Zettelkasten Forum

Home› Knowledge Work

About the Problem-Solution pairing

SystemSystem
in Knowledge Work
This discussion was created from comments split from: The Complete Guide to Atomic Note-Taking.

Comments

  • tomptomp

    @iylock said:
    Where do problem-solving solutions or improvement measures fit among the six categories? (Concepts, Arguments, Counter-arguments, Models, Hypotheses and theories, Empirical observations)

    I would describe problem-solving solutions or improvement measures as the application of theories or principles to specific problem situations. While I consider an ingenious solution to a specific problem to be an "idea" in its own right, I am struggling to decide which of the six categories it falls into. I initially thought of classifying it as a "model," but since it deals with a specific case—and hasn't been abstracted into a model applicable to other domains—it didn't seem to fit that category.

    I see the problem-solution issue this way -

    1. A problem is a perceived deficiency in a model. Most models are revised from time to time, even if we may not be conscious of the revision process until later.
    2. A solution is a correction or improvement to, or even a replacement for, that model, along with a justification as to why. The justification is in essence an argument, whose thesis is that the solution is a remedy for the deficiency.

    If we stay with Sasha's 6 building blocks (above) for the time being, then how to handle them in the Zettelkasten seems fairly clear:

    • Modify the z-card for the original model so it now includes the modification(s). It may be worthwhile to create a new z-card to capture the change;
    • Create a new z-card or cards to contain the argument justifying the revision;
    • Add a link to the justifying argument to the model card, or maybe to the card that covers the change;
    • If the argument uses a generalizable approach that seems valuable, create a new card about that.

    It could happen that one notices a problem that doesn't seem to have come from a model; then it's probably related to a model one isn't aware of. E.g., Problem:

    "I got a speeding ticket on this street. How can I avoid getting another one"?

    Your mental model of the geography of the street and its surroundings didn't include a change in the speed limit there, and you didn't notice a speed limit sign.

    Problem:

    "There's something off about Sasha's six building blocks of knowledge"

    Your understanding of Sasha's knowledge model is not developed enough, or your own model is not well-enough articulated to challenge it.

    Problem:

    "My car's engine keeps overheating. I need to have a solution."

    Your model of how your car works is incomplete. Probably you should outsource this matter to a mechanic and his model. Alternatively, your model is up to the job of understanding but you need to devise a diagnostic approach so you can know what specifically to fix. You didn't realize that diagnostic procedures should be part of your model.

    So far I haven't come up with a problem that doesn't fit this concept, but I won't swear there aren't any. If there are, what I have suggested above will still apply to most problems.

  • AndyAndy

    @tomp said:

    I see the problem-solution issue this way -

    1. A problem is a perceived deficiency in a model. Most models are revised from time to time, even if we may not be conscious of the revision process until later.
    2. A solution is a correction or improvement to, or even a replacement for, that model, along with a justification as to why. The justification is in essence an argument, whose thesis is that the solution is a remedy for the deficiency.

    I'm not sure that I'm understanding @tomp correctly, but this definition of problem doesn't seem to be general enough. Problems can also be about the real world instead of about models. Here's a definition of problem from David Straus (in his 2002 book How to Make Collaboration Work, although this is close to a typical dictionary definition, so he may have simply taken this from a dictionary):

    Then there are the words 'problem' and 'problem solving'. [...] I use these words in their most general and inclusive sense. I define a problem as "a situation someone wants to change." Problem solving, then, is simply situation changing.

    Following Straus's definition, a problem is not, most generally, "in a model", but you have to (implicitly or explicitly) model a situation in order to determine what the situation is and that it should be changed. That modeling has variously been called: problem formulation, problem structuring, problem conceptualization, etc.

    More specifically, it may be that the situation is that you have a model that you want to change, in which case @tomp's more specialized definition of problem applies: "a perceived deficiency in a model". Then problem formulation is modeling the deficiency of the model.

  • andang76andang76

    Nice definition

  • tomptomp

    @Andy said:
    @tomp said:

    I see the problem-solution issue this way -

    1. A problem is a perceived deficiency in a model. Most models are revised from time to time, even if we may not be conscious of the revision process until later.
    2. A solution is a correction or improvement to, or even a replacement for, that model, along with a justification as to why. The justification is in essence an argument, whose thesis is that the solution is a remedy for the deficiency.

