Unfortunately, critial thinking skills are only taught sporadically at all levels of formal education.

for - BEing journey - example - demonstrates system 1 vs system 2 thinking - example - unconscious bias - example - symbolic incompleteness

Levels of understanding genres: - 0) No understanding Like the song, never heard anything like it before, but no idea about anything. - 1) Basic Understanding Knowing a bit about the name of the genre and subgenres, but you can be wrong. - 2) Immersion Really dive into subgenres and flavors of the main genre... Also a bit of history about the genre. Research. - 3) Structure Breaking down the structure of the tracks in the genre. For example through DAW. Basically first-principles thinking.

To level 1: Song Analyzer tools (for example musicstax or AI). The author recommends everynoise.com too to gain a basic understanding of genres.

To level 2: Find similar songs and artists for your playlists with that genre. Perhaps playlists. Important to understand the origin of the genre.

Books are about large blocks of uninterrupted time...

( ~13:00)

Perhaps. I don't think so. With a Zettelkasten I believe you can write without 4-hour deep work blocks... However, maybe he is right... I haven't really written yet so I can't be certain.

The process of having a work typewritten forced the affordance of creating time away from the writing of a piece. This allows for both active and diffuse thinking on the piece as well as the ability to re-approach it with fresh eyes days or weeks later.

This statement follows the broad thesis that imitation is far easier than innovation.

Writing is thinking and most of the times when someone thinks its messy.

We should not only teach that how to think throug writing, but then how to edit and revise to present our thinking as argumentation

refers to the movement to consider broader impacts of design work on the world; to redefine design as an active and investigative process that addresses social issues and reflects both personal and cultural contexts.

Critical Fabulations

Academic essays had always been my thing. So I thought: if I just studied good writing as hard as I was studying my A.P. Biology textbook, I’d absorb everything — ideas, words, syntax — by sheer rote. Like osmosis.

For true deep processing and learning, intellectualism, one must think beyond the single source they are consuming and think about everything they know. Although keep in mind selective attention for true learning and thinking.

This process is habitualized by means of Zettelkasten and further aided in tool like hypothes.is

Losing to evil intentions is indeed a big problem in the world. Thanks for your comment, Import Reaction Video.

Philosophy & religion should inherently be taught in education, which would partially solve this problem. Ethics. Morality.

The song's criticism on mass media is mainly related to sensationalism.

"Good" things are usually not sensational. They do not demand attention, hence why the code of known/unknown based on selectors for attention filters it out.

Reference Hans-Georg Moeller's explanations of Luhmann's mass media theory based on functionally differentiated systems theory.

Can also compare to Simone Weil's thoughts on collectives and opinion; organizations (thus most part of mass media) should not be allowed to form opinions as this is an act of the intellect, only residing in the individual. Opinion of any form meant to spread lies or parts of the truth rather than the whole truth should be disallowed according to her because truth is a foundational, even the most sacred, need for the soul.

People must be protected against misinformation.

On a general level, the song is not just about criticizing society, but also about stimulating independence... and not just in thought and identity, but in everything.

Don't be dependent on external factors.

Unrelated to the song itself. It is interesting that different people interpret the song's meaning differently. Likely due to individual differences in perspective, history, culture, etc.

Makes me reflect. Is knowledge/wisdom contained solely in content and words? Or is knowledge/wisdom rather contained in the RELATIONSHIP, the INTERACTION, between past experience, previous knowledge (identity) and substance?

Currently I am inclined to go for the latter.

11:00 Convergent tasks as open and creative, more suitable in like the afternoon and evening, whereas convergent tasks narrow down and are more focused, more so in the morning (this obviously depends on factors like chronobiology and so on)

Also think of it as execution vs strategy

About the originality of thought.

Reply to me:

Kathleen Spracklen An example would be useful there. Future video?

I am grappling the difficult concept of what constitutes an "original thought". I think it is easy to grasp conceptually, but once you start thinking about it formally and try to put it to words, it becomes very confusing.

