Working with arguments and generating novel insights
Hello zettlers!
I am practicing working with knowledge building blocks nowadays. Can you critically evaluate the following? The particular aspect I am interested in is what should be in the inside of every note so that value is created, whether I have redundancies in the chain and if you apply strict argumentative structure in your Zettelkasten. Right now I am writing a dissertation-style essay, I don't have a specific question yet but appreciate tips and tricks about empirical observations. My goal is to evaluate a theory critically in relation to a psychological construct. I am thinking about if I can go further from whether theory applies to that construct to generating original insight about cognitive model of the mind. I also wonder if this is possible with analysis, too. OK, let me restate my questions:
- What should be inside the notes I mentioned? I am not good at using knowledge flower or idea compass type of tools.
- Do I really have to store every step in this argument?
- What are the other ways than using empirical observations to support/refute the theory? One thing that comes to my mind is analyzing patterns in empirical observations; thus starting from the data, not the theory. But I'm bad at applying the opposite direction in my Zettelkasten. It's hard to rotate the workflow in mind.
- How novel insight can be generated from critical analysis? Doesn't we need lateral information to create knowledge? For example finding that one experiment is refuting the theory is a lateral information for me.
IPT = information-processing theory
- IPT is an input-output model (Specifics of what parts of it corresponds to i/o model)
- Biological cognition is a complex system (Specifics of what parts of it corresponds to complex system)
- I/O models cannot explain complex systems (The note form is "Limitations of input-output models in explaining complex systems") (Principle-based)
- IPT cannot fully explain biological cognition (Specifics of what aspects of biological cognition are disregarded, e.g. visceral input)
By the way, it's a really straightforward leap I made in my so called argument. But the reason to divide it so much is to prepare blocks for the future and I believe information attached to every one of them is important. Plus, I am taking baby steps I should admit.
Extra Question: How do you update your processes? It took me 30 mins to write this forum post. At first, it was a workflow question and edited it multiple times. Again, it's not coming up with a new principle you should follow after freewriting and organizing. Do you reach to insights as like me (starting muddy and iterating until coming up with something clear) or am I too flawed, lol?
PS: I edited the note so the category is wrong now. 🤫
Selen. Psychology freak.
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
Is the fundamental question on how to build on the argument IPT not being able to explain cognition fully?
I am a Zettler
The goal is to write a critical analysis of IPT with empirical observations from metacognition research.
There are well-developed critiques I should include and I have to add my own perspective either in the form of new critique or new perspective to existing critique. So, it's half open-ended.
My structure note of IPT includes context, structure (concepts, constructs, mechanisms and boundaries) and function (assumptions, strengths, limitations and implications).
There are two problems:
Selen. Psychology freak.
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin