Forum Posts Feed
Is it worth it?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Sep 9, 2007 at 07:01 PM
Cassius wrote:
>
>What is “fluid ‘g”?
Essentially, general analytic ability, in currently reigning U.S. theories of the factor structure of intelligence. (The British have a more strictly hierarchical theory.)
Of course, I am not yet persuaded I am wrong about the relationship between the usefulness of mind mapping and the _lack_ of visualization ability. There are other possible explanations I want to explore, by using conventional outliners in a slightly different way than usual.
Mind mapping software always requires that you reduce each topic to a short phrase at most. (However, some programs, e.g. FreeMind, seem to encourage lengthy headings.) Traditional outliners permit more verbosity, which, as someone pointed out, is consistent with their use at a later stage of a writing project. It is _possible_ that the special benefits I atribute (particularly as to myself) for mind mapping actually derive from the consistent practice of reducing headings to their minimum amount of verbiage. Certainly this practice could account for my perception that mindmapping is a particularly good chunking tool.
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Sep 9, 2007 at 09:03 PM
I’m less convinced that I have convinced myself than you are. Maybe you’re right. We’ll see.
At least two major decisions remain.
1. Is there an alternative product that is likely to be _more_ suitable in the near future? (What’s the near future? One year?)
2. Are there currently less expensive products that have the crucial features? (True hoist; one click entry logic; true multiple selection; general transparency of operation.) And if so, are the non-essential features worth the extra price?
The first question is of course the inherently more interesting one. The graphical outlining product that works like I really think one should (that is, in BrainStorm automatic hoist fashion) is currently under-powered (e.g., no multiple selection) but under rapid development. Somehow, however, I don’t think it will be ready then, if ever, for general mind mapping purposes.
The actual presently competing temptation is an application that costs $90 less than MindGenius, MindMapper 5. It has the features two paragraphs above, and some MindGenius lacks, due to a definite orientation to task/project management. It lacks MindGenius’s Map Explorer, with its inherently nestable hoists. It also lacks the sytem of categories, which I speculate will (somehow) prove useful.
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>Stephen,
>
>It sounds as if you have convinced yourself to invest the money in getting a
>license for MindGenius… Sounds like the wise thing to do since you rely heavily on
>mind mappers. Like others, I don’t find mind mappers very useful… they quickly get
>too big and hard for me to absorb. But then, the same is true for me with outlines—at
>least as they are used as organizational structures for PIMs. I do think that mind
>mappers can be useful in conveying information to others.
>
>I have always thought
>that B-Liner was an interesting concept. It allows you to shift your map into
>different views, including one that mimics at traditional outline format. I wish the
>company were still developing B-Liner, because I think it had a lot of
>potential.
>
>Steve Z.
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Sep 10, 2007 at 07:46 AM
>
>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.
Two years will be over before you know it.
>
>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.
I just can’t stand the way one must drag the connector from object to object. Too hands on for me!
>
>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.
I don’t think I found it clunky, personally, except by virtue of some missing navigation features present in, say, NoteMap. Clunky by omission, in other words, but not affirmatively clunky. I suppose the unmodifiable shortcut keys are a bit odd to some people, although they are the standard shortcuts from the old Macintosh programs like More 3.1.
As was
>said some time ago, it probably is the best product for displaying exported GrandView
>outlines.
>
>-c
Posted by Jack Crawford
Sep 10, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Increasingly, I find mindmappers of only limited value for extended personal use. I sometimes use MindManager for initial idea generation but I find that I soon prefer to export the model to another application for further development.
While they can look good, old mindmaps in particular seem to lose their relevance and usefulness fairly quickly. For me, their value is primarily in that initial idea generation phase. I suspect that I am attuned to more linear thought development such as in a traditional text outliner.
However, mindmapping is an excellent group activity. The limited text and spatial characteristics seem to fit in well with group brainstorming and project outlining.
Jack