    I'm not sure that I'm understanding @tomp correctly, but this definition of problem doesn't seem to be general enough. Problems can also be about the real world instead of about models.

    I gave three examples of problems, of which two were about the real world. I was a little surprised when I came to think about problems this way, and I'm still looking for exceptions. The thinking behind my suggestions is that if you had already modeled the situation adequately you wouldn't have a problem, or at least you would know of a solution. In this view, the problem doesn't arise from some occurrence per se but because the occurrence was unexpected or because you don't know how to handle it.

    Perhaps there is a weakness here in the case where you do understand how to handle the situation but you don't have the ability. Suppose you fall down a well. I could say that the problem arose because you didn't include a well in your mental model. All right, but now even though your model of the situation has improved you still can't get out.

    Here's a definition of problem from David Straus (in his 2002 book How to Make Collaboration Work, although this is close to a typical dictionary definition, so he may have simply taken this from a dictionary):

    Then there are the words 'problem' and 'problem solving'. [...] I use these words in their most general and inclusive sense. I define a problem as "a situation someone wants to change." Problem solving, then, is simply situation changing.

    Hmm, this suggests to me that the desired outcome is pictured as a modified model and the solution is a plan to transform one's situation so that it fits the modified model.

    Following Straus's definition, a problem is not, most generally, "in a model", but you have to (implicitly or explicitly) model a situation in order to determine what the situation is and that it should be changed. That modeling has variously been called: problem formulation, problem structuring, problem conceptualization, etc.

    More specifically, it may be that the situation is that you have a model that you want to change, in which case @tomp's more specialized definition of problem applies: "a perceived deficiency in a model". Then problem formulation is modeling the deficiency of the model.

    The interesting issue is an understanding of what it means to judge that one's situation doesn't match up. What is one comparing with? It doesn't have to be the "real world". E.g., a novelist may have a problem working out the motivation of one of his characters.

    It seems to me that there are at least two fundamental elements involved: which attributes are used to assess the goodness of fit, and what point of view (or criteria) are used to perform those assessments.

    Good, I think this is leading me somewhere productive! In case it's not clear, I'm trying to come up with simple unifying abstractions rather than exploding the world into ever-greater complexity. In the context of this thread, Atomic Notes, I'm exploring basic aspects of mental operations.

    Perhaps coincidentally, in his Zettelkasten, e.g., in I section "6.3 Equality and Identity", Luhmann got into this matter of judging. If I understand what he wrote in those zettels, it boils down to something similar to what I said above on attributes and their assessment.

  • AndyAndy

    @tomp: more thinking of mine if it is helpful:

    In the context of this thread, Atomic Notes, I'm exploring basic aspects of mental operations.

    I agree that you are focused on mental or intellectual parts of problem solving in your definition and examples. I would call these parts something like problem formulation and solution formulation. For purely intellectual or knowledge-related problems, those parts may be the whole of problem solving. Your examples are all intellectual problems, how (and perhaps what and why as well):

    1. "How can I avoid getting another speeding ticket?"
    2. "How can I figure out what's wrong with Sascha's knowledge building blocks?"
    3. "How can I diagnose why my my car's engine keeps overheating?"
    4. "How can I (or someone else) get me out of this well into which I've fallen?"

    A Zettelkasten could be well suited to formulating some of those problems and solutions. But for problems 1, 3, and 4, there may be an additional part of problem solving, which is implementing the solution to change a (non-mental) situation: (1) changing how I drive, (3) fixing the car's engine, (4) doing the rescue operation. I haven't finished the problem solving until I have implemented the solution and changed a (non-mental) situation.

    Those are simple examples, but for complex problems, implementing the solution would require some kind of task/project management. The distinction between a Zettelkasten and a task/project management system (previously discussed in this forum) becomes relevant. I may work on most of the intellectual parts of the problem in the Zettelkasten and plan most of the practical parts in the other system, and there may be interaction between the two, as I may need to plan my Zettelkasten work in the task/project management system.

