Hypothesis: Non-editability of Analog Zettelkasten is a feature, not a bug
The following are taken from my notes and slightly paraphrased.
The temporal and accreting nature of analog Zettelkasten as its main benefits
Why does analog Zettelkasten work so well?
In [1] I discussed how analog Zettelkasten cures my perfectionist tendencies, as opposed to digital systems, by making editing cumbersome. I also believe that a key benefit of an analog system is being able to trace the development of my thoughts over time.
This idea goes against the views of many digital Zettelkasten aficionados, who believe that their Zettelkasten should reflect their current view of each idea.
Given any topic, the way I think about it will depend heavily on when I’m writing about it -- all papers that I wrote went through numerous iterations.
It’s not that my thoughts at any point are wrong per se, but rather all versions of my thoughts are required to gain a holistic understanding of my view on a topic.
Of course, Wikipedia can afford to commit massive manpower to update all pages and keep them evergreen. However, not only do I lack said manpower, the purpose of personal note-taking is not to present an up-to-date view of all topics; the evolution of my thoughts is the primary objective, and the notes simply its nice byproduct.
Furthermore, I posit that writing for an audience with background similar to mine is a valuable exercise. This insight comes from my recent experience of writing short reports to communicate findings for research projects. I found that these reports forced me to clarify my thoughts and became a staple of my research strategy.
Developing an alternative
The key question then, is how can we harness the benefits of analog Zettelkasten, without its obvious downsides of hand cramps and lack of portability?
I propose writing short reports to myself, drawing from Edward Tufte's alternative to PowerPoint in [2] (see also: Amazon 6-pagers).
The rules are as follows.
- Write short reports, spanning no more than several pages.
- Use natural language and full sentences.
- Write about a single thesis, and make it complete.
- Cross-reference previous reports as needed.
- Assume an audience of my future self.
- Finalize and "publish" the report within a deadline of no more than a week.
Concrete implementation
In analog systems, there is no difference between an editing view and a published view.
In the digital medium, we can export source file written in some markup language into an immutable format, such as PDF.
Markdown with pandoc is a popular choice, and is suitable for technical writing that I do.
One downside of this workflow is its inability to handle image positioning very well, and the lack of good markup for algorithms.
I believe that Typst may be a good alternative: the markup language is easy to write, compared to LaTeX, while producing better PDFs than markdown-pandoc.
Once exported into PDFs, the reports can be stored chronologically in a single folder or repository for later reference. Some of them can even be hosted online or shared with my colleagues as needed.
[1] On the similarities between analog Zettelkasten and outliners.
[2] The cognitive style of PowerPoint
---end of my note to self---
Further comments
My current system can be described as borrowing elements from various influences, such as analog and digital Zettelkasten, the way scientists used to correspond letters (I send them to my future self), commonplace books, and academic literature.
Each note is rather short, and about an atomic idea at a certain point in time.
Notes are interlinked, but only in the sense that future notes cite past notes, much like academic literature.
Notes, once written, are not editable. But I can respond to a previous note with a new note. This is similar to index-card based Zettelkasten but very distinct from the typical digital implementation using Obsidian or The Archive.
Most notes are written in the tone of "dear future self, here is the derivation for a theorem you must have forgotten..." or "dear future self, this is why I think X about Y..."
Of course, there are many notes in the tone of "dear past self, you were an idiot."
This thesis hinges on the assumption that writing and responding is more productive than excessive editing and janitorial managing. This may depend on the field that you're in, as well as your susceptibility to "productive" procrastination.
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
Also worth noting is that, since writing the quoted report, I changed the default page size of my Typst template from A4 to A5 to further mimic working off of small index cards.
@jiwonac said:
This is approximately how I work too, with the help of a discourse schema (or what Joel Chan calls a discourse graph), as I mentioned previously here, for example. The way you described writing to yourself sounds like the "Blumenbergian" type of Zettelkasten described in the recent "Kommunikationspartner" discussion.
A few years ago I quoted a passage from Sheldon Richmond's 1979 article "When to begin writing", which emphasizes the usefulness of dialogical writing for writing now and preventing procrastination:
My thought derived paraphrasing and combining some of my notes about the topic (it's not a single zettel, it's an output using them).
I recognize the validity of the properties of an immutable Zettelkasten, they are quite solid and I am convinced that they can make the system effective.
In my system, being digital, I theoretically have both the options, making an immutable system or a mutable system.
I've faced the issue of how to make my system reflecting on benefits and drawbacks of both models (there was already a discussion in the forum, https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/2756/question-evolving-ideas-contradictions-how-to-manage-non-truth-in-a-zettelkasten), they both have them, therefore there is no definitive solution, it remained for me an open question.
When I have a case like this, an open question, I try to use my personal principle of simplicity: in case of unresolved doubts, adopt simplest strategies by default, use complex ones only when necessary.
