Forum Posts Feed
Keeping zetel notes: productive or counterproductive approach.
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Dellu
Dec 3, 2018 at 12:22 PM
This is an extension from the discussion in https://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/8482/0/zettelkasten-tinderbox-for-literature-review.
I am putting this as a separate discussion because I am afraid the ideas on the zetel notes will be buried.
I recent years, there is a lot of discussion on the value of zetel notes. There have been a lot of blog posts on zetel (slip box) notes. There is also a book mentioned in Beck’s video that argues for zetel notes.
I recently skimmed through the book (you can read my annotations here by the way, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m06Jjruv5kC-1gjG47D0241DRC1dyvtf67xs3VW1XE8/edit?usp=sharing).
Here are my main takes on what are zetel notes, and how they differ from other types of notes (would like to hear if I misunderstood the idea).
>Luhmann had two slip-boxes: a bibliographical one, which contained the references and brief notes on the content of the literature, and the main one in which he collected and generated his ideas, mainly in response to what he read. The notes were written on index cards and stored in wooden boxes.
- the bibliography note: this is a reading note, or a comment on the reading material.
- the slip box proper (zettel proper): reader’s reflection on the reading.
In the video linked above, Beck attempts to show to use Tinderbox for managing zettels (slip boxes).
- zettels are supposed to be permanent notes
- they are different from regular reading notes because they are supposed to function outside the context of the reading material (book or article). Zettels stand by themselves. You can link them. But, they are independent ideas that don’t necessarily rely on the chains of arguments presented in the reading material.
- they are short; and each of them are supposed to contain just “one idea”.
- they are independent of a specific project. A zettel can be an input to a project. But, using a zettel in a specific project doesn’t lead to the removal or archival of the zettel (in contrast to project notes). I personally find the distinction between zettels and project notes very difficult.
- We can write zettels after we finish reading the book or the article.
- the gist or abstract of the article can be one of the zettel notes (literature review).
I find the idea of zettel interesting. I am also very worried that it can be a productivity killer because collecting zettels might take a huge part of our research (reading). I do my reading with a specific purpose in mind. A specific project is often the purpose. If I remove that purpose from my mind, I will be engulfed for every by every book I picked up because there are many interesting ideas that I can collect, and think about forever.
I want to write a paper on XXX, I read articles and books that are relevant to XXX. Now, zettel notes are not part of the project. Every attractive idea becomes a zettel. This is dangerous because most materials are full of interesting ideas: and barely anything that cannot be useful for our future selves. We will end up collecting everything on any reading material. This is counter projective because we will be collecting notes that we don’t have a specific function in mind because they might be useful in the future. I am afraid I will be just a junk of thousands of notes with little actual output.
The idea of keeping an interesting idea of ours is great. But, my experience is that what I thought a great idea at some point sounds trivial after some time. MY ideas evolve so fast that I am not sure if I need to permanently record them.
Note that, I am full advocate of “thinking on paper”, or a scratchpad, or a reading note. But, zettels are different because they are supposed to be permanent, a single idea, and linked be independent of the reading material or a project.
Another question is how are zettels better than any good database of pdf articles and books, (ideally with semantic search)?
- I have also a feeling that a modern advanced searching algorism (with a good database of pdf books and articles) can really replace most of what zettels are supposed to do.
What do you guys think?
Do you think zetels would make us more projective?
Posted by Paul Korm
Dec 3, 2018 at 01:18 PM
I generally have an aversion to the modern preoccupation with “productivity” or “workflow”, which seems to be a recurrent topic in many forums. Coming from a manufacturing and service company background, “productivity” is something we do to improve machine or workforce throughput and output, not ourselves. So, in my mind, the highest purpose of note taking is learning and enrichment. The learning might be in service of a short term goal (“get data to complete project xyx”), but that I don’t think of zettelkasten in that context.
I prefer to think of zettlekasten (in whatever guise—and there are many ways to do this) as note-taking with long-term learning and enrichment in mind. In that sense, the main features of the “practice” of zettelkasten-making are persistence, consistent method, and cross-zettel referencing. Persistence in the sense that one keeps up a regular zettelkasten practice, at whatever frequency makes sense. Consistent method can mean handwritten notes (as in the original slipbox concept), or Tinderbox, or some other electronic or hybrid physical / electronic method. What matters is deciding the method that works for oneself, and sticking to it—with adaptation over time if needed. And, finally, cross-zettel referencing means a method to point one zettel at another as a way of building up the links between notes (semantic or otherwise) that help build up a record of a personal body of knowledge.
