How should I handle citations when studying?
How should I handle citations when taking notes for study?
I am unsure how to handle citations when studying a new field for the first time.
I believe that when there is no prior knowledge, one can utilize materials such as introductory books, encyclopedias, lecture videos, and textbooks.
Since the purpose is learning, if I were to cite, I would likely do so by summarizing the content. Should I mark the citations in my notes during this process?
Extreme mode:
- Check all references listed in the introductory book, read primary sources, and take notes.
Hard mode:
- Mark citations in every paragraph of notes.
- If two introductory books present different items, combine them and mark each item with a citation.
Easy mode:
- Write only a list of references at the bottom of the notes.
Nothing:
- Do not cite at the introductory stage.
Once you become an expert in the field, you realize that all such citations are futile. I was in the position of an engineer and practitioner in the fields of acoustics, music, and industry. From a practical perspective, this knowledge must all become 'common sense.' The source of the material is not what matters; knowledge itself is what is important.
However, I am trying to study an academic field, but I do not know how to do it. Citation leads to an increase in unnecessary actions that hinder my studies. When I do not cite at all, I often fail to distinguish between my own ideas and the ideas from what I have learned.
Additionally, I wonder if citing is necessary for explanations provided outside the textbook, even when taking in-person university lectures.
What is the use of all these things? Since I have not walked this path before, I do not know what to do.
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
Have you revisited the Barbell Method of Reading recently? Recommended read: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/barbell-method-reading/ -- that could answer parts of the problem on where to spend energy.
One bottom line there is: discard details. Don't create a note in your ZK without source attribution (marking it as your own thought by virtue of exclusion); just don't capture it at all.
Focus on the stuff that is valuable, and process it diligently. It's hard work, and maybe you can create tools to make that more bearable than copy-pasting citations all the time if it really gets onto your nerves that much.
Textbooks are usually summaries of common knowledge from different fields anyway, so you'd need to go to the primary source. That's more work. That's why filtering is important. You can't unfold 100% of a textbook into your Zettelkasten without retreading the field so that you become an expert just like the person writing the book you just read, so sacrifices are to be made.
Who says so?
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
It depends on how you study. What's your process? Have you read books on learning or reading? For example:
These books also mention note-taking.
Bad idea. Whatever notes you take, make sure to document the sources of your knowledge. When you're learning about other people's ideas, make sure that you know who passed them on to you.
Are you taking classes and preparing for exams? Or are you learning out of general curiosity? Different learning goals require different learning—and note-taking—strategies.
Thank you for your help. I have a general direction now. One thing I am curious about is what criteria you use for filtering. I imagine the standards differ between your field and others, so I am curious.
I am not sure if the translation is incorrect or if there is a problem with my description, but it seems likely to be the latter.
I am a technician. From a technician's perspective, where one learned common knowledge is not important. What is more important is whether it can be applied immediately in the field, whether it can solve on-site problems, and whether it aligns with field experience. It does not matter whether one learned that a C chord consists of C, E, and G from Wikipedia, Piano 101, or Jazz Harmony. Similarly, it does not matter whether one learned 1 W = 1 J/s from a middle school physics textbook or an encyclopedia. My point was that since common knowledge is content found in various introductory books, there is no need to obsess over those specific citations (the reference materials I studied). This is because those textbooks are introductory texts, summarizing information collected from various sources by others. They are secondary or tertiary sources. From a technician's standpoint, in many cases, in-depth, theoretical research on basic knowledge is not necessary. I consider that to be a different field.
However, this applies only to basic knowledge. Citation is absolutely necessary when it comes to practical work. Even if you learn about pumps from introductory books or textbooks, you need to make an effort to do further research for practical application. Introductory textbooks often summarize pump types into just three categories. However, for practical work, you must look up the exact details. Even regarding pump types alone, you must verify whether they are based on API 610 standards or ASME B73.1M. Pump performance testing must be based on ISO 5198 (Centrifugal, mixed flow, and axial pumps - Code for Hydraulic performance tests - Precision class). Fan testing must be based on AMCA 210. Failure to do so poses a significant risk when undertaking investments worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars, such as over a dozen projects annually.