    Arnaud Chevallier, in his book Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving (Oxford UP, 2016), elaborates on a basic four-step approach to problem solving:

    1. "Frame the problem" (what)
    2. "Diagnose the problem" (why)
    3. "Find potential solutions" (how) [and select one to implement]
    4. "Implement solution" (do)

    Again, for some problems, all of these steps could be done in the Zettelkasten, but not for other problems.

    This goes beyond the context of atomic notes but perhaps clarifies how a note system fits into problem solving more generally, where there may be a task/project management part, not typically done in the Zettelkasten, to guide the implementation of the solution.

  • tomptomp

    @Andy said:
    @tomp: more thinking of mine if it is helpful:

    In the context of this thread, Atomic Notes, I'm exploring basic aspects of mental operations.

    I agree that you are focused on mental or intellectual parts of problem solving in your definition and examples. I would call these parts something like problem formulation and solution formulation. For purely intellectual or knowledge-related problems, those parts may be the whole of problem solving. Your examples are all intellectual problems, how (and perhaps what and why as well):

    1. "How can I avoid getting another speeding ticket?"
    2. "How can I figure out what's wrong with Sascha's knowledge building blocks?"
    3. "How can I diagnose why my my car's engine keeps overheating?"
    4. "How can I (or someone else) get me out of this well into which I've fallen?"

    A Zettelkasten could be well suited to formulating some of those problems and solutions. But for problems 1, 3, and 4, there may be an additional part of problem solving, which is implementing the solution to change a (non-mental) situation: (1) changing how I drive, (3) fixing the car's engine, (4) doing the rescue operation. I haven't finished the problem solving until I have implemented the solution and changed a (non-mental) situation.

    Those are simple examples, but for complex problems, implementing the solution would require some kind of task/project management. The distinction between a Zettelkasten and a task/project management system (previously discussed in this forum) becomes relevant.

    I agree with what you say: Zettelkasten and task management are not the same; in fact, I usually think of them as orthogonal. So having different systems specialized for one or the other makes sense.

    I may work on most of the intellectual parts of the problem in the Zettelkasten and plan most of the practical parts in the other system, and there may be interaction between the two, as I may need to plan my Zettelkasten work in the task/project management system.

    Just so.

    Arnaud Chevallier, in his book Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving (Oxford UP, 2016), elaborates on a basic four-step approach to problem solving:

    1. "Frame the problem" (what)
    2. "Diagnose the problem" (why)
    3. "Find potential solutions" (how) [and select one to implement]
    4. "Implement solution" (do)

    Again, for some problems, all of these steps could be done in the Zettelkasten, but not for other problems.

    My own framework for supporting execution-like projects is pretty conventional and goes like this:

    Execution Level Terminology What It's For
    4. Mission goals What should be accomplished
    3. Action plan objectives, strategy How to go about it
    2. Task plan workflow plan What steps to take
    1. Task executable work unit Details of each step

    Accomplishing the project proceeds by performing the tasks according to the task plan (which may include feedback and correction tasks). In terms of Chevallier's four steps, mission planning would kick in at his #3, I think.

    This goes beyond the context of atomic notes but perhaps clarifies how a note system fits into problem solving more generally, where there may be a task/project management part, not typically done in the Zettelkasten, to guide the implementation of the solution.

  • SaschaSascha

    @Andy said:
    @tomp said:

    I see the problem-solution issue this way -

    1. A problem is a perceived deficiency in a model. Most models are revised from time to time, even if we may not be conscious of the revision process until later.
    2. A solution is a correction or improvement to, or even a replacement for, that model, along with a justification as to why. The justification is in essence an argument, whose thesis is that the solution is a remedy for the deficiency.

    I'm not sure that I'm understanding @tomp correctly, but this definition of problem doesn't seem to be general enough. Problems can also be about the real world instead of about models.

    These definitions will create similar problems (don't know whether I want to intend the pun) that psychologism gets (the old psychologism that Frege criticized, not the newer stuff). The entity (here: problem) is located within the psyche ("perceived deficiency") which means that there are solutions that are consistent with unwanted results. You could, for example, eliminate the perception of the deficiency. :)

    I want to add a guard rail for these inquiries: The goal of thinking about the problem-solution pairing should be improving the ability to solve problems (still no pun).