Although this might be my own experience and not that of others.

The reason I am trying to think about it is for my current research project on intellectualism.

Rob Pirie argues that if one doesn't understand the foundational principles of their society, in the case of the American Republic, the ancient Greek and Roman history, with a consensus on the foundational virtues for society, the society cannot sustain itself.

Thus, he argues, there is a need for classical (self-)education

27:00 Flow is a meta-skill (also mentioned are creativity, critical thinking, learning)

Interesting thought. This guy relates the upcome of AI (non-fiction) writing to the lack of willingness people have to find out what is true and what is false.

Similar to Nas & Damian Marley's line in the Patience song -- "The average man can't prove of most of the things that he chooses to speak of. And still won't research and find the root of the truth that you seek of."

If you want to form an opinion about something, do this educated, not based on a single source--fact-check, do thorough research.

Charlie Munger's principle. "I never allow myself to have [express] an opinion about anything that I don't know the opponent side's argument better than they do."

It all boils down to a critical self-thinking society.

Interesting thread about Paris Hilton.

Main takeaway: Don't be quick to judge. Only form an opinion based on education; thorough research, evidence-based. If you don't want to invest the effort, then don't form an opinion. Simple as that.

Similar to "Patience" by Nas & Damian Marley.

Also Charlie Munger: "I never allow myself to have [express] an opinion about anything that I don't know the opponent side's argument better than they do."

9/8g The card index technique is based on the experience that one cannot think without writing – at least not in demanding, selectively accessing memory-based contexts.

This also means that one cannot think without making allowances for differences.

I like this slightly more differentiated instantiation for thinking better than Ahren's assertion that one can't think without writing. Luhmann qualifies it over and above Ahrens who elides meaning if this was the source he may have been tangentially referencing. (Was it an explicit reference? check...)

Epictetus: "He who is properly grounded in life should not have to look for outside approval."

Also: "If you are ever tempted to look outside for approval, realize you have lost your integrity. If you need a witness, be your own."

Do not change as often as the winds... But do not be impervious to change either.

Nietzche: "The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be mind."

There is a balance to be held. Change opinion and outside projection only if applicably by rational thought based on thorough research and nuanced deep understanding. Be principled, yet flexible.

The control of knowledge (or how it is portrayed) means to control the thoughts of people. This goes against freedom. See Simone Weil: the media should give factual knowledge and leave interpretation to the people. Opinion should fall to a person themselves.

Interesting interpretation of the song. There is truth to this, although I do not think this is what the artists intended to say.

I interpret it more like that they criticize the way the media operates in an opinionized manner, and that they encourage you reflect and think critically, to be skeptical and do your own research.

System 1 vs. System 2

Counteract the dopamine-dependent short-attention-spanned culture of today. Stop. Take time to think. Reflect. Go away from the devices. Perform analog note-making. Slow down.

First, a man should not have any power over that which he does not understand (deeply).

Second, patience as a virtue is very important here, because developing expertise in an area takes time and effort. One must be devoted.

Following from this manner comes, once again, Charlie Munger's principle... Do not form an opinion if you do not understand multiple perspectives.

"Yes, but I don't have the time to do my own research." is criticism on this principle, I respond with: "But if you aren't even willing to make time to form your opinion based on logic and deep understanding, is it worth having an opinion at all?"

Like Marcus Aurelius said: "The opinion of ten thousand men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject."

You don't ask a lawyer to perform surgery on you, or even to explain it to you theoretically, he does not know anything about this. In the same way, a civilian should not be asked to teach politics.

From the same manner, do not judge before understanding. This is also what Mortimer J. Adler & Charles van Doren advocate: "You must say with reasonable certainty 'I understand' before you can say any of the following: 'I agree,' 'I disagree,' or 'I suspend judgement.'"

This is basically critical thinking. Which is also my goal for (optimal) education: To build a society of people who think for themselves, critical thinkers; those who do not take everything for granted. The skeptics.