Therefore, my point is that citations from textbooks, introductory books, or study materials are not particularly important when learning the basic and common knowledge that forms the foundation for performing tasks in a specific field, as they deal with common knowledge. Beyond the basic level, however, within your own field, you need to find the evidence for even the fundamental knowledge you have learned. I hope the translator works well.
I read How To Read A Book in the Korean edition. You recommended Oakley's book to me last time, and I even confirmed that it was available at the library, but I haven't been able to visit lately because I've been too busy with work.
I agree. Then, which method would you choose from the modes I listed?
Currently, I am studying for exams and studying out of curiosity.
Extreme mode (combined with the barbell method of reading) is the only mode that I ever work in.
Likely, this is a translation issue. I guess you mean that the knowledge should be internalised and the external knowledge system isn't helping that much. I you mean that, I agree. But the way how you learn from a text book the best is the extreme mode.
I am a Zettler
I have a question. How do you handle books like Neumann's Kinesiology? (I have absolutely no knowledge of this field; I just opened the book out of curiosity, and it was filled with a vast amount of references and detailed content.
)
If you are an expert in this field (which I understand you actually are), I expect you would select content that would be helpful for your research, look up primary sources to read, and take notes.
However, if you are a beginner in this field who has only learned basic anatomy and intend to study with this book, I think you would mark the entire book.
I am struggling with how to handle this type of textbook when studying with the Zettelkasten method. I believe that at the stage where one cannot properly understand secondary sources, one must study using them. Would a combination of Extreme Mode and the Babel Method be suitable for learning at this (beginner) level? Or should I apply that method after my understanding has improved?
I believe Extreme Mode and the Babel Method are truly effective at the stage where one already possesses some prior knowledge, but I am curious about how they would fare at the introductory stage.
I am also curious how you handle primary sources that you are interested in but find inaccessible or difficult to read due to language barriers. (Of course, I believe that language barriers can be resolved to some extent these days using AI and translation tools.)
How do you know, that common knowledge is in fact common within your community?
(You could even dig a bit deeper and have a philosophical debate about the nature of knowledge. What is the truth? Can something be true, even if everybody else believes it to be false? Can something be false, even if everybody else believes it to be true? How does a new scientific consensus emerge?)
For practical purposes I'd start with a simple assumption: as a beginner you don't know what is common knowledge.
a) As a beginner you'll have to trust someone else. You listen to a teacher. You read a book or tutorial. You watch a video. As a beginner you can't tell if your source represents scientific consus correctly. As a beginner you don't know if you fell for AI slop or for some activist/preacher/hobbyist who teaches some biased idiosyncratic fringe theory.
How do you find a trustworthy source? A good start is a reputable source, like a book that has become a classic or a teacher who is well-recognized in the community you care about.
b) As a beginner you have to start somewhere. Whatever source you read first will contain some mistakes or biases or simplifications. So at some point you'll have to compare your initial learning with other sources to validate your first source.
Comparison is easier if you know what sources you're comparing.
c) As a beginner you don't know, if the source itself is wrong or if you simply don't know enough about the subject to understand the source correctly. Part of the learning process is to go back to the textbook and reread it again and again until you understand it correctly. (Good textbooks have questions for self-testing.) Your understanding of the source will change over time, if you give yourself the opportunity to challenge your own understanding.
Rereading sources is only possible, if you track your sources.
d)
There's another reason, why it's impractical to fact-check every textbook you read. As a beginner you don't know enough about the subject area to do this in an effective manner.
As a beginner it's more practical to simply trust the textbook. That's why I'd choose my initial textbook carefully, when approaching a new field.
However I do recommend to document which textbooks you use while learning, because they are your initial contact with a domain of knowledge.
Once you know more about the subject, you can put your earlier knowledge into perspective. If you treat your textbooks like any other source, you can explicitly compare what you learned from different sources. The following example assumes that your shortcut for the textbook is Smith-2015:
e) There's no clear boundary between "basic" knowledge and advanced knowledge. And there's no clear boundary between beginner and expert. It's a continuum.
One hallmark of an expert is that they know the sources of their knowledge. That's why well written scientific books and papers usually start with a documentation of the "state of research" and/or "literary review".
f) There are domains of knowledge, where the dust has settled. They have a solid consensus amongst experts. For example:
So when you learn something new, it helps to be aware of such domains. As long as you stay within classical mechanics or within the music theory of equal temperament, most textbooks should tell you pretty much the same (assuming they are well researched and well written), because there is an actual consensus.
g) In many other domains, there is no such consensus, for example in history, politics and philosophy. These are domains where primary, secondary and tertiary source matter.
