@davecan said:
I suspect the "critical mass" is probably dependent on several factors, including personal interest, discipline in writing notes well, targeted vs. untargeted information collection, etc.
But there may be some general patterns that happen in "phases," so to speak.
For example, in the first few dozen notes ... Workflows are becoming more refined. By the time 1,000 notes are reached, the boundaries between topics may become increasingly blurry... One has already begun thinking much more in terms of "how can this new information fit into and extend my existing knowledge structure in the ZK." ... and discussion of the ZK becomes philosophical, i.e., "let the links tell you where they want to go in the note," etc.
These are just some ideas based on my experiences. I'm sure others have more insight.
Eloquently said. This pattern mirrors my experience. @davecan, I think the quantity of notes making a "critical mass" varies with the factors you state.
I want to say something pithy here, but I'll leave that for others.
The notion that one could say something significant, encompassing every dependant factor about the zettelkasten method with 40 or 60 notes or even 400 or 600 notes or even 4000 or 6000 notes, is a bit foolhardy. I can only help those whose "critical mass" of notes is smaller than mine. I surely can't say much helpful for those who are farther ahead in developing their mass. By "mass," I don't mean actual count but a combination of numbers and density of interconnectedness. Me, I'm just stumbling ahead, one atomic note in front of the next.
All I can do is share my personal experience. At my "phase," all I want to do is help.
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
Before any back and forth: I have a very optimistic opinion on the critical mass myself. If it is about the Zettelkasten Method helping the critical mass is 0 notes. It helps right from the beginning.
If you are talking about making connections and boosting creativity the benefit starts as low as a couple dozens of notes depending on the experience. If I'd start over again the creativity boost would start from note 0.
I agree that it is entirely subjective, and suspect this is due to the broad variation in different people's notes. Some use concept-as-noun titles, some use more active phrases as titles, others use numeric or alphanumeric IDs as titles without any words, while others use a mix. Contents of notes are written differently depending on the individual, link structures are more or less dense or "mature" (for lack of a better term) depending on the individual and the time and effort they put into it combined with their unique prior experiences in other note taking systems as well as other different but at least tangentially related problem domains. For example, note writing and database design have a few interesting parallel concepts, so someone with a database design background will potentially take notes differently than someone who doesn't.
Each of these will affect the "quality" of the ZK. Longevity will be a factor as well, but I would argue that spending ten years following the collector's fallacy by randomly collecting seemingly interesting articles without putting in the work of decomposing them into atomic ideas and building relationships between them would be less effective than a year or even less of dedicated deep-thinking ZK work.
Because of this I don't think its possible to objectively measure something as amorphous as "critical mass" without first defining what a zettelkasten is and isn't. And any attempt to do so can invariably discard a large portion of people who have adapted the method along with other note taking methods and tools into their own unique system. (this is why when someone asks me about ZK I tell them to focus on principles not tools or mechanics)
Any mathematical model of something as organic as a ZK is simply that: a model, not reality. The very act of modeling will make decisions about what information to retain and what to discard. So while it can be useful for understanding perhaps a statistical aggregate of observed ZK systems it would not be true in the more philosophical sense, which I believe is where a ZK practitioner ends up eventually anyway – the ZK becomes an extension of the self and the determination of what is "true" and "not true" with regards to any aspect of it come down to how practically effective it is for that individual at that point in time.
Because of this I resort to my verbal description which is necessarily based on gut feeling and instinct drawn from personal experience and observation of others.
OK. I'm not deying the operational value of verbal descriptions.
I'm not motivated to pursue a debate on the explanatory power of verbal theories of Zettelkasten versus that of an imagined mathematical model. This was based on the success of the CHREST model in other areas, as opposed to verbal theories (of chess and programming proficiency, etc). It's a yawning enthymeme.
To really make the point, I would have to produce such a model and publish it, or wait for someone else to do it. Presumably I would be filling up my Zettelkasten with notes on this project. I might as well concede defeat.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Comments
@Sascha @zk_1000 I'll reply after I recover from a visit to the ophthalmologist. My pupils are dilated from the eyedrops.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Eloquently said. This pattern mirrors my experience. @davecan, I think the quantity of notes making a "critical mass" varies with the factors you state.
I want to say something pithy here, but I'll leave that for others.
The notion that one could say something significant, encompassing every dependant factor about the zettelkasten method with 40 or 60 notes or even 400 or 600 notes or even 4000 or 6000 notes, is a bit foolhardy. I can only help those whose "critical mass" of notes is smaller than mine. I surely can't say much helpful for those who are farther ahead in developing their mass. By "mass," I don't mean actual count but a combination of numbers and density of interconnectedness. Me, I'm just stumbling ahead, one atomic note in front of the next.
All I can do is share my personal experience. At my "phase," all I want to do is help.
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
Before any back and forth: I have a very optimistic opinion on the critical mass myself. If it is about the Zettelkasten Method helping the critical mass is 0 notes. It helps right from the beginning.
If you are talking about making connections and boosting creativity the benefit starts as low as a couple dozens of notes depending on the experience. If I'd start over again the creativity boost would start from note 0.
I am a Zettler
I agree that it is entirely subjective, and suspect this is due to the broad variation in different people's notes. Some use concept-as-noun titles, some use more active phrases as titles, others use numeric or alphanumeric IDs as titles without any words, while others use a mix. Contents of notes are written differently depending on the individual, link structures are more or less dense or "mature" (for lack of a better term) depending on the individual and the time and effort they put into it combined with their unique prior experiences in other note taking systems as well as other different but at least tangentially related problem domains. For example, note writing and database design have a few interesting parallel concepts, so someone with a database design background will potentially take notes differently than someone who doesn't.
Each of these will affect the "quality" of the ZK. Longevity will be a factor as well, but I would argue that spending ten years following the collector's fallacy by randomly collecting seemingly interesting articles without putting in the work of decomposing them into atomic ideas and building relationships between them would be less effective than a year or even less of dedicated deep-thinking ZK work.
Because of this I don't think its possible to objectively measure something as amorphous as "critical mass" without first defining what a zettelkasten is and isn't. And any attempt to do so can invariably discard a large portion of people who have adapted the method along with other note taking methods and tools into their own unique system. (this is why when someone asks me about ZK I tell them to focus on principles not tools or mechanics)
Any mathematical model of something as organic as a ZK is simply that: a model, not reality. The very act of modeling will make decisions about what information to retain and what to discard. So while it can be useful for understanding perhaps a statistical aggregate of observed ZK systems it would not be true in the more philosophical sense, which I believe is where a ZK practitioner ends up eventually anyway – the ZK becomes an extension of the self and the determination of what is "true" and "not true" with regards to any aspect of it come down to how practically effective it is for that individual at that point in time.
Because of this I resort to my verbal description which is necessarily based on gut feeling and instinct drawn from personal experience and observation of others.
OK. I'm not deying the operational value of verbal descriptions.
I'm not motivated to pursue a debate on the explanatory power of verbal theories of Zettelkasten versus that of an imagined mathematical model. This was based on the success of the CHREST model in other areas, as opposed to verbal theories (of chess and programming proficiency, etc). It's a yawning enthymeme.
To really make the point, I would have to produce such a model and publish it, or wait for someone else to do it. Presumably I would be filling up my Zettelkasten with notes on this project. I might as well concede defeat.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Fair enough.
I am a Zettler
....or maybe Luhmann was an aut who just loved to effin write....
That's the null hypothesis.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
From the way he spoke I think it is plausibel.
I am a Zettler