A personal journal, by the way, can also fit into this concept.
More than anything, the best think is to enjoy what one is doing with these non-goal-oriented notes. A slavish compulsion to take a note about whatever comes to mind is foolish and the best way to encourage one to abandon the note taking practice. On the other hand, recognition that some (or maybe a majority) of the notes will age-out and be irrelevant over time. That’s fine. Part of the joy of discovery is to read ones notes months or years later and wonder “well, why did I do that?”
Anyway, responsive to @Dellu’s thoughtful post, I’d say: just as there’s no set of objective rules about developing one’s personal body of knowledge, there’s no prescriptive approach to zettelkasten. (Some bloggers love to be prescriptive—they usually are the ones who have an untoward interest in “personal productivity”.) With regard to Beck’s approach—I think she has a very long term perspective for her note taking, well beyond the current goals of the comprehensive exam. That’s terrific.
Posted by Hugh
Dec 3, 2018 at 02:42 PM
Paul Korm wrote:
>
>Anyway, responsive to @Dellu’s thoughtful post, I’d say: just as there’s
>no set of objective rules about developing one’s personal body of
>knowledge, there’s no prescriptive approach to zettelkasten.
I agree. As a journalist - and therefore a note-taker - writing long-form articles and preparing documentary and current affairs TV programmes for more than 30 years, I sometimes approached subjects in a discursive and digressive fashion, surveying the territory, seeking to discover what questions should be asked and what the range of answers might be. Sometimes I tackled them in a much more directed and purposive way, seeking to support or disprove arguments. Frequently, I employed both approaches at different times for research on single subjects, depending on what seemed to me to be needed.
I wasn’t aware of Zettelkasten techniques then. Their author appears to have intended them to be used for the more single-minded of the two approaches. But from what I’ve learnt of them, I think I could have fruitfully employed them for both.
Posted by Amontillado
Dec 4, 2018 at 03:00 AM
I started to reply several times to the zettelkasten thread. I’m intrigued by any method of organization and I’m still seeking the true zen of tagging. There are subtleties. The epistemology and taxonomy of CRIMPing is of critical importance.
The Brain is a beautiful thing, but I fell off The Brain wagon a long time ago. It’s great, but I seek symmetry in access technique.
The Brain has a vertical parent-child structure, the hierarchical tree, and it has a horizontal hierarchical tree, the jump thought references. Both can contain multiple parent and circular references.
That’s not quite enough, though, so it supports tagging, too.
Devonthink features multiple hierarchies, the group hierarchy and as many tag trees as you want. I tend to think of tagging as not too different from The Brain’s jump thoughts, but I’m not sure that’s an optimal model.
Posted by Dellu
Dec 4, 2018 at 09:43 AM
Paul Korm wrote:
> What matters is deciding the method that works for
>oneself, and sticking to it—with adaptation over time if needed.
>And, finally, cross-zettel referencing means a method to point one
>zettel at another as a way of building up the links between notes
>(semantic or otherwise) that help build up a record of a personal body
>of knowledge.
>just as there’s
>no set of objective rules about developing one’s personal body of
>knowledge, there’s no prescriptive approach to zettelkasten. (Some
>bloggers love to be prescriptive—they usually are the ones who have
>an untoward interest in “personal productivity”.) With regard to
>Beck’s approach—I think she has a very long term perspective for her
>note taking, well beyond the current goals of the comprehensive exam.
>That’s terrific.
I agree with the sticking part. Yes, changing methods is as a problem as having no good method.
but, is it impossible to objectively, scientifically show that some methods are superior to others?
The book I linked in the first post strongly argues that using slip box makes one more productive; and presents a lot of “evidence” from the psychology literature.
I agree with you that some people’s way of prescribing is just from their opinions. But, if there is an objective reason to show that some methods improve performance, I am the first to leave “my preference” and follow the effective method.
Assume you like to write in blue ink, and Hugh likes to write in black ink. You have these preferences. Assume a study came out showing that black ink assists memory retention. Shouldn’t you change your ink?I would definitely do; our preferences are not always the most effective ways of doing things. That is why we all hung out in this forum: we want better, faster, and more efficient tool/method of doing things.