It's ok to use non-primary sources, if you cite them properly. Again, as a beginner you have to start someplace.
The most important rule here is to cite only the source that you've actually read; never ever cite sources that you haven't checked yourself. You might be falling for a rumor or an hallucinating AI.
Citations aren't some fancy ornaments. They are your main tool to keep track of the sources of your knowledge. Which ones have you consulted while writing a particular note?
I use all of them. Each of these methods can be useful. I combine them so that they support my learning strategy.
@harr Wow, thank you so much. It is helpful for understanding how to start at the beginner level and what steps to take as I level up. Also, I was convinced of the importance of citations from a learning perspective.
This discussion is timely for me. I've written a short self-help book and in the process of rewriting discovered I could have done myself some favors when outlining.
Noting citations is one thing I could have done at the onset, even though my present little work doesn't require serious academic rigor. The next book might, though, so I'm trying to learn.
I write in Mellel and have Bookends. It's pretty easy to set up Mellel so the same efficient stream of keystrokes that would create an outline in Bike (or OmniOutliner) will create a comparable outline in a Mellel document.
That's either mildly amusing or pretty cool, depending on how you outline.
The advantage goes to Mellel for things like document comments or sidebar text boxes for notes, and you can build a Bookends database while you outline. It's not much effort to include a citation, so the outline can have its own bibliography built from the same citation database you would use for your manuscript, written in an application suitable for writing the final form. There's a lot of taste preference in that statement.
I understand Asimov had personality issues. His ability to tackle a new subject and crank out a worthy text within months is something I envy.
Of course, I'm not quite there yet.
Ah! I see.
It depends on the level of depth of processing. For a basic understanding of kinesiology you wouldn't attend to the details (e.g. how much % collagen are the tendons made of compared to cartilage). You'd create the basic structures in your Zettelkasten that represent the basic understanding of the matter. The references wouldn't be part of the material that you process naturally because you don't process what needed empirical evidence in the first place.
Such textbooks need to work on more one level. They provide both general and detailed information. The general information typically is not referenced because it is widely accepted in the field. As a beginner, you can't question this general information anyway.
Only when you have developed a good enough general understanding on the matter you would attend to the details anyway. And when you attend to the details (e.g. the different qualities of the connective tissues), then you actually attend to the references. The references in these text books are carefully chosen. Either they point to key works or to works that the author thinks are helpful to dive deeper into a detail. So, the references are made to be followed.
It seems to me that the missing link is what I call the constructionist's mindset (I'll send you something via PM). Here, you would first develop a rough idea of what you want to build in your Zettelkasten. This would inform how and what to process.
I think the problem can be solved by meta-skills. The first one is how to utilise such textbooks. I wanted to write "The second one is how work with the Zettelkasten to explore knowledge." But in hindsight, this is not correct. Rather, you apply the learning strategies that work and just move the writing part into the Zettelkasten.
I only deal with such cases emotionally by grieving.
For a long time, the old soviet training science literature was completely inaccessible to me. Until modern AI, it was a sore spot for me.
However, it once was the same with English for me. When I started studying, my English was not up to the challenge of reading philosophy or sport science. But just by sheer volume I am now very comfortable to read English (writing, not so much).
I am a Zettler
Is it possible to elaborate a little on the constructionist mindset which I think is quite central to working with a Zettelkasten in an intentional way. (also been waiting on the Zettelkasten as a pressure-cooker concept and the suspense is killing me)
Zettler
Ah, the pressure-cooker concept. Thanks for the reminder!
Currently, I have waaay to many balls in the air and am quite torn apart in the various contexts.
Regarding the constructionist mindset: Likely, I will publish the section from the book on the blog.
In short: It is about being intentional with the constructs that you want to build in your Zettelkasten.
Building little machines in your ZK is one way of expressing the constructionist mindset: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/little-machines/
I am a Zettler
@Sascha Thank you so much for your detailed response! Most of the parts I was stuck on have been resolved. Now, all that remains is to choose what to learn and to what depth.