capture and refactoring to prepare us to work on the concept.
I like to think of the metaphor of baking bread: create a "proofing oven" where ideas can rest, naturally rise, and grow. This recuites the subconscoius to play a role in the natural development of ideas.
@andang76 said:
Life is busy, and we have only so much time and attention. Much of our time is already committed. When an idea runs us over, friction-free capturing is the priority. The refactoring can come later, even much later. Massaging and editing a note, which is just a proxy for an idea, happens not once or twice, but we must be open to the reexamination of our ideas; it is what it means to be Bayesian.
With an idea as rich as this, we will be surprised six months from now. We will review it and again become excited to explore, write, edit, and refactor it yet again.
You're indeed the lucky one. Thank you, this discussion is invigorating.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
Yes - if that makes sense.
I apologize for being a bit vague, but as you will gather from the other responders, we usually balance our excitement about the idea, our desire to capture it in our ZK, the time we have available and our current understanding of the idea. So if and when we break our initial zettel into several depends on our needs and time.
One concept I learned from a guy named Dario da Silva is that in the early stages of capturing an idea, it is essential to have a system and use processes that minimize "friction", i.e., that don't get in the way of capturing the idea, in whatever form. Later, as you have time and your thoughts mature, you can massage and fine-tune the idea and decide whether it needs to be in one or several zettels, and how to connect the idea to others in your database.
For example, he has a "daily journal" page on which almost everything (ideas, personal notes, tasks, etc.) are entered. He does that quickly and easily without stressing about perfect wording or logical thought. Towards the end of the day or in the next few days, he further processes the ideas that he wants in his Zettelkasten. He uses some of the techniques that @andang76 and @Will described (he has a useful "digital gardening" analogy for that).
I like his approach and have tried it out over the past few months. It's made my ZK life a lot less stressful.
As an example of "reducing friction", there is a standard way of creating a new zettel in The Archive, which works fine. However, if you want to reduce friction and produce a zettel using a standard template (which I highly recommend), you might want to try @Will 's keyboard maestro. You can read about that here:
https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/6811/#Comment_6811
As an aside, you might want to check out the discussion of macros and The Archive generally here:
https://zettelkasten.de/the-archive/macros/
I would encourage you not to strive for an immediately perfect zettel but rather to trust yourself to achieve a satisfactory one over time. That requires a bit of patience, a system and some ongoing effort. By "system", I mean a consistent way of creating and maintaining your zettels, and keeping track of "open loops". An example of the latter is having zettels that are still in a rudimentary stage or zettels that are not linked to anything else in your database. I use a couple of tags for that ("unfinished" and "unlinked"), which get inserted into each zettel when I create it, using @Will 's macro, and I only remove them when it is appropriate to do so. Occasionally, a simple search on these tags will show me zettels that need massaging or linking.
A final point - people new to this world often ask for rules - how to do this or that in their Zettelkasten. In my mind, they are often looking for a shortcut to perfection, whatever that means to them. It's a lot more fun to experiment with different approaches, find out what works best for you, and develop your own system.
@AayushPriyank, I've stolen your idea and captured it into my ZK. I found it to be a manically great description of the invisible process of skill accumulation on the trajectory of mastery. I am framing this in the context of my interest in relief carving, which shifts my perspective. I acknowledge that I suck right now, but I know the only path to improvement is through consistent practice. Refactoring your note and seeing where it leads me has been eye-opening.
I made three notes. 962 words total.
Subtle Layers of Learning 202409070523 Towards and Beyond the Critical Threshold of Growth 202409070528 Intentionality in Skill Development 202409070526Here are the contents of the first note. I have snipped off the part about skill accumulation and Critical Threshold of Growth (CTG) and put them in their own notes.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
Processing the content of this thread made me create the integration of my already existing Atomicity network of notes with other 70 new "ideas" about atomicity.
It seems an "insane" number of concepts about the apparently simple idea of having "one idea for note", but if you consider that atomicty
reaching this number of different "frames", so different notes, over the same main idea of atomicity is pretty easy.
