Daly:

Anything that works on paper will work on a computer. But something designed for paper will inherently fail to take advantage of the full capabilities of the digital medium.

I'm not worried about my claims failing to pan out. To understand the right/left brain distinction, read "Refactor Your Wetware."

You can use either BrainStormWFO or MaxThink for Cyborganize, and I'm sure other tools will be developed.

Noteliner is just a standard outliner, and MyInfo is a database outliner. Neither is suitable.

Thanks for following along,
~JB

Despite being turned off by the claim that Cyborganize will be 'bigger than Facebook' (it won't, and the claim undermines your efforts), I tried to comprehend its value by watching your video and reading the content on your site.

I still can't decide whether Cyborganize is a wonderful innovation or a 'standard outliner' buried beneath grandiose claims. For example:

It is lossless AND frictionless.

Those terms are meaningless. No one is going to say 'ah, finally, a solution that is both lossless AND frictionless!'

Can't you simply and succintly state the benefits of Cyborganize, preferably with annotated screenshots, and avoid such turn-off claims as:

It?s the most advanced system in existence. There is no other like it in the world.

Let me make that determination. Unfortunately, given what I found on your site, I can't. For me, the best solution is one that doesn't involve a lot of thinking to master. It should be intuitive, it should require little more than a couple of bullet points and a couple of screenshots to make the 'sale'.

Cyborganize seems like too much work to achieve nebulous benefits.

Noteliner is just a standard outliner, and MyInfo is a database outliner. Neither is suitable.

Noteliner is a bit more than a standard outliner. Have you used it?

Good luck with your project.


JBfromBrainStormWFO wrote:

Daly:

Anything that works on paper will work on a computer. But something designed
for paper will inherently fail to take advantage of the full capabilities of the
digital medium.

I'm not worried about my claims failing to pan out. To understand
the right/left brain distinction, read "Refactor Your Wetware."

You can use
either BrainStormWFO or MaxThink for Cyborganize, and I'm sure other tools will be
developed.

Noteliner is just a standard outliner, and MyInfo is a database
outliner. Neither is suitable.

Thanks for following along,
~JB

JB, a couple of thoughts.

This notion of anything designed for paper will inherently fail to take advantage of the full capabilities of the digital medium: I think while on first blush that would seem to be common sense, it is not necessarily so. For example, it leaves out consideration of what exactly has been designed to work on paper, and how readily it might be made to work on computer. It also glosses over the potential of skilled and creative software programmers. Further, you have not specified what capabilities of the digital medium GTD is unable to take advantage of. In other words, I find it difficult to agree with your notion that failure is a given.

I will read Refactor Your Wetware. However, in terms of the whole left brain/right brain model I have concerns. Left brain/right brain has specific meanings for neuro-scientists, and this is clear from reading the professional literature. The popular or consumer literature on the other hand has run with the right brain/left brain notion far beyond what the reality actually is, ending up in places and with conclusions which don't hold much water or, which to be accurately understood, need to be presented with a number of caveats, which usually they are not. Right brain/left brain has taken on life as an explanatory principle for self-help writers and others which is not justified by science. Admittedly, at times, right brain/left brain is a useful metaphor.

Please explain for me why MaxThink is seen as the only other software that can, at this time, be used for Cyborganize. You have me curious, so I will take another look at MaxThink. I will also look at the new material you've prepared.

As well, if you're willing, I'd like to know why Noteliner and MyInfo are not suitable. In the process of explaining, you might also open another perspective which would enable some of us to better understand Cyborganize.

Daly

JBfromBrainStormWFO wrote:

Daly:

Anything that works on paper will work on a computer. But something designed
for paper will inherently fail to take advantage of the full capabilities of the
digital medium.

I'm not worried about my claims failing to pan out. To understand
the right/left brain distinction, read "Refactor Your Wetware."

You can use
either BrainStormWFO or MaxThink for Cyborganize, and I'm sure other tools will be
developed.

Noteliner is just a standard outliner, and MyInfo is a database
outliner. Neither is suitable.