    For example: The practical recommendation here:

    Treat the problem, solution pairing as the idea that you keep on this note, even if each solution might be worthy of its own note at some point. If you work on a solution, it is often wise to keep everything on one note. Your future self wants everything to be available with a single glance. It doesn’t want to be burdened by a lot of clicking and link-following. Atomic Note-Taking Guide

    It includes benefits like less clicking and seeing the pairing at one glance.

    The definition above, for example, needs justification for why a problem should be seen as a "perceived" deficiency and not as just the deficiency itself (hat tip to Kant).

    Without checks and guardrails and checks, thinking will get the problem that a big majority of the educationalist ("Pädagogik") literature has. Everything makes sense on paper, yet nobody actually uses it.

    I am a Zettler

  • harrharr
    edited September 13

    @Sascha said:
    These definitions will create similar problems (don't know whether I want to intend the pun) that psychologism gets (the old psychologism that Frege criticized, not the newer stuff). The entity (here: problem) is located within the psyche ("perceived deficiency") which means that there are solutions that are consistent with unwanted results. You could, for example, eliminate the perception of the deficiency. :)

    I had to look up Gottlob Frege's criticism of psychologism. Apparently this is part of a bigger philosophical debate about the normative status of logic.

    @Sascha said:
    The definition above, for example, needs justification for why a problem should be seen as a "perceived" deficiency and not as just the deficiency itself (hat tip to Kant).

    I had to look up the hat tip too. Is this a reference to Immanuel Kant's "thing in itself"?

    @Sascha said:
    Without checks and guardrails and checks, thinking will get the problem that a big majority of the educationalist ("Pädagogik") literature has. Everything makes sense on paper, yet nobody actually uses it.

    I had to look up "educationalist". I could find the word only as a noun, not as an adjective. Was that a typo? Did you mean literature in the education sciences?

    Problem-solving is also taught in other academic fields. One of my favorite articles was written by the physicist Carl Wieman: How to become a successful physicist. (See also comments 17707 and 20368 here in the forum.) The 29 sets of questions can be easily applied to other fields that tackle complex problems.

    However, when I hear the term problem-solution pairings, I have something much simpler in mind. I think of collections of recipes, hacks, how-tos, troubleshooting guides, and best practices. I tend to think of them as question-answer pairs.

    I frequently use questions in my Zettelkasten. I find question zettels useful as reference points for propositional zettels. The question itself doesn't have a truth value, but having questions as atomic nodes in digital hypertext helps structure my notes.

    How would you capture questions or problems as knowledge building blocks?

    How would you use structure notes to capture questions or problems? Would you use the question or problem description as title and links to knowledge atoms as answers?

  • AndyAndy

    @Sascha said:

    I want to add a guard rail for these inquiries: The goal of thinking about the problem-solution pairing should be improving the ability to solve problems (still no pun).

    For example: The practical recommendation here:

    Treat the problem, solution pairing as the idea that you keep on this note, even if each solution might be worthy of its own note at some point. If you work on a solution, it is often wise to keep everything on one note. Your future self wants everything to be available with a single glance. It doesn’t want to be burdened by a lot of clicking and link-following. Atomic Note-Taking Guide

    It includes benefits like less clicking and seeing the pairing at one glance.

    The definition above, for example, needs justification for why a problem should be seen as a "perceived" deficiency and not as just the deficiency itself (hat tip to Kant).

    Without checks and guardrails and checks, thinking will get the problem that a big majority of the educationalist ("Pädagogik") literature has. Everything makes sense on paper, yet nobody actually uses it.

    Exactly. I would add that there is a name that you surely know for the problem–solution pairing: it is called a design pattern. A set of design patterns is called (following Christopher Alexander) a pattern language, and the first wiki was developed as a way to facilitate sharing and modifying of design patterns.

    @harr said:

    @Sascha said:
    Without checks and guardrails and checks, thinking will get the problem that a big majority of the educationalist ("Pädagogik") literature has. Everything makes sense on paper, yet nobody actually uses it.

    I had to look up "educationalist". I could find the word only as a noun, not as an adjective. Was that a typo? Did you mean literature in the education sciences?

    A better translation is education(al) theorist. In English, there are plenty of examples of the kind of impracticality that Sascha is talking about in the journal Educational Theory, as I recall. The educational theory literature isn't all bad, but I'm repeatedly amazed by how impractical it can be for a supposedly applied discipline.