This fertility is why I use atomic model in my notes. It is a powerful yeast.
In this process I totally recognize the model of "one idea = one frame", "one idea=one object of attention", "one idea=one point" we talked about some weeks ago:
https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/2846/one-note-one-object-of-attention/p1
I've made this big effort because I consider the atomicity one of the most important principle of my zettelkasten model.
Closing the circle, I've used this experience as an example in my notes about the Framing model I have taken in march
Disclaimer: I am not sure, if I use the English terms correctly. So, I might be nitpicky wrongly, because I misunderstand the common use of some English words.
I think this particular note should be either
In the introduction of this note, there is a fallacy present that messes with the whole note: You infer from one shared trait of two phenomena (under the guise of the more general term "concept") on a "remarkably similar pattern".
This note is a perfectly fine first draft. The next step would be to apply formal tools to work out the pattern of the ideas on this note. This is dependent on the ontological tools you have at your disposal. In that case, I'd:
Another source of the unclarity of what to do is the following:
This sounds far-fetched: But I think you'd benefit a lot from learning some traditional Greek philosophy. It is a gut instinct that I didn't develop into something consciously and deliberately communicable. But I have a client, who uses the Zettelkasten Method as a platform to (mainly) discuss the Upanishads. We engaged regularly in something like comparative ontology, with him coming from the Hindu perspective and me coming from the Christian perspective. While he stated that (filtered through my presentation) the Christian perspective is more coherent, I feel that the Hindu perspective is richer and denser, because of its deeper roots into the dreamlike structure of the unconsciousness.
There is a lot to be gained by mastering the different "styles" of thinking.
So, with the above in mind as the background reasoning for the answer to
There is no benefit yet in just separating both sub points in separate notes. But if you develop the idea more deeply, the separation would be a natural by-product of the increased resolution developed.
The driving force behind the application of the principle of atomicity is not the method, but the processing of the ideas. Atomicity is the idealised state that describes the desired end result, which indicates that certain objectives are accomplished (clear understanding of the essence of ideas etc.)
For me, personally, it would depend on my judgement on the value of the idea. I have quite some notes, that are equally rough as your notes. By criterion is that I trust my future self to know what I need to do, to elevate the note to its idealised state. This note is perfectly coherent, well-written and well-structured. The tools necessary to work on this note are also very obvious. So, in practice, this note could be left as that in my Zettelkasten.
I'd separate those two ideas, expand on them, and then integrate them with my already existing material on mastership. I already have quite some notes on the same topic. So, I wouldn't have to create a whole for which those notes could be parts.
I am a Zettler
Bravo, @Sascha! Your entire response is masterful and introduces some well-needed comments and advice into this discussion.
Yes - such an obvious concept - once someone states it. The really good ideas often are.
To me, this is the most crucial point in your post (my bolding).
Over the past few months, I've relearned the value of using an outlining process when capturing what initially are often poorly formed ideas. One can start at the general level and then, over time, develop detailed concepts, refine them, re-organize them, etc., much as you have described. This results in some main bullets and several levels of sub-bullets. The question of what material should be separated into each"atomic" part naturally falls out of this process. And if in the future one wants to add even more detail or new understanding, the same outline can be used to expand your material and, if it makes sense, sub-divide some zettels.
@AayushPriyank - you've got many good comments already in this thread, but I suggest you pay particular attention to this last one by @Sascha , which is full of gems!
Hi, thank you all for your feedback. It has been around 10 days, and I wanted to share what finally happened with the note.
I changed 'Stacking nature of growth' into a kind of structure note as in image below.
My intent is to keep on adding new principles that I discover.
The structure of the note is now like this:
Principles of growth
Growth Through Accumulation
Critical Threshold
Ultimately that one note converted into 8 notes!
Thank you everyone for your help and guidance
The discussion here prompted some more thoughts, but I feel it will deviate from the existing trajectory so will raise it in a separate thread.