Thanks for following along,
~JB

Bob:

Yes, the Facebook claim has been a marketing disaster so far. However, I'm still of the opinion that innovations along the critical path to intelligence augmentation are more valuable than social networking sites, no matter how high their stock market valuations.

A more relevant comparison would be Google, which also augments effective intelligence.

It is lossless AND frictionless.

"Those terms are meaningless. "

They are not meaningless, I clearly define them. Lossless means no trash can. Frictionless means not liable to writer's block or the equivalent in thinking and execution, in other words low anxiety and low stress. Friction here refers to mental resistance, which is a known phenomenon proceeding from known causes, and measurable in various ways.

"Can?t you simply and succintly state the benefits of Cyborganize, preferably with annotated screenshots,"

With screenshots, no. Neither can GTD, because both are workflows, not applications. I've stated my claims as simply and succinctly as GTD has.

"For me, the best solution is one that doesn?t involve a lot of thinking to master. It should be intuitive, it should require little more than a couple of bullet points and a couple of screenshots to make the ?sale?."

Unfortunately Cyborganize's presentation is still such that the cognitive investment required is higher than what you're willing to provide. However GTD takes an entire book to explain, so I don't feel this is an abject failure on my part, though I intend to continue to improve upon it.

"Cyborganize seems like too much work to achieve nebulous benefits."

The benefits are specific, but the language and type may be unfamiliar to you.

"Noteliner is a bit more than a standard outliner. Have you used it?"

I have not and there is no need. I read the website. It is not capable of the volume processing required.

Daly:

"you have not specified what capabilities of the digital medium GTD is unable to take advantage of."

I do so in my linked article. Specifically, it fails to take advantage of the potential for volume text processing, to increase the percentage of your info the system embraces. Secondly, it fails to take advantage of the cumulative effects of small and cognitively cheap sorting decisions in a dynamic outline to surface the big picture. Thirdly, it fails to provide a structure for refinement of longer thoughts. Fourthly, it fails to provide for focused temporary workspaces. These are just off the top of my head, and all are linked to the static, slow and expensive nature of paper, relative to digital.

"I find it difficult to agree with your notion that failure is a given."

Of course it is not a 100% rule, but it is a good principle.

I understand your concerns but Refactor Your Wetware is quite good on those topics and I think you'll be satisfied. It is my primary source on that issue.

MaxThink and BrainStormWFO both have high volume text processing capacity. Three design elements make this possible:
1. focus
2. rapid hotkey sorting with marks
3. no title/body distinction. i.e., all entries are potential titles.

Database outliners like MyInfo are too slow because they must save the database between edits, and they also violate #3. Noteliner is lacking in #1 and #2.

It takes a special design to manage volumes like 66,000 lines of notes, much less 181,000 lines of quotes, which are the volumes we're talking about when managing all the text one's life generates and consumes.

JBfromBrainStormWFO wrote:

However GTD takes an entire book to explain,

I know you don't want my input, JB, but on this point: Allen took a whole book to explain but that's not necessary to explain a system that can be summarised in three words: "make a list" and properly explained in a couple of pages. The book is repetitive and aims at the lowest common denominator. If you took your graphic as the basis, tweaked it and added some bullet points, you could probably summarise your system too in a way that was clear and without excess verbiage (which you need in the background if the reader needs any extra explanations at any point, but not to explain the basic system).

Graham

Graham: Yes I intend to try to do something like that. Right now it's just a collection of blog posts I've written. Synthesizing something like this down to a clear exposition for beginners is more challenging that it looks, particularly for someone who's an expert and has never taught anyone.

Also, a correction: MaxThink DOES offer dual pane mode. Its only downside that I see now is the lack of undo. I'm installing it to try now.

Wow the MaxThink website is annoying.

OK, apparently the description on the maxthink thread was wrong, it cannot do dual pane, it can only de-hoist. So it's still a second best option, plus the lack of undo hurts.