    Problem-solving is also taught in other academic fields. One of my favorite articles was written by the physicist Carl Wieman: How to become a successful physicist. (See also comments 17707 and 20368 here in the forum.) The 29 sets of questions can be easily applied to other fields that tackle complex problems.

    However, when I hear the term problem-solution pairings, I have something much simpler in mind. I think of collections of recipes, hacks, how-tos, troubleshooting guides, and best practices. I tend to think of them as question-answer pairs.

    I frequently use questions in my Zettelkasten. I find question zettels useful as reference points for propositional zettels. The question itself doesn't have a truth value, but having questions as atomic nodes in digital hypertext helps structure my notes.

    How would you capture questions or problems as knowledge building blocks?

    How would you use structure notes to capture questions or problems? Would you use the question or problem description as title and links to knowledge atoms as answers?

    As I said above, you could think of problem–solution notes simply as design patterns, and use an appropriate template for the kind of pattern you have.

    But it depends on where you are in the problem-solving process and what kind of problem you have (e.g. more intellectual/theoretical or more practical). For example, in the first pages of the book I mentioned above, Chevallier's Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving (book preview PDF), the first figure is a "project definition card" that is more like a project-management tool, and the second figure is a "diagnostic issue map" that is more like atomic notes (and reminiscent of schemas like IBIS). Chevallier seems to imply that that the project definition card comes before the issue map, but if you are dealing with a highly unclear problem, it makes more sense that you would think through it with an issue map or atomic notes before (or while) creating a project definition card or design pattern card.

  • tomptomp

    @Sascha said:

    Treat the problem, solution pairing as the idea that you keep on this note, even if each solution might be worthy of its own note at some point. If you work on a solution, it is often wise to keep everything on one note. Your future self wants everything to be available with a single glance. It doesn’t want to be burdened by a lot of clicking and link-following. Atomic Note-Taking Guide

    It includes benefits like less clicking and seeing the pairing at one glance.

    Seeing related items close together is definitely useful and worth pursuing.

    Without checks and guardrails and checks, thinking will get the problem that a big majority of the educationalist ("Pädagogik") literature has. Everything makes sense on paper, yet nobody actually uses it.

    It's very easy to fall into analysis paralysis, isn't it? A good approach is to start simple and make things simpler and more clearcut over time, as one learns more. It was in @Sasha's essay on atomic notes, IIRC, that guidance was given that a note will not be fully atomic until it is understood thoroughly, which will only happen over time.

  • harrharr
    edited September 13

    @Andy said:

    I had to look up "educationalist". I could find the word only as a noun, not as an adjective. Was that a typo? Did you mean literature in the education sciences?

    A better translation is education(al) theorist. In English, there are plenty of examples of the kind of impracticality that Sascha is talking about in the journal Educational Theory, as I recall. The educational theory literature isn't all bad, but I'm repeatedly amazed by how impractical it can be for a supposedly applied discipline.

    Yes, education(al?) theorist is a better term. Thanks!

    @Andy said:
    As I said above, you could think of problem–solution notes simply as design patterns, and use an appropriate template for the kind of pattern you have.

    Personally, I find design patterns and templates useful for my Zettelkasten notes. I have templates for what I call note types. Some of them come in different variants.

    As a level-2-thinker I don't worry about knowledge building blocks. So I'm free to make up new note types like project notes or question notes or how-to notes.

    However, if I wanted to move up (or down?) to level 3, I would have to make sure that my notes strive for atomicity, ie that they eventually match exactly one type of knowledge building block. The threshold post calls it "atomicity as a desired outcome".

  • iylockiylock

    @Sascha said:
    For example: The practical recommendation here:

    Treat the problem, solution pairing as the idea that you keep on this note, even if each solution might be worthy of its own note at some point. If you work on a solution, it is often wise to keep everything on one note. Your future self wants everything to be available with a single glance. It doesn’t want to be burdened by a lot of clicking and link-following. Atomic Note-Taking Guide

    It includes benefits like less clicking and seeing the pairing at one glance.

    I agree. If you use DMAIC for troubleshooting, it is recommended to record each step of the process in a single note file so that you can see it at a glance.

Sign In or Register to comment.