Therefore, finding the management of an immutable system more onerous and more complex than that of a mutable/plastic one, I've decided to maintain a mutable system by default, and to take immutability into consideration only when I feel it is appropriate, when I feel that I need to have stratification.
In my system I therefore prefer to
I believe, anyway, that both models can work well if the principles of atomicity and concept orientation are adopted, they both contribute to solving the difficulties encountered managing the evolution over time in both models, helping to make "solid" and stable notes.
If I used an immutable system, moreover, I would struggle to use it, it goes against the attitudes that I feel I have developed, I am very inclined towards refactoring.
I particularly think that using immutability in too immature knowledge domains, is problematic: in this case the contents and ideas are not stable enough to consider them "on stone". It makes more sense to consider immutability for a pretty stable domain. So, I tend to avoid immutability in early stages of learning a new knowledge domain.
I like the idea of writing short reports for ourselves.
They take a consolidate "snapshot" of our knowledge. Just like you and I we have made with our posts in this discussion.
I think it is a need for a time-versioned zettelkasten having points that "fix" the knowledge at a given time. Just like a full backup after many incremental backups, they form a reference point.
Benefits of reports are very relevant. They constitute the outputs that very often we have no reason to create.
Writing an output gives us the opportunity to test if we have obtained a good knowledge of the domain we are working. Creating an output is an important part of an effective Zettelkasten: https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/2662/upgrade-atomic-thinking-to-holistic-thinking
Writing short output, moreover, is effective because create fast and short feedback loops that are important to test if our process is going fine or if there is need to improve.
Taking a conversation like this is exactly what I use to test if what I've learned about a zettelkasten aspect is mature enough.
If I've done well, I can easily write about here. If I can't, I need to learn more.
Your conversation-with-yourself model is what I'm trying these days in my journaling notes.
It's a good thing.
It is another tool in the toolbox, but at the moment is a complement, not the structure of my entire Zettelkasten. I still need to think how to combine well them.
@Andy Yes, I am very much on the Blumenbergian camp, so to speak. While I achieve this discourse by having some rules about immutability of notes once "published", discourse schemas could probably achieve the same thing. The dialogue format combined with small pages and short timeline helps me push out more writing, which improves my understandings much more than if I allowed myself too much freedom.
@andang76 Speaking of freedom, if the flexibility works for you, then all the more power to it. Even within my constrained framework, I have the ability to make some grammar edits or append to a note and re-compile the PDF, just like how even on index cards one could use whiteouts, if needed, to make changes. In general, however, I found in life that constraints are useful and too much freedom counterproductive for my personality---impulsive, prone to procrastinations, hate finishing large projects.
@jiwonac said:
There are super ideas here. Writing for an audience with similar backgrounds is a great way to clarify knowledge. The forum is filled with people with diverse backgrounds who are unified in their desire to capture and grow knowledge. By writing here, we are writing for people who don't have the same background as us but do have the same goal.
Writing short reports to communicate understanding of my ideas clarifies my knowledge and aligns with Richard Feynman's principle: if you can't explain something, you don't understand it well enough.
The weekly post Share with us what is happening in your ZK serves this purpose. It is an opportunity to give a short report on the status of your current projects surrounding knowledge management practices and everything else to an audience of people with similar goals.
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
Just a point to clarify, even in a mutable system (like mine) there is need to be disciplined and aware of what you are doing.
I need to find and build my constraints, it is not a system with more freedom.
Using the wrong approach leads to a mess rather than an easier life
Just an example, if you arbitrary change the meaning of a note involved in a network of relations, you potentially destroy all the involved network section
I am back to re-emphasize, in my opinion, the accreting part of analog workflows.
Accreting means there is a stronger emphasis on writing and adding onto the system rather than going back to a note and rewriting it. This is a natural consequence of editing being a PITA when writing with pen on a small piece of paper.
A good technique, in digital systems, for nudging an accreting workflow is to use a simple auto-incrementing UID (e.g. 0001, 0002...) and very short (soft) page lower limits and upper limits. Lower limit means just a few sentences count as a zettel. Upper limit means my zettels generally span only 1-2 A5 papers.
Thus, whenever I gain a new "unit of progress" or "unit of insight", then there is very little decision that needs to be made; I simply create a new note with a new UID, then write it down. I typically also link to one or more "most similar prior note." (It's like folgezettel, but supports multiple parents.) Then I move to writing the next thing.
I tried the "densely interlinked atomic notes in Obsidian/TA" style of note-taking before. I was spending way more time doing busywork than actual work! I was only able to make digital systems productive when I identified temporal and accreting nature of analog ZK as their main strengths, and ported those over.
I think you underappreciate the power of forgetting. You forget for a good reason: You get rid of baggage.
(Which we all develop plenty of)
The problem I see: You don't provide any evidence for the hypothesis.
To give you one argument against versioning your ideas: Such a system elevates the evolution of your understanding of a particular matter (precisely: your presentation of your understanding) to a discrete object of interest. This takes resources, which is the opportunity cost. Since my work means that I push myself to the limits of my cognitive capacity, I need to focus all of my efforts towards thinking about the actual object of interest, the matter, instead of sneaking in another concern.
