Comments

• Mauro

  February 3 edited February 3

  For topics like math and physics, which can be very time consuming, how do you prevent ignoring the urgency? It seems like you can easily fall into a rabbit hole if you wrestle a math idea long enough.

  Another question. In the early stage of learning a new area in a technical subject I meet lots of useful definitions that I put in my Zettelkasten with the purpose of either building tools later or aid with the understanding of harder concepts. These notes require less cognitive effort than writing arguments or models. Would you say that for this reason definitions are less valuable than other atoms like arguments or models?

  Post edited by Mauro on February 3
• harr

  February 4 edited February 4

  @Mauro said:
  For topics like math and physics, which can be very time consuming, how do you prevent ignoring the urgency? It seems like you can easily fall into a rabbit hole if you wrestle a math idea long enough.

  I'd say it depends on the purpose of your note-taking.

  If you're preparing for an exam, the goal is to learn a well-defined set of facts and skills before a given deadline. What kinds of notes would be useful?

  Math and Physics require some rote learning of definitions. For example: What is a triangle? What is the second law of thermodynamics? You also need to know some formulae and algorithms by heart. If you've never heard about a thing or don't know its proper definition, you're lost in an exam.

  For rote learning I'd use a Leitner box (related keywords: flashcard, spaced repetition, self-testing) instead of a Luhmann Zettelkasten.

  Math and Physics also require skills that you only get by practice. Doing exercises is a very effective way to improve those skills. I'd rather do more exercises than wrestle ideas in a Zettelkasten.

  Some people learn very well by talking to other people. If exam preparation is your goal, you might also prioritize communicating with real people over communicating with a Zettelkasten.

  Another question. In the early stage of learning a new area in a technical subject I meet lots of useful definitions that I put in my Zettelkasten with the purpose of either building tools later or aid with the understanding of harder concepts. These notes require less cognitive effort than writing arguments or models. Would you say that for this reason definitions are less valuable than other atoms like arguments or models?

  If the definitions are useful to you, why not? I find it very useful to have definitions in my digital notes. (For example for spaced repetition, see above.) They have their own note type. I call them definition notes.

  Definition notes serve a different purpose than idea notes. In my experience they can coexist in the same note-making system. But others may have had other experiences.

  Sascha's article talks about measuring creativity. If your use case is exam preparation (I'm guessing that it is, because you mention urgency), then I'd optimize the system for another metric: grades.
• Mauro

  February 4

  Thank you for your suggestions @harr ! Your comment makes perfect sense if we assume that the only relevant metric in university is grades. This is often the case, but I hope there is some value in understanding the topic at a deeper level, and not just in hyper-optimizing exam-taking.

  If one defines the Zettelkasten as an integrated thinking environment, one should take into consideration that thinking is used both for the production of new ideas and the understanding of pre-existing ones. The Zettelkasten may shine more in the former than the latter, but if there was no place in the Zettelkasten for understanding, it would cut off many engineering fields where the correct implementation of idea often plays a bigger role than creativity. (This part is more for @Sascha since I don’t know what your position is about this.)

  To sum it up, I know that the Zettelkasten is probably not the best tool in university, but I hope it can, as a side effect, allow me to gain a stronger understanding of the topics of learning.
• harr

  February 4 edited February 4

  @Mauro said:
  If one defines the Zettelkasten as an integrated thinking environment, (…)

  I prefer to think of Zettelkasten as a part of my integrated thinking environment, that adds value to all the other notes.

  To sum it up, I know that the Zettelkasten is probably not the best tool in university, but I hope it can, as a side effect, allow me to gain a stronger understanding of the topics of learning.

  I think the trick here is not to squeeze everything in a Zettelkasten structure, but to choose carefully what aspects of what topics you want to explore in the Zettelkasten.
• Sascha

  February 5

  @Mauro said:
  For topics like math and physics, which can be very time consuming, how do you prevent ignoring the urgency? It seems like you can easily fall into a rabbit hole if you wrestle a math idea long enough.

  Mathematics and physics are two domains that are elusive to the Zettelkasten Method at this point in time. The reason for that is that the majority of time and effort is spent decoding. You have way more scribbles that can be thrown away, since there is little value to use or reuse them.

  In many fields, you don't need to write 2 pages full just to understand a line and if you write them, they could serve as valuable commentary. This is different in those two fields.

  To give you an example from my own work. This is a model that brings together perception, maps of meaning, and the difference between observing consciousness and agency:

  It took me quite some attempts to get it right. So, I filled quite some paper for an hour or so. But this was the processing itself that wouldn't help me later on, since I want to build on the results of my processing. If the processing is interesting, I'd refine the external manifestation of the processing (the scribbles) to a result that is then of particular use. I'd create a thinking tool for example by formulating a heuristic with the solved processing challenge as an example.