I tried to install Maxthink but always ended up with MemoMaster trying to install itself. I got rid of MemoMaster and still ended up with it trying to install itself. Perhaps a system reboot will deal with that.

And yes, JB, the Maxthink site is probably one of the most annoying in existence. It is dated, hasn't been substantively changed for years, and gives little if any reason to have confidence in the program.

Daly

1. MaxThink was a viable alterntive in DOS days. Neil Larson apparently had a difficult time converting it to Windows (or at least to Win 2000 and later). If I recall correctly, he also did not follow standard Widows conventions. In his defense, I should point out that attempts to convert GrandView to Windows failed (conversion by people other than the original author, who had moved on to other things).

I looked at MaxThink for Windows several years ago and rejected it.

2. Isn't it time to end this thread?

MaxThink ran fine for me in Wine.

I've posted a new landing page for BrainStormWFO (soon to be renamed BrainStormSW).

The page goes into detailed comparisons with the major competing design archetypes - standard outliners, database outliners, research managers, mindmappers, etc.

Here's the link: http://brainstormsw.com/outliner/best-brainstorm-software/

It's much more comprehensible, I hope. All advanced Cyborganize concepts have been removed.

If you're wondering about the introduction, that's because it's targeted for "brainstorm software" search query visitors.

Feedback appreciated!

Cassius wrote:

JBfromBrainStormWFO wrote:
...
>Here are my three benefit statements:
>
>1.
Eliminate mental fragmentation and resistance
>2. Discover your true identity and
mentally evolve
>3. Execute optimally
>
>Sounds hokey but that's exactly what
Cyborganize was
>designed to
do.
----------------------------------------------------
Gee, this sounds
very much like what Neil Larson says about his MaxThink.

I believe this gets to the heart of the issue. Like most people here, I've been CRIMPing for a long time. Long video, short video, short web site, long web site, whatever, there's only one thing that gets me to download software anymore. It has to be UNIQUE.

There are literally tens, if not hundreds of good GTD oriented pieces of software out there. If you want to sell this, quickly and clearly emphasize what's different that the user can't get (or hasn't gotten) by downloading another successful, established piece of software.

Tom S.

Tom, the new version of the BrainStormWFO page is entirely focused on what makes the program unique from all the other categories of PIM, with specific product comparisons. http://brainstormsw.com/outliner/best-brainstorm-software/

And the latest Cyborganize page is all about what makes Cyborganize unique compared to the only system comparable in scope, GTD. http://www.cyborganize.org/got-gtd-blues-join-the-digital-age-with-cyborganize/

JB,

The cyberorganize page is a huge improvement from what we saw a week ago - I like it a lot. Focusing on a comparison with GTD is a great idea, because it lets everybody know up front what we're talking about (a system, not software) and what the benefits are. Well done.

One bug: the graphic for GTD workflow appears to be entirely blank in chrome.

Thanks for the kind words and catching that error, Dan.

I made a couple of technical errors on the latest BrainStormWFO page with image and page URLs. Consequently, many people couldn't view the page or when they did it was missing nearly all the pics.

All that is fixed now, so here's the page link again: http://brainstormsw.com/outliner/best-brainstorm-software/

It makes detailed comparisons between BrainStormWFO and these products: Evernote, Zoot, Ultra Recall, MyInfo, MaxThink, Noteliner, Tree Notes, Professional Paramind, Noteliner, Buzan mindmapping, Mindjet, Freemind, and TheBrain.

From the presentation: "Note that BrainStormWFO ?auto-hoists?. This means that you are always focused on just one layer of the outline. This helps your brain relax, since you can only think about 7 items simultaneously anyway."

I don't intend to elaborate on this discussion, or this specific topic, I am just posting the links below for reference:

http://www.knosof.co.uk/cbook/misart.pdf

http://members.shaw.ca/philip.sharman/myth.html

http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0000U6&topic_id=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two

Alexander,

I understand that the topic of cognition is quite complex, and I am not making any claims about structuring lists, writing longtext documents or designing layouts.