See also Nassim Nicolas Taleb's advice to focus on what you DON'T know rather than what you DO know.

Related to syntopical reading/learning as well. (and Charlie Munger's advice). You want to build a complete picture with a broad understanding and nuanced before formulating an opinion.

Remove bias from your judgement (especially when it comes to people or civilizations) and instead base it on logic and deep understanding.

This also relates to (national, but even local) media... How do you know that what the media portrays about something or someone is correct? Don't take it for granted, especially if it is important, and do your own research. Validity of source is important; media is often opinionized and can contain a lot of misinformation.

See also Simone Weil's thoughts on media, especially where she says misinformation spread must be stopped. It is a vital need for the soul to be presented with (factual) truth.

(2:03) "The average man can't prove of most of the things that he chooses to speak of. And still won't research and find the root of the truth that you seek of."

So true this quote. Dunning-Krueger. Ignorance. Stupidity.

Men should listen to Charlie Munger's advice: "I never allow myself to have [express] an opinion about anything that I don't know the opponent side's argument better than they do."

i love the part where she says that we sometimes automatically think that someone else will be figuring out the details of our lazy ideas. if we have ideas, we must be prepared to test it and fill in the gaps ourselves

for - progress trap - habits of thinking - limits - liberty

progress trap - habits of thinking - limits - liberty - Technology has provided us with ever increasing types and scales of liberty - We cannot imagine taking away those liberties!

https://web.archive.org/web/20240621162905/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/19/science/brain-language-thought.html

• [ ] Search for publications by Dr. Evelina Fedorenko on the role (or rather absence) of language in thinking.

(~0:45)

Justin mentions that a better way to think about learning is in systems rather than techniques. This is true for virtually anything. Tips & Tricks don't get you anywhere, it is the systems which bring you massive improvements because they have components all working together to achieve one goal or a set of goals.

Any good system has these components working together seamlessly, creating something emergent; worth more than the sum of its parts.

Language is essential for the expression of thought, be it novel or ancient.

(~3:00) Syntopical Reading requires building a map of the topic across sources (coming up with one's own terms) in order to find out what each author is saying.

How does one do this if the process of syntopical reading is the process by which one comes up with the knowledge? I believe the answer lies in a high skill level of Inspectional Reading

Obviously, one cannot make a perfect map from the get go, and this should not be the intention (defeat perfectionism)... However, a rough sketch or map is far more valuable than none at all.

I believe this is also the point of Dr. Justin Sung's prestudy... Building the barebone structure of the mindmap, finding the logic behind it all; the first layer.

cognitive presence is vital in critical thinking

(~6:30)

I think the major point here is that Adler points out our minds, and thus our thinking, changes over time. Therefore, when a book is read at a later point in time, our notes are different.

Perhaps his argument to "think again as to make the thought more current" is antithetical to Luhmann's Zettelkasten, which principles upon continuing previous lines of thought, even decades later.

(future note, about half an hour later)... I think in the Zettelkasten the problem is dealt with adequately, since you actually can make new notes expressing why your thought changes... So in this sense it is even more expanded upon the point that Adler makes even though at first sight it seems the complete opposite.

Interesting. Needs more research on my part.

This is because of the fact that one needs to think (process) before writing. One can't possibly write everything verbatim. Deep processing. Relational thinking.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181536/quotes

In this quote from Finding Forrester (Columbia Pictures, 2000) Forrester (portrayed by Sean Connery) turns the idea that writing is thinking on its head.

This, too, is very logical. It is due to the nature of systems.

When one component, or even a lot, get "upgraded" this does not result in the overall results being improved. A system works best when all components work together to one or multiple goals in seemless harmony, creating emergence.

Therefore, if a component is out of place, even if it is better than its predecessor, it won't yield the correct results.

So for the methods to have a large, positive, impact, the entire system needs to be transformed.

