Two of the reflections that resonate in my mind this afternoon thinking about the question.
Doing the assessment at the "zettels level", as thinked in the first post.
It could be very hard.
Almost by costruction of the Zettelkasten method, It could be hard to transfer my zettels to others with the purpose of having a feedback from them about their quality.
That zettels most likely would have value only for me.
Zettels are an internal part of my thinking process, not an output consumable by others.
Another guy could be analyze the formal quality of my zettels, much less their effectiveness in my context of their use.
This thing for me has an high impact on idea of basing receiving feedback sharing directly the zettels.
It's much better producing a full output starting from zettels and share them. But it could not be feasible doing that sometimes.
If I need to share my zettels with others, I need to write them "usable" for others.
And this not happens in my case, for example.
Maybe an assessment that need to directly involve zettels has to be an internal assessment, rather than a feedback.
But this method has another big pain point.
I don't think exists a shared "quality model" that defines what is a "good" zettel.
Before thinking to use a zettel-based assessment, we need to define that quality model.
Your mental models should provide a prediction of reality. Do an experiment and see if the prediction of your mental model explains what happens in reality. If there is a mismatch, that error can be used as feedback to improve your mental model.
@FernandoNobel, I've studied a little bit the wikipedia article. Now I've a name for something similar I've already implemented in my process without naming it, thanks
In the first read of the topic I'd difficulty to understand, because in my mind what is called "model" is a "process" (maybe it's a matter of italian language, model is a thing a little more like a representation than an actionable process), but this is a little detail I've bypassed with a second deeper read.
A "double loop" based process could be one of the most effective tool for trying to solve the issue of the topic.
I've adopted a maybe particular approach, considering Zettelkasten system my main mental model, and the mean to develop and improve the Zettelkasten system too: the istance for knowledge development (the mental model) and the istance for the development and improvement (of the mental model) are the same thing.
Into my (Zettelkasten based) workflow/system is represented the workflow/system itself, and it changes, develops and adapts often to a specific use case or project under the its application on itself. The process (mental model) folds around the knowledge domain upon which it is applied. During the process, there is a development of principles, heuristics, lesson learned that can help to adjust the process over the domain.
Yesterday and today I'm trying to resolve the problem of "how to improve thinking skills when I use Zettelkasten" using Zettelkasten itself. And it seems work , I see a path to acquire ideas from this topic, develop ideas on my own using zettelkasten, and integrate these idea in the same process itself once tried and evalutated.
The "holism" of having the model of the system that lives with the mind and the ideas into the system itself is one of the most relevant discovery I've found developing my zettelkasten.
I think yours is a very very good hint, and I feel I can confirm that is useful.
You could start with a Zettel to define what "thinking skill" means and collect different definitions (I'm not sure myself, I only have a vague notion of what everyone could be meaning; loose associations, but nothing concrete)
Don't forget to link it to your Zettel that defines what "a thought" is.[^semiotics]
I confess I've a blank note about it in my system.
Maybe the most difficoult to write.
I think it's the same in other languages, but in italian language there is a strong confusion between idea, concept, thought and so on. They are all "things into the brain"
Your mental models should provide a prediction of reality. Do an experiment and see if the prediction of your mental model explains what happens in reality. If there is a mismatch, that error can be used as feedback to improve your mental model.
@FernandoNobel, I've studied a little bit the wikipedia article. Now I've a name for something similar I've already implemented in my process without naming it, thanks
In the first read of the topic I'd difficulty to understand, because in my mind what is called "model" is a "process" (maybe it's a matter of italian language, model is a thing a little more like a representation than an actionable process), but this is a little detail I've bypassed with a second deeper read.
A "double loop" based process could be one of the most effective tool for trying to solve the issue of the topic.
Now that you have assimilated the concept of single-loop and double-loop learning, you can now proceed to assimilate the mother of them all: triple-loop awareness!!!
Your mental models should provide a prediction of reality. Do an experiment and see if the prediction of your mental model explains what happens in reality. If there is a mismatch, that error can be used as feedback to improve your mental model.
@FernandoNobel, I've studied a little bit the wikipedia article. Now I've a name for something similar I've already implemented in my process without naming it, thanks
In the first read of the topic I'd difficulty to understand, because in my mind what is called "model" is a "process" (maybe it's a matter of italian language, model is a thing a little more like a representation than an actionable process), but this is a little detail I've bypassed with a second deeper read.
A "double loop" based process could be one of the most effective tool for trying to solve the issue of the topic.
Now that you have assimilated the concept of single-loop and double-loop learning, you can now proceed to assimilate the mother of them all: triple-loop awareness!!!
Your mental models should provide a prediction of reality. Do an experiment and see if the prediction of your mental model explains what happens in reality. If there is a mismatch, that error can be used as feedback to improve your mental model.