  Another question. In the early stage of learning a new area in a technical subject I meet lots of useful definitions that I put in my Zettelkasten with the purpose of either building tools later or aid with the understanding of harder concepts. These notes require less cognitive effort than writing arguments or models. Would you say that for this reason definitions are less valuable than other atoms like arguments or models?

  If these actions actually help you to learn the more complex stuff, then my answer is no. Then you created scaffolding for the rest of the learning effort. I don't need learning wheels anymore. So, now the actual wheels on my bike are more important. But that doesn't mean the value of them cease to exist as part of the learning journey.

  If one defines the Zettelkasten as an integrated thinking environment, one should take into consideration that thinking is used both for the production of new ideas and the understanding of pre-existing ones. The Zettelkasten may shine more in the former than the latter, but if there was no place in the Zettelkasten for understanding, it would cut off many engineering fields where the correct implementation of idea often plays a bigger role than creativity. (This part is more for @Sascha since I don’t know what your position is about this.)

  I think I addressed this issue above, didn't I? It is not about production or understanding ideas. I use the Zettelkasten for both.

  Ah, perhaps an example would be editing: Putting an idea in your own words is a tool to understand a pre-existing idea. In many cases, you don't get it right with the first try. So, you edit the note. If you do it on screen, the actual processing will be lost unless you use tight version control. If you do it on paper, however, you will see much more of the processing itself.

  In the Zettelkasten, you don't want to keep a gazillion versions as they represent the processing itself. In maths, you do a lot of this processing of which you don't want to keep a lot. If you keep it, you compress it to a heuristic, a use case, etc.

  I am a Zettler
• Mauro

  February 5

  Mathematics and physics are two domains that are elusive to the Zettelkasten Method at this point in time. The reason for that is that the majority of time and effort is spent decoding. You have way more scribbles that can be thrown away, since there is little value to use or reuse them.

  I agree, topics that require deep pre-processing may be less suited for the Zettelkasten. Definitions and theorems are usually straightforward, but proofs require a ton of thinking notes. I agree with @harr that, in an early stage, there is definitely more value in doing exercises than wrestling with ideas in a Zettelkasten. Said so, I think that after pre-processing the material, extracting patterns and heuristics can be useful.

  To make an analogy with chess, the former world champion Magnus Carlsen said that he often sees the best move immediately, and that he just spends time thinking to confirm his opinion. That is because he has played so many games that he has a huge mental library of patterns.

  If the processing is interesting, I'd refine the external manifestation of the processing (the scribbles) to a result that is then of particular use. I'd create a thinking tool for example by formulating a heuristic with the solved processing challenge as an example.

  I wonder then if making patterns explicit could speed up the learning or make one’s mastery deeper. At that point, it would make sense to wrestle with an idea, because you may find a new tool to tackle different problems. This is also suggested by Terence Tao in his famous article “Ask yourself dumb questions - and answer them!”
• harr

  February 5 edited February 6

  @Mauro said:
  I wonder then if making patterns explicit could speed up the learning or make one’s mastery deeper.

  I'd say yes to both.

  @Mauro said:
  At that point, it would make sense to wrestle with an idea, because you may find a new tool to tackle different problems

  I notice metaphorical language. I can relate that math and science can feel like a struggle.

  But why fight? It makes a difference how you frame your goals. I find STEM more enjoyable, when I treat them as the art of problem solving.

  While browsing math blogs, I found the book How to solve it by George Pólya. In Part II he talks about "The future mathematician":

  For him, the most important part of the work is to look back at the completed solution. Surveying the course of his work and the final shape of the solution, he may find an unending variety of things to observe. (…) Digesting the problems he solved as completely as he can, he may acquire well ordered knowledge, ready to use.

  Making patterns explicit so that you get well ordered knowledge makes sense. The book has suggestions on how to do this in practice.

  The same book also talks about "Subconscious work" and how it has been known for ages, that sleeping helps and that good ideas can come suddenly. The author speculates:

  (…) psychologists have discovered the beginnings of another answer which may turn out some day to be more satisfactory.

  Eighty years later we do have such answers. They can be found for example in Barbara Oakley's A mind for numbers. This book is grounded in solid neuroscience. She compares focused and diffuse thinking modes. She explains chunks. She uses playful images like the four-armed octopus.

  In my own words: when you make patterns explicit, you switch to focused mode. Attention and working memory are very limited resources, so you need to be smart with your chunking. In focused mode you can consciously refine those chunks.

  Now, what about Zettelkasten? I think some flavors of Zettelkasten can be helpful for some aspects of STEM. But I'd make sure to use them in a brain-friendly manner.

  As we all have our individual strengths and preferences, you have to figure out what your brain likes. Making patterns explicit helps with that. Knowing your strengths and preferences is important for becoming really good at something. Pólya about "The future mathematician":

  By these means, and by all other means, he should endeavor to make his first important discovery: he should discover his likes and his dislikes, his taste, his own line.

  EDIT: Answer expanded.

  Post edited by harr on February 6