I am saying that simultaneous comprehension of the interconnections between all child entries of an outline's parent entry is limited to about 7 brief items, or less.

This is a general rule; obviously there are places where you would make exceptions.

The main fallacy of the misapplications you linked to is that most situations do not require simultaneous apprehension. It is perfectly acceptable to scan through a document serially, rather than attempting to comprehend its entirety at once. However, when rapidly structuring an outline, we need to immediately comprehend the entirety of the "small picture" at each layer, so that the "big picture" can automatically build itself with minimal mental exertion.

I find that 7 is the practical limit for this, and often I prefer 6 or 5.

The rule of 7 does refer to an experimentally verified limit of human mental capacity; it is just that cognition in practical situations has many ways of getting around this limitation, so trying to apply a rule of 7 naively as a general rule for designing everything is quite stupid.

As you can see, I am not just talking about short term memory, the capacity to store and recall, but also the capacity to comprehend as an interconnected whole. The visuo-spatial analogue would be thinking of how seven moving parts interact in an engineering design.

Furthermore, the last link you provided claims the number is even lower, 3 or 4. Perhaps this is true, but that is irrelevant since we do not have to remember by brute force when constructing an outline in BrainStormWFO; the text is remembered for us on the screen. We need only comprehend the interrelationships, i.e. ensure our categories are properly divided.

I think 3 or 4 is too simplistic for most people; 5 or 6 is where I'm most comfortable.

JB,

I wrote:

[From the presentation: ?Note that BrainStormWFO 'auto-hoists'. This means that you are always focused on just one layer of the outline. This helps your brain relax, since you can only think about 7 items simultaneously anyway.?

I don?t intend to elaborate on this discussion, or this specific topic, I am just posting the links below for reference:...]


You wrote (here http://www.brainstormsw.com/thinkerlog/the-magic-rule-of-7-moronic-myth-or-useful-rule-of-thumb/ )

"Alexander Deliyannis objects to a portion of the BrainStormWFO sales page:"


I'll try to phrase this as politely as possible: I have written in this here forum on Brainstorm too many times to remember; most times I have praised the software and/or explained its functionality to new users or interested inquirers. Not once do I recall having had my postings copied to the new Brainstorm's log --which is fine, because here is the place they were meant to be posted.

And now I post _as_reference_ a few links and I find that this has been quoted and interpreted elsewhere, completely out of context. OK, I know this is the internet, but I've always found outlinersoftware.com (and outliners.com prior to this) an oasis of civilised dialogue.

As I noted, I do not intend to elaborate on the particular issue. I often post links and updates here _for_reference_ i.e. in the context of a related discussion; see for example http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/9545 Such a posting does not imply endorsement or rejection of the particular information.

I have learned a great deal in my many (many) years in this forum, as I am sure most others have. We do this by maintaining an open outlook for relevant (and often conflicting) information and differing opinions, not by rushing to argue against whatever we _think_ the other fellow is saying.

Joseph (I understand that's what J stands for) _please_remove_ from Thinkerlog the reference to my name and supposed opinion. As for your own text, I'm sure you can alter it so that it doesn't rely on the particular incentive; the links I mentioned are public and easily searchable, and you may very well post them and comment on them.

Once the said reference has been removed from Thinkerlog, I will ask the good Chris to remove this posting, and this momentary lapse of communication will be sent into oblivion.

This forum has no presumption of anonymity or confidentiality. Everything is accessible without login and indexed by Google.

I have removed the link to your post and your name from the post. I don't feel courtesy requires me to delete the post itself, since the quote is now anonymous, as per your desire for privacy.

I was mistaken in thinking that you wrote under your full name because you had no compunctions about having your opinions publicly discussed. Perhaps people are responding via email which auto-includes their full names. I shall be careful about that from now on here. My reason for giving your user name was to provide fair attribution for the quotation.

In any case, my post conceded that you were right to raise an objection to my facile terminology. Nevertheless, I intend to keep using it, for brevity and simplicity.

"Note that BrainStormWFO ?auto-hoists?. This means that you are always focused on just one layer of the outline."