@FernandoNobel, I've studied a little bit the wikipedia article. Now I've a name for something similar I've already implemented in my process without naming it, thanks
In the first read of the topic I'd difficulty to understand, because in my mind what is called "model" is a "process" (maybe it's a matter of italian language, model is a thing a little more like a representation than an actionable process), but this is a little detail I've bypassed with a second deeper read.
That Wikipedia article is a difficult source to read. I have only referenced it for the image because it shows the feedback loop between the model and reality.
A model is a representation of reality. The reality you want to represent can be an object (e.g., a car or a table), or it can be a process (e.g., how to cook pasta or the scientific method). So you can have models for both objects and processes. A model can be actionable in the sense that it can guide you in making decisions or taking action. For example, the "how to cook pasta" model already tells you what actions you should take to cook pasta, and the "car" model can guide your decisions to build a car.
However, my background is in mathematical modelling of dynamic processes (such as the heating of a furnace). So, take what I have said with caution because I may be using the wrong words in this context (perhaps the word ‘model’ has a different connotation than the one I am thinking of).
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” —Isaac Newton eljardindegestalt.com
Comments
Two of the reflections that resonate in my mind this afternoon thinking about the question.
Doing the assessment at the "zettels level", as thinked in the first post.
It could be very hard.
Almost by costruction of the Zettelkasten method, It could be hard to transfer my zettels to others with the purpose of having a feedback from them about their quality.
That zettels most likely would have value only for me.
Zettels are an internal part of my thinking process, not an output consumable by others.
Another guy could be analyze the formal quality of my zettels, much less their effectiveness in my context of their use.
This thing for me has an high impact on idea of basing receiving feedback sharing directly the zettels.
It's much better producing a full output starting from zettels and share them. But it could not be feasible doing that sometimes.
If I need to share my zettels with others, I need to write them "usable" for others.
And this not happens in my case, for example.
Maybe an assessment that need to directly involve zettels has to be an internal assessment, rather than a feedback.
But this method has another big pain point.
I don't think exists a shared "quality model" that defines what is a "good" zettel.
Before thinking to use a zettel-based assessment, we need to define that quality model.
As stated before, it seems easy but is not easy.
@FernandoNobel, I've studied a little bit the wikipedia article. Now I've a name for something similar I've already implemented in my process without naming it, thanks
In the first read of the topic I'd difficulty to understand, because in my mind what is called "model" is a "process" (maybe it's a matter of italian language, model is a thing a little more like a representation than an actionable process), but this is a little detail I've bypassed with a second deeper read.
A "double loop" based process could be one of the most effective tool for trying to solve the issue of the topic.
I've adopted a maybe particular approach, considering Zettelkasten system my main mental model, and the mean to develop and improve the Zettelkasten system too: the istance for knowledge development (the mental model) and the istance for the development and improvement (of the mental model) are the same thing.
Into my (Zettelkasten based) workflow/system is represented the workflow/system itself, and it changes, develops and adapts often to a specific use case or project under the its application on itself. The process (mental model) folds around the knowledge domain upon which it is applied. During the process, there is a development of principles, heuristics, lesson learned that can help to adjust the process over the domain.
Yesterday and today I'm trying to resolve the problem of "how to improve thinking skills when I use Zettelkasten" using Zettelkasten itself. And it seems work
, I see a path to acquire ideas from this topic, develop ideas on my own using zettelkasten, and integrate these idea in the same process itself once tried and evalutated.
The "holism" of having the model of the system that lives with the mind and the ideas into the system itself is one of the most relevant discovery I've found developing my zettelkasten.
I think yours is a very very good hint, and I feel I can confirm that is useful.
Now I proceed with others.
I confess I've a blank note about it in my system.
Maybe the most difficoult to write.
I think it's the same in other languages, but in italian language there is a strong confusion between idea, concept, thought and so on. They are all "things into the brain"
@andang76 said:
Now that you have assimilated the concept of single-loop and double-loop learning, you can now proceed to assimilate the mother of them all: triple-loop awareness!!!
oh my god
Thinking skilss> @andang76 said:
That Wikipedia article is a difficult source to read. I have only referenced it for the image because it shows the feedback loop between the model and reality.
A model is a representation of reality. The reality you want to represent can be an object (e.g., a car or a table), or it can be a process (e.g., how to cook pasta or the scientific method). So you can have models for both objects and processes. A model can be actionable in the sense that it can guide you in making decisions or taking action. For example, the "how to cook pasta" model already tells you what actions you should take to cook pasta, and the "car" model can guide your decisions to build a car.
However, my background is in mathematical modelling of dynamic processes (such as the heating of a furnace). So, take what I have said with caution because I may be using the wrong words in this context (perhaps the word ‘model’ has a different connotation than the one I am thinking of).
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” —Isaac Newton
eljardindegestalt.com