The Collector’s Fallacy
The Collector’s Fallacy
The Zettelkasten note-taking method has made book writing and writing scientific papers easy for hundreds of years already.
Howdy, Stranger!
The Collector’s Fallacy
The Collector’s Fallacy
The Zettelkasten note-taking method has made book writing and writing scientific papers easy for hundreds of years already.
Comments
Recently discussed on Hacker News, by the way. There’re some interesting things being said: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16609251#16611413
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
@ctietze going back to your comment about keeping your diaries lying around, your point is well taken that the chronology of life events is important, but in the same way your link discusses addressing the processing of books:
I'm wondering if that's a better way of dealing with a diary too. In reading back on your emotional unloads you find there's a lot of "crap" in there that you must sift through to get to anything good or meaningful later.
I'm wondering if there's an approach to processing your diary, just like you would a book, to actually make it meaningful later. Because keeping the full notebook with the idea that "this is my life in its complete form so I don't want to throw it away" just feels like hoarding.
(For posterity: here's my comment @zwhaley references.)
It could be true that there are better and worse ways to keep a diary. I don't have expertise in diary-keeping.
Since it's strangely different reading handwritten diary entries by myself from 10 years ago to reading a book again after a couple of years, I think the processing isn't that important: going through the same thought patterns again by re-reading what I wrote sometimes is enough;1 I don't have to scan for specific information, unlike source material from research. I'd like to believe that personal diaries behave differently than other books, but only from N=1 experience and a bit of ad hoc sense-making
Phrasing it thus reminds me of Zelazny's The Chronicles of Amber. ↩︎
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
@ctietze I do see your point. Basically is just FEELS different for whatever it's worth right?
I do find this topic intriguing, however. Not just diaries specifically, but on our constant human need to keep things. The most obvious being physical things: it seems utterly preposterous to pay for storage to hold our junk, yet I never thought twice when my parents did it while I was growing up. Taking it further I began to question all the clothes in my closet, all the books on my bookshelf, all the old notebooks in my drawers. Each time I asked, "Would I really need to use this in the future?" And the most amazing realization was that I never missed any of it. And now all my personal belongings have been reduced to one carry-on suitcase and a briefcase, as I travel the world for work...I still never look back on anything I gave away.
As the complexity of my work has grown, the tools I use to complete the work have become simpler in fact.
In this same light I look at the digital word and find we are following the same human patterns. It just doesn't feel like it because it's in digital "bits". You address it quite well in your concept of Collector's Fallacy. Not only is Collector's Fallacy characteristic of our tendency to procrastinate (i.e. I'll read through this later), but also in the basic human tendency to collect -- no different than the old couch in my parent's attic.
While I have challenged myself on throwing away all material possessions and haven't looked back, I'm interested in this challenge with the digital world as well. Something as "special" and "personal" as a diary is a nice artifact to challenge. Would we really miss it if it were gone? If we've already extracted 95% of its usefulness through the writing of it itself, or whatever originally inspired us to write a zettel note off of it...does it need to collect and continue to build up? Or should we embrace freedom of erasing the rest of the "junk" thoughts from our past and look forward to bring on new ones. Focusing on the signal, letting go of the noise.
For diaries, maybe there's freedom in forcing yourself to process them and then let go, just like you do with other people's work. Or maybe it doesn't matter. But in everything we do we must constantly remember that if we begin to challenge ourselves on what we actually need, both physical and digital, we will find that we need much less than we think. And there is significant liberation if we face that challenge head on.
One component of the problem is the scarcity of time. Everything what you do has an opportunity cost of not doing something else.
If you fall for the collector's fallacy you are doing a lot of half-assed work. You think that you achieved something useful if you collected something. But in reality, you wasted time collecting something while not taking action because of it (think, write, self-transform).
I see the Collector's Fallacy through these to lenses: Anxiety and doing things half-assed. Both are not very wise guiding principles.
