Forum Posts Feed
Is it worth it?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Sep 8, 2007 at 06:39 PM
Cassius wrote:
If you don’t mind disclosing, what tests indicate your visualization abilities are poor? I’m not convinced your self-assessment is correct, in that the use of analytic features in a spatially-based format requires spatio-visual ability. Some studies indicate that tests classically thought to represent analytic ability, such as figural analogies and matrices, load even more on spatio-visual ability than on “fluid ‘g.’”
Your opinion expressed at point 4 was for a long time mine. Mind mapping is advertised as being for “visual thinkers,” and I think mostly in words, at least consciously. What convinced me to give mind mapping a chance was a comment by legal writing authority Bryan Gardner (now editor of Black’s Law Dictionary) that he for years avoided mind mapping (Gardner uses a different name for it that I don’t recall). He now uses it in the early stages of planning, having found it improves the availability of insights.
>A sample of size 1 (me) suggests that the
>answer is WRONG.
>
>1. As demonstrated by actual testing, my analytic abilities are
>strong; my visualization abilities are weak.
>
>2. I have a reasonably good sense of
>direction, due to my analytic abilities, not visualization. [Although here in
>Northern Virginia, where the cows really did lay out the road structure, I can become
>disoriented.]
>
>3. I scored well on a US Air Force Navigation test, because of my
>analytic ability to match topographic features, not because of my meager
>visualization abilities.
>
>4. I have a strong antipathy toward mind mappers: Why
>should I use a tool that requires an ability, the lack of which I have in full
>measure?
>
>-c
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Sep 8, 2007 at 09:22 PM
Concept mapper - the difference mainly consisting of labeled connectors in concept maps. From a practical standpoint, however, the more important difference might be the process for creating diagrams. In mind mappers you create nodes and the connectors take care of themselves. In Inspiration concept maps, you create both the node and connector manually.
Inspiration 8 International Edition, however, adds a mind mapping module that works mostly as expected to the already existing outline and concept map modules. Of course, as it turns out, the one feature it lacks is the one I most want. Inspiration has a Focus (or hoist) in outline and concept map but none in mind map, even though most of the functions are implemented across all three modules. I suspect the absence will be repaired in the next major version if not before. Inspiration has recently released a bug fix for version 8 International that corrects problems including some I had experienced previously.
I hold Inspiration in high regard, but I don’t enjoy using it. I haven’t completely figured out why. I don’t think Inspiration gets the respect it deserves in non-education settings, and if the mind mapper had Focus, I would buy the product, despite my affective reservations.
As to why those reservations present, I think they may well be irrational. I detect in myself and others something of a prejudice against cross-platform products. (I don’t mean ports but products that evolved from their early days to suit the demands of both Windows and Macintosh.) I’m not sure if this reservation reflects a reality that you cannot design with full effectiveness to suit two masters or cross-platform efforts simply offend the platform chauvinism of each platform’s users.
David Dunham wrote:
>Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>
>>I use a mindmapper in the manner
>>of a pure outliner
>(albeit with the unfortunate two panes, which seems unavoidable
>>with a mind
>mapper).
>
>I haven’t really used it, but I thought Inspiration was a one-pane
>outliner and mind mapper?
Posted by Cassius
Sep 9, 2007 at 05:33 AM
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>
>If you don’t mind disclosing, what tests indicate your
>visualization abilities are poor? I’m not convinced your self-assessment is
>correct, in that the use of analytic features in a spatially-based format requires
>spatio-visual ability. Some studies indicate that tests classically thought to
>represent analytic ability, such as figural analogies and matrices, load even more
>on spatio-visual ability than on “fluid ‘g.’”
>
Well, since SD insists, in high school, I took a comprehensive IQ test. I scored rather well on all parts except visualization, where I scored “average” or worse.
What is “fluid ‘g”?
>Your opinion expressed at point 4 was
>for a long time mine. Mind mapping is advertised as being for “visual thinkers,” and I
>think mostly in words, at least consciously. What convinced me to give mind mapping a
>chance was a comment by legal writing authority Bryan Gardner (now editor of Black’s
>Law Dictionary) that he for years avoided mind mapping (Gardner uses a different name
>for it that I don’t recall). He now uses it in the early stages of planning, having found
>it improves the availability of insights.
>
I doubt that mind mapping would help me as it has Mr. Gardner. Although I am retired now [for my health—I could no longer tolerate the unethical behavior of my management], I often received praise or condemnation for my ability to see things others didn’t. Praise when I pulled an important project out of the toilet, condemnation when management wanted it to stay in the toilet. I don’t attribute this ability to visualization, but rather to an innate urge to keep thinking when most others stop and a willingness to challenge “the generally accepted”. For example, in high school, I designed a slide rule scale that later went to the moon. It really was nothing special, but apparently no one thought it would be useful or that it could work—I thought further. (If you ever used a Pickett slide rule, it may have been on your rule…the Ln scale.) A former colleague once said, “You’re thinking all the time, aren’t you?” I finally realized that not everyone does, and now, being rather a “bum,” I probably don’t either.
Software, like Personal Brain or Inspiration, that permit the construction of non-heirarchal webs or nets might improve my insight, but ‘till now I’ve only used such to create process diagrams (including feedback loops) for others to follow.
-c
Posted by Cassius
Sep 9, 2007 at 05:47 AM
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>In Inspiration concept maps, you create both the
>node and connector manually.
>
>Inspiration 8 International Edition, however, adds
>a mind mapping module that works mostly as expected to the already existing outline
>and concept map modules. Of course, as it turns out, the one feature it lacks is the one I
>most want. Inspiration has a Focus (or hoist) in outline and concept map but none in
>mind map, even though most of the functions are implemented across all three modules.
>I suspect the absence will be repaired in the next major version if not before.
>Inspiration has recently released a bug fix for version 8 International that
>corrects problems including some I had experienced previously.
>
>I hold
>Inspiration in high regard, but I don’t enjoy using it. I haven’t completely figured
>out why. I don’t think Inspiration gets the respect it deserves in non-education
>settings, and if the mind mapper had Focus, I would buy the product, despite my
>affective reservations.
1. I recently spoke with Inspiration tech support. I think it may be more than a year or two before a new version is released. Right now the company is working on something else.
2. The international edition SD speaks of may have an extra module or template designed by a third party. However, Inspiration’s regular edition diagram view starts with a central “main idea” upon which one can easily build a mind map.
3. SD may find Inspiration uncomfortable to use because, frankly, its outlining interface (and probably diagramming also) is “user-clunky,”
although one can get used to it. As was said some time ago, it probably is the best product for displaying exported GrandView outlines.
-c
Posted by Tom S.
Sep 9, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>PMM lacks multiple undo, a critical feature for me.
I took a look at this and watched the demo video. It looks like I could play with the features here almost endlessly. But I really wonder how much good the extra functionality would do me in practical terms in the end. Of course, that’s just me.
Tom S.