This was the one feature of Brainstorm that I didn't like and it ended up aggravating me so much that I switched to NoteMap. Personally, I want to be able to control how much information I can see at one time. The more flexibility, the better. With NoteMap, I can hoist one topic if I want to focus on that section, or I can display ALL the topics and subtopics, or just some of them. Overall, I liked Brainstorm a lot, but this auto-hoisting thing was just too restrictive. That's just me, though. Your mileage may vary.

@JB I have no desire for anonymity. Just about everything I post on the web purposefully includes my full name. I stand behind my opinions.

My objection for your posting was that you interpreted a reference as an opinion, and used it as a starting point for your own musings (which you are very well entitled to). I believe I made this clear further above, but YMMV.

Thanks for the quick reaction.

@JB I have no desire for anonymity. Just about everything I post on the web purposefully includes my full name. I stand behind my opinions.

My objection for your posting was that you interpreted a reference as an opinion, and used it as a starting point for your own musings (which you are very well entitled to). I believe I made this clear further above, but YMMV.

Thanks for the quick reaction.

Gary Carson wrote:

Overall, I
liked Brainstorm a lot, but this auto-hoisting thing was just too restrictive.
That's just me, though. Your mileage may vary.

Indeed, the auto-hoisting approach is probably Brainstorm's main concept. For building knowledge bottom-up, I find it indispensable. For getting an overview of things it is rather useless. I always copy/paste Brainstorm outlines to a mindmapping program or Treesheets (the results are beautiful) to get a bird's eye view.

David Tebbutt (the original developer) has noted that the "balloon view" was added much later following users' persistence, but that it was never properly developed in itself, i.e. it has remained read-only, without word wrap etc

Ok Alexander, I understand now. I was reacting to the negative arguments in the links.

"For building knowledge bottom-up, I find it indispensable. For getting an overview of things it is rather useless."

That is an excellent summary. It describes the affordance of the tool perfectly. I may build my next sales page version around that as the central idea.

That's why Cyborganize includes two other modes, the scratch zone for working, and the longform loop for describing interconnected big pictures.

I can see where graphical representation would also be useful for small to mid-sized .brn models, probably as another option in the scratch zone. I'll try Treesheets, looks nice.

Registered because I absolutely cannot understand Cyborganize. I can't claim I understand Brainstorm either but with Brainstorm I chucked it to laziness as to why I didn't bother trying to learn it beyond treating it like an outliner with drag and drop/hotkey organization.

With Cyborganize, all I end up seeing is akin to how professional bloggers set up themselves to create blogs with constantly producing posts.

I would highly appreciate it if anyone can explain the difference.

Here's how I understand it:

Scratch files are just notes that you stash into one specific program like Brainstorm.

Snippet Processing Loop is basically a list but for the sake of something more advanced, let's say it's a file/web page capturing program like Surfulator, Evernote or even something like Google Docs. You could probably even go so far as just use UltraRecall for this.

Longform Processing is basically first using a braindump (Inbox for GTD) and then transferring the brain dump into multiple tag clouds and then moving the multiple tag clouds into categories. (Essentially skipping the processing stage and replacing it with a manual building/database stage)

After that, what happens?

I don't see the productivity boost. It seems more like training people to create a personal database but the finished database still has to help the maker be productive. If books alone were productive, every one in school would get As.

It basically seems like the idea is to create one panel where these are all notes and on the other side these is your blog editor with the exception that instead of immediately or randomly creating a post from several references... there's the additional barrier that you just combine the brain dumps of tags with the notes and then reorganize them into categories and voila! You have now produced a webpage.

From what I understood, you could even use the Cyborganize blog page as an example for the finished product of Cyborganize.

You have your categories:

Benefits
BrainStormWFO
Community
Core Workflow
Getting Started
Getting Unstuck
Installation How-To
Scope and Significance
Theory
Uncategorized
User Feedback
Writing

...and then you have contents within your categories.