I am a Zettler
Opportunity cost is precisely the issue. I'd contend that at least some of the time, my time is better spent by starting to read Source B instead of thoroughly "verzetteling" Source A.
I have the same question to you I had in the other threads.
How to you measure this improvement of time usage?
I am a Zettler
Yes, I replied there. I think measuring any potential improvement would be more difficult in my circumstances than in (what I assume are) yours. Meanwhile, reading new stuff is interesting while processing old stuff is sometimes boring, and that's motivation enough for me!
I'm hoping Tiago Forte will actually chime in on this forum at some point — he's definitely put more time and attention into these issues than I have.
If this is your goal then so be it.
I am a Zettler
It's certainly a factor — and one that does impact my productivity, however you measure it.
In retrospect, I sound a bit too bitchy. So, I want to give a disclaimer: I am digging to uncover possible problems. I am on your side.
This is a factor but you can't evaluate it's impact if you don't measure anything related to your desired outcome. If you don't have numbers you can't properly tinker because you don't have any valuable feedback. Is a bit more fun really more productive than the opportunity costs of having to read and evaluate one piece more than one time?
Of course, there are very obvious cases. If you don't have any system or rational method at all and start with one you'll be better off 90% of the time. But numbers are the only things that don't lie. (House MD)
I have the feeling that you dodging the issue a bit.
There is a universal principle of creative production (ideas, insights, models, text, etc.): The more you scatter the worse you are off. I'll give you some examples from different fields:
This is when the barbell method of reading comes in: You read a text and mark all interesting (or not easy to understand) parts. Read fast because you can trust your future self: The important and the difficult parts will be processed carefully. Then you process the text from beginning to an end. Then: TO HELL WITH THE TEXT.
It is not a co-incidence that this looks similar to the Eisenhower-Matrix. There is an underlying principle which emerges when you combine the the concepts of antifragility, importance and cost per iteration.
To wrap it up: I think that numbers and thight scrutiny are the way to go. (Only) What gets measured gets accomplished.
I am a Zettler
To put it into context:
I even process the my last post. I wrote 6 notes out of it and am now connecting the barbell method of reading, time framing of meaning and imperative measuring of creative work.
If you really think about it: When does shallowness trump thoroughness in creative work, ever?
I am a Zettler
Thanks for the time and thought you're putting into the conversation!
At this point in my career, any actual writing and publishing I do is incidental to finding, signing, and serving clients rather than being an end in itself. That may change if and when I start offering business intelligence products or other writings for sale, but for now volume of published output would not be an effective measure of productivity for me. In fact, I'm not sure the benefit of even devising a measure of productivity other than revenue would be worth the cost. So there's that first of all.
Second, being able to enjoy my workday is an end in itself, and I don't answer to a boss or investors, so I'm happy to sacrifice some reasonable small percentage of productivity if it means more enjoyment and less boredom. And to the extent that burnout is a risk, it's not unreasonable to assume (though admittedly difficult to measure) that more enjoyable work processes will boost my overall lifetime output.
Third, I'm still not convinced that it's even possible to extract everything of value from a text in one pass. A year from now I'll have a different configuration of knowledge, interests, and attention, so it seems almost certain that I'll notice new aspects in re-reading any source text that's worth investing much time in in the first place. "Important" is not a fixed and inherent quality of the text, but always relative to my current situation and purpose in reading.
Fourth, as for scattering and shallowness, no one else's texts are going to be completely aligned with whatever subject I'm focusing on anyway, so it's actually less scattered to concentrate on what's of interest in a given text right now and then continue to the next one, rather than trying to completely process those portions of the first text that I don't really care about. If I'm following Tiago's method, I probably won't be re-reading the whole text in the future, just revisiting those sections that caught my interest and condensing them a little more with each pass. I won't need as much warm-up time to get oriented as I'd need with a new text because I'll already have the breadcrumbs of highlights and notes from my previous pass, so my processing won't be shallow. I can get into deeper conversations at the party with people I already know from other occasions.