I am a Zettler
Perhaps I could have presented the main question better. My personal observation is that my productive output---progress towards publication per week, say---is higher with an analog Zettelkasten as opposed to a digital Zettelkasten, despite the latter seeming to have less friction and more features. The evidence is anecdotal, so the research question is highly tailored to my own experience too. It seems like a contradiction, which merits investigation.
Why is it that, for me, analog Zettelkasten promotes productive output more than a digital one? (If we can answer this, then how can we marry the benefits of both?)
There could be many answers to this question, several true at the same time. I focused on just a few of those hypothesis in my original position piece. Here are some leading theories.
There are other relevant theories also, such as Chris Aldrich' work on mnemonics and spatial memory.
Sorry Sascha, sometimes I have a hard time parsing your German flavor of writing. As I understand, you are saying that adding artificial constraints and systems like versioning distracts from the actual difficult topic that you want to focus on.
My counterpoint would be that an immutable system takes less work than a system which allows arbitrary edits. The latter invites me to constantly tinker, edit, to reach that perfected state. The former forces me to focus on the simple yet hard tasks of thinking and responding to my previous self.
My counterpoint to your counterpoint would be that a mutable system allows our ideas to be nourished through interaction with new concepts. Immutable notes cause stagnation and an inflexible resistance to new ideas. Immutable notes can't have their biases corrected. Review and refactoring enhance memory through spaced repetition. Perfection is unattainable and not the goal. A mutable system forces us to focus on the demanding tasks of refining our ideas to fit reality better and connect ideas in new and novel ways. It's misguided to blame the system for our falling into the distraction of "tinkering."
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
I'd advise against framing mutable and immutable systems as mutually exclusive. As I said in my first comment, my system is approximately immutable. I don't rewrite "atomic" notes, but I do append to notes with timestamps, refactor links and structure notes, mark some notes as deprecated, and even sometimes delete notes. But I basically agree with @jiwonac (except I don't have experience with analog systems) and think that his point is important for people who choose to work that way for the good reasons mentioned in the original post.
@Will said:
I don't agree with any of these quoted statements from Will: we can nourish our systems with new ideas even if our notes are immutable, by writing new notes and making new links. The truth in what Will said is that there has to be some degree of mutability, but for many people (especially for those of us who don't write publications in the Zettelkasten), the degree of mutability required can be quite low. In any case, it's better to think of this as a continuum of degree of mutability required for one's purposes.
For me both mindsets are valuable.
In software development immutability has valuable properties.
Just as an example, reviewing my writings about the Discourse Graph after the conversation in the other topic, I find both useful, and I'll do both:
There can be a dozen of specific everyday cases in which mutability does better and others in which versioning is better.
A scredriver for screws, a hammer for nails. (There's a drawback, of course. too many tools can made a toolbox too complex to manage...)
Ah, ok.
I'd add some research questions:
The research object is rather complex. The analogue Zettelkasten could pull you away from distraction on the screen. It could be a "clean" thinking environment that isn't polluted by bad habits aquired in the digital thinking environment. You could use a wrong digital approach.
My personal guess is that it is about the habits (cues, incentive structure, availability of rewards, trained/untrained behaviours etc.).
Ha! What a nice euphemism for my bad English.
I like it, therefore I resent it. 
But you understood correctly.
Tinkering and editing are acts of understanding unless you are not tinkering with the material itself but with the software, formalities etc. Or: Tinkering with irrelevant aspects of word choice.
If this is the case, switching to analogue might protect you.
However, the gap in this line of thinking is treating yourself as the constant in the equation. This line of thinking follows the same (faulty) path of the so-called "eufriction" (friction in the workflow that has a positive side effect, which is then declared the main effect): The person is not seen as the major site of change.
To me, this one of the major fallacies in the field of knowledge work: The locus of personal growth is moved to the periphery. The nucleus, the person, is treated as unchanging and often even unchangeable. Therefore, it is always the system that needs to adapt to the person. But if you think like that, you most likely don't discriminate between necessary adaption and adaptions that result from the person's unwillingness or inability (due to lack of knowledge or skill). Additionally, you are more prone to dead ends, finding yourself in a situation in which you were able to move forward in the short-term, but then are stuck and are worse off compared to other paths that would be harder in the beginning.
I am not saying that you commit such fallacies. I just try to lay out the field of these lines of thoughts and the pitfalls.
However, there is a bigger picture that also needs to be taken into account: If you meet your desired threshold of productivity, there is no good reason to change anything in your system.
(If you don't have such a threshold, you need one if you want to constrain the problem properly)
I am a Zettler
@Sascha, it seems we are mostly on equal grounds, though differing significantly in our personal workflow preferences. I do fall more so on the camp that systems should reflect human psychological realities and limitations, but it is true that our habits and even identities can be trained and changed.