If these were truly productive though then people wouldn't have a hard time reading the Cyborganize help files and wouldn't request for a video. They would, by virtue of the Cyborganize's categories, understood that these categories were the core essence of the Cyborganize page and the contents are the affirmers of why these categories became relevant i.e. from initiating Cyborganize you were able to narrow down from the bottom up which categories were important motivators for you to understand the essence of Cyborganize.

...which again, is everything in the categories: Without thinking up of specific categories, the process allowed you to generate the category: BrainStorm because you end up understanding that users need to know about BrainStorm to understand Cyborganize. You also had things like Getting Started because you found when you combine and process the dual panes that users need to find a way to get started and instead of thinking "I'll add getting started" you just let the synchronization flow so that Getting Started just becomes a natural category that grew from brute forcing and random tags. That same sequence helped you create a less used category in Getting Unstuck. The result is that you have a blog that's organized closer to a static page.

...Yet again the flaw is, no one feels like reading it. At least not enough people. They seem to demand a video first despite your blog categories being more organized. If it's already problematic that way, then how does it produce a finished product that makes you more productive outside of book/static web page related content where the task list is to create a set of organized pages? I find the argument against outliners seemingly flawed in the same manner. You seem to be pretty much saying outliners can't work because in outliners you have to cut and paste the contents to move them elsewhere and you can't collect these cuts in a random jotted out pane. Yet these could easily be fixed by a clipboard manager that gathers snippets into categories not to mention an external text editor or database.

First off, Foolness, thanks for engaging with this. You've written quite a lot and I don't think I'll be able to clear everything up for you.

Secondly, some people are adopting Cyborganize with success.

Thirdly, it's my first attempt at releasing this to the world. Yes, it is difficult to understand and poorly communicated. Yes, I will improve it. Right now, knowledge of GTD concepts is basically required, and I probably assume a lot of other knowledge too.

"With Cyborganize, all I end up seeing is akin to how professional bloggers set up themselves to create blogs with constantly producing posts."

This is something completely different. My first attempt to codify something that took many years to develop. Look at it as a first draft of a book. It's not really a blog at all.

"Scratch files are just notes that you stash into one specific program like Brainstorm."

No, scratch files are your working zones in your text editor. Only rarely will you create a scratch BrainStorm file.

"Snippet Processing Loop is basically a list but for the sake of something more advanced, let?s say it?s a file/web page capturing program like Surfulator, Evernote or even something like Google Docs. You could probably even go so far as just use UltraRecall for this."

No. Snippet processing loop is for fully breaking down and analyzing info in small chunks - sentences, phrases and words. Ultra Recall, Google Docs, Surfulator and Evernote are incapable of doing this at acceptable speeds. In daily use it's mainly for processing tasks, which actually need that level of detailed handling.

"Longform Processing is basically first using a braindump (Inbox for GTD) and then transferring the brain dump into multiple tag clouds and then moving the multiple tag clouds into categories. (Essentially skipping the processing stage and replacing it with a manual building/database stage)"

Yeah this is actually pretty close. It's not just brain dumps, it's all focused work sessions, along with some critical reference info. There's no tag cloud; I only use categories. I view tags as unreliable because it's too hard to keep them consistent. The sequence goes through progressively more refined blogs, with the final stage a wiki, book, or other finished product. Yes, I do view Cyborganize.org as T1 content, the final output stage of the Longform Loop. No, that does not mean that it is "perfect," only that it has reached that degree of complexity and size.

"After that, what happens?"

The final outputs are either execution or finished information. Other than that, nothing happens.

"I don?t see the productivity boost. It seems more like training people to create a personal database but the finished database still has to help the maker be productive. If books alone were productive, every one in school would get As."

Read the recommended works and try the programs here (http://www.cyborganize.org/singularity-and-credits/ for the theoretical reasons for the productivity boost. Focus particularly on SuperMemo and Andy Hunt's book.

The purpose of Cyborganize is NOT to Cyborganize. Your long-term goals and todo list drives your priorities. Cyborganize merely assists you in achieving them, by keeping your mind from tripping over itself. The purpose is not to write books. However it does tend to naturally focus and accumulate your knowledge over time - in response to YOUR needs of the moment.