I don't really see your barbell method as being all that incompatible with Tiago's progressive summarization. The major difference is that in the latter, the careful processing step can involve multiple passes, but is optional for any given document at any given time and is only done as-needed.
(And, off-topic, concerning your training tip: would you still advise less switching between muscle groups in a given workout if it's impractical to work out with weights more than three times a week?)
In that case, I would introduce some proxy metrics so that you have some numbers to crunch. If you don't have numbers there will be always a big opacity to your system. See my other comments for fleshing out this position.
How much is reasonable and how do you know that the sacrifice is reasonable?
You can't answer both questions without any numbers. These are quantitative problems and therefore you need a quantitative approach. Even for the joy you need proxys to answer it (e.g. measuring on a scale from 1-6 how happy with your work day) if you want to protect yourself from cognitive vulnerabilities.
The wam-up time does not depend on the material you developed but rather on how your working memory functions. You brain needs that warm-up if you want to concentrate and go deep into any material.
Scatteredness and shallowness are not functions of your interests. They depend on how your brain is working. It is like searching for a nice pair of jeans online and saying that your working mode is note scattered because you concentrate on your own desire for a pair of jeans. It is scattered because your brain is forced to work in a scattered way to cope with your approach.
Even on a party you don't just jump into ultra deep conversations with people you talked to a few times. You still say "hello" and ease into the conversation unless you don't care if the people care.
(Which is sometimes quite a conversation starter)
It is a relative rule of thumb: The less you can switch the better you are off.
I am a Zettler
@ctietze Just re-read this article to try to find out what exactly the term "Collector's Fallacy" was supposed to refer to. As far as I understand, what you are attacking (and what the term refers to) is the habit or action of preparing (photocopying, storing or filing) more promising reading material than one can properly process later on. I completely agree with your point (doing that is just a waste of time), but I find the term "fallacy" a bit confusing and misleading here (it certainly was for me). Usually, a "fallacy" is an error in reasoning – a jump to a conclusion from something that doesn't actually allow it. I think the faulty behaviour you're attacking is typically not an error in reasoning, though. As you mention, it occurs because it feels good, because it is "easy" compared to the steps involved in properly processing it and/or because it takes the fear of losing access to potentially useful information away. The problem is that we're not starting to reason and questioning the behaviour – not that we're reasoning incorrectly. A more adequate term for what you're attacking might therefore be "Collector's Fault" or "Collector's Mistake".
@vinho I see your point! Just to make sure that we agree about what the "fallacy" is supposed to refer to: not just the preparation of more reading material than you can process, but mistaking the preparation itself (and the feeling of growing the pile) for making progress with the product.
That's mostly a paraphrase of Eco's quote:
Eco uses "illusion", and I think that makes sense. Given that, would you say "fallacy" is still the wrong word for this?
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
I think you need to decide whether you want the term to refer to a habit/behaviour or a belief. If it does both, it would have two distinct meanings, which would be even more confusing.
Letting it refer to a behaviour as I wrote above makes sense to me, apart from the term "fallacy". Letting it refer to a (false) belief would justify the use of the term "fallacy" (one could argue that fallacies are based on false beliefs), but I can't really find a plausible false belief that people who show this behaviour really have (and all share). I don't think anyone actually believes (even on a subconscious level) that they've already read the text when they've just copied it. Or that they've achieved something meaningful by preparing a text if they're never going to read it. (If they are going to read it, they are making progress by preparing it.) And as I said above: I think we don't show this behaviour because we justify it to ourselves with faulty reasoning (based on a false belief), but because it feels good, is easy, etc.
@Vinho a term is overkill in this case. The fallacy refers to the reasoning on habits that won't hurt / are going to be fine; in the future. A short sentence in the introduction prepares the reader enough to digest the article.