"It basically seems like the idea is to create one panel where these are all notes and on the other side these is your blog editor with the exception that instead of immediately or randomly creating a post from several references? there?s the additional barrier that you just combine the brain dumps of tags with the notes and then reorganize them into categories and voila! You have now produced a webpage."

What?

"From what I understood, you could even use the Cyborganize blog page as an example for the finished product of Cyborganize."

"Finished" is not how I would describe it... I believe that if you're not embarrassed by your release, you released too late.

"If these were truly productive though then people wouldn?t have a hard time reading the Cyborganize help files and wouldn?t request for a video. They would, by virtue of the Cyborganize?s categories, understood that these categories were the core essence of the Cyborganize page and the contents are the affirmers of why these categories became relevant i.e. from initiating Cyborganize you were able to narrow down from the bottom up which categories were important motivators for you to understand the essence of Cyborganize."

Uh... no. Cyborganize is for your personal productivity. My success or failure in explaining it on a website has nothing to do with its effectiveness. Believe me I'm quite aware of the many problems with the website and Cyborganize is quite capable of managing the process of fixing them, however it's not at the top of my priority list at the moment. Categories are not the core essence of Cyborganize.

"...which again, is everything in the categories: Without thinking up of specific categories, the process allowed you to generate the category: BrainStorm because you end up understanding that users need to know about BrainStorm to understand Cyborganize. You also had things like Getting Started because you found when you combine and process the dual panes that users need to find a way to get started and instead of thinking ?I?ll add getting started? you just let the synchronization flow so that Getting Started just becomes a natural category that grew from brute forcing and random tags. That same sequence helped you create a less used category in Getting Unstuck. The result is that you have a blog that?s organized closer to a static page."

What?

"...Yet again the flaw is, no one feels like reading it. At least not enough people. They seem to demand a video first despite your blog categories being more organized. If it?s already problematic that way, then how does it produce a finished product that makes you more productive outside of book/static web page related content where the task list is to create a set of organized pages? I find the argument against outliners seemingly flawed in the same manner. You seem to be pretty much saying outliners can?t work because in outliners you have to cut and paste the contents to move them elsewhere and you can?t collect these cuts in a random jotted out pane. Yet these could easily be fixed by a clipboard manager that gathers snippets into categories not to mention an external text editor or database."

OK, I see what you're getting at now. Yes, cyborganize.org is a very rough job right now. Really it's more like Tier 2.5 content - a bunch of blog posts with some modicum of interconnection. I haven't done the serious work of organizing and synthesizing everything yet. But I need some kind of feedback to guide that process, so launching it early helps.

BrainStorm is an outliner so I'm not against outliners. The others are just too slow and unfocused. I don't understand your argument about outliners, maybe screenshots or workflow graphics/videos would be illuminating.

Now here's an example of Cyborganize in action: I dumped your message into a scratch Emacs file, composed my reply to your quoted paragraphs, posted it on outlinersoftware.com, and will now switch to another scratch file and continue what I was doing before. Later when I batch clean my scratch files, I will upload this to my T3 blog and categorize it "Cyborganize." I'll also create an actionable "take into account foolness's questions on next cyborganize writing round - see T3". Much later I'll come back to all this, and the info will be there waiting for me, whether I come across it by searching through my Cyborganize Longform Loop for content ideas, or as I'm sorting through my actionables tree for next Cyborganize actions. It will also be copied into my "notes.org" Emacs chronological tape, and it may even at some point get sorted into my notes.brn file, if I ever catch up on that. Most likely though, it will get re-digested during a future Cyborganize writing session with the aid of BrainStorm, and converted into document editing actionables.

Of course, thanks to the power of spaced repetition imprinting things on one's memory, I may be able to skip most of that work and still take your ideas into account in the rewrite.

All of it will happen lightning quick, with a defined algorithm, and stress-free. That's the productivity boost.