Besides, the introduction explains this very well:
The introduction does an excellent job explaining what the article is about. In regards to the fallacy the article is prescriptive. Even if there was a term it would not apply to this article.
My personal opinion on this is that i collect with faulty reasoning (as addressed in the article) which should be avoided. I find cases i enjoy collecting for no reason (orchids, postage stamps, beer mats, etc) important and should be supported.
my first Zettel uid: 202008120915
@vinho I like fallacy so I will keep using Collector's Fallacy
fallacy
fallacy
fallacy fallacy
@zk_1000 (and @ctietze):
Maybe, but the term has established itself quite well in the zettelkasten community – people are often referring to it here in the forum. So I think it's worth thinking about what exactly it refers to and questioning its use if there are good reasons for it.
You might be happy enough with this introduction of the term, but I'm not quite because I think it lacks precision. I studied maths and philosophy for many years and taught logic and argumentation theory for two years as well, so consistent and precise terminology is very important to me and I tend to be more demanding than others when it comes to definitions of terms.
Let me explain my problem with it a bit more:
In logic and argumentation theory, a fallacy is usually defined as a faulty inference – a mental transition to a certain belief because of other beliefs which involves a mistake. To characterise or define a particular fallacy, people usually clearly write down which belief is the conclusion of the faulty inference and which beliefs are the premises of the inferences that are concluded from. Another option is to characterise the fallacy by an "If x, then y" sentence which would make the transition from the premises to the conclusion valid. An example is the "ad populum" fallacy which is often characterised by the sentence "If most people believe x, then x" or "Most people believe x. Therefore: x"
If the Collector's Fallacy was a fallacy in the above sense and someone asked me to define it, I would want to be able to do the same as in the example above and clearly name the beliefs involved in it. I was trying to find such beliefs (or one with the pattern "If x, then y") to define the Collector's Fallacy when I made a note for my zettelkasten, but couldn't really think of any plausible ones (see my above comment).
Thinking more about it today, I actually had another idea for this which might work. Maybe one could characterise it by "I'm preparing reading material. Therefore: I'm doing effective knowledge work". @ctietze's point in the article would then be, that this inference is not valid because in many instances (when the prepared material is not processed later on) the prepping of material doesn't contribute to obtaining the intended knowledge at all, so it isn't effective knowledge work. Does that sound adequate? I'm quite happy with this and would therefore also keep using the term Collector's Fallacy – not for a habit like I thought before, but for this problematic inference or the associated belief "If I'm preparing reading material, I'm doing effective knowledge work".
I think I don't quite understand what you mean here...
I don't have any objection to collecting things for fun...
And @Splattack: Thanks for your very insightful comment – I hope you didn't expect a reply
@Vinho I think you summed up the mix-up well in "If I'm preparing reading material, I'm doing effective knowledge work".
It's not like anyone sits down to deliberate and come to such a conclusion. It's probably not even what native speakers call a "knee-jerk reaction" (because there's no stimulus to react to, I think). Here's where I have to get handwavy because I'm neither an expert in human psychology, nor have I tackled these parts of my pile of shame of unprocessed books
I'm thinking of this as a System 1/System 2 confusion in the way that Kahnemann explained in "Thinking Fast and Slow", along the lines of that humans tend to automatically reply to a complex question by giving an answer to an easier variant of the question (but thus not actually answering the question). Something something emotions -- you photocopied a bunch of books and you feel in charge and that you made progress and then you do nothing with that.
Sorry I cannot provide more useful detail except "everyone read Kahnemann, it's an interesting book"
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
@ctietze: Not sure about the psychology behind it either – I'm speculating as much as you are. My tendency is to say that we do it because it's easier than the proper work / requires less energy and it still seems useful (we might have the unconscious belief from above – at least until we properly question it). Sometimes it might also be a miscalculation (we think we will process all the material, but then for whatever reason it turns out that we don't).