This is why I don't want to upgrade a component of education at a time, but completely transform it once my theory of optimal education is complete. Like a phoenix, from the ashes we will rise. Burn it all down, and build it up again with an OODA loop at the core... The system needs to be in constant change, for without change, evolution cannot happen.

Observation Orientation Decision Action

This loop needs to be at the center of every system for "systems without the inherent capacity to change are doomed to die" -- Colonel John Boyd.

Of course, the system will need to be designed with utmost care and based on countless amounts of research, reviewed by a multitude of world-class experts in numeral areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field

Nick Milo sales page (LYT)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona

Building a mental model of the codebase, as Jennifer Moore says over at Jennifer++:

The fundamental task of software development is not writing out the syntax that will execute a program. The task is to build a mental model of that complex system, make sense of it, and manage it over time.

A useful model for note-taking is that of system 1 and 2 thinking. Try to do as much as possible in system 1. So, most work is done without much work and effort. Chris places his hypothesis.is workflow within system 1.

[[Kevin Marks]] in Tools For Thinking

McCullough, David. “David McCullough Interview with NEH Chairman Bruce Cole.” Humanities 23, no. 4 (August 2002). https://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/david-mccullough-biography.

Compare with: https://hypothes.is/a/yEFMHoCkEeyl34fItJe__w (Luhmann on thinking/writing in Sonke Ahrens)

While Adler may say that a text could be cleverer than you are (is this a direct quote? reference if so), there is an associative nature to our thinking by which one can read further into a text than anything which is actually present. Did the author really mean to "say" the additional associative material? Was it in their lived experience to make such tangential references which associate things in your mind as well?

One ought to be careful that an author can only mean something so far, unless one has much more experience with their additional works and context. If it's not there, does it really exist? Did they mean it?

These associative tricks are what can make texts much richer and deeper than they may have claim to be. Though this doesn't mean that they aren't good "conversation partners."

compare this with doubletalk and https://boffosocko.com/2016/09/30/complexity-isnt-a-vice-10-word-answers-and-doubletalk-in-election-2016/

• for: insight - history - complexity, bad metaphor - chain of events

• insight: complexity and history

  • chain of events is a bad metaphor for things that occur in history
  • the complexity of history is that many causes come together too being about an event
  • likewise, when that event occurs, it is the cause of many different consequences
  • linear vs systems thinking

• adjacency between

  • history
  • emptiness
  • Indra's net
• adjacency statement
  • history reflects emptiness
  • Indra's net extended into historical events

• for: progress trap - Kevin Anderson

• validation: SRG mapping tool, Indyweb

replying to Will at https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/18885/#Comment_18885

I've generally found that this is much easier to do when it's an area you tend to specialize in and want to delve ever deeper (or on which you have larger areas within your zettelkasten) versus those subjects which you care less about or don't tend to have as much patience for.

Perhaps it's related to the System 1/System 2 thinking of Kahneman/Tversky? There are only some things that seem worth System 2 thinking/clarifying/citing and for all the rest one relies on System 1 heuristics. I find that the general ease of use of my zettelkasten (with lots of practice) allows me to do a lot more System 2 thinking than I had previously done, even for areas which I don't care as much about.

syndication link: https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/18888/#Comment_18888

reply to Our Journey, Day 84 by Dan Allosso at https://danallosso.substack.com/p/our-journey-day-84

There's already a movement afoot calling for schools who are dramatically cutting their humanities departments to quit calling what they're offering a liberal education. This popped up on Monday and has a long list of cuts: https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/10/23/liberal-education-name-only-opinion I was surprised that Bemidji wasn't listed, but then again there may be several dozens which have made announcements, but which aren't widely known yet. The problem may be much larger and broader than anyone is acknowledging.

Cutting down dozens of faculties into either "schools" or even into some sort of catch all called "Humanities" may be even more marginalizing to the enterprise.

Apparently, the Morlocks seem to think that the Eloi will be easier to manage if there isn't any critical thinking?

Adler and Van Doren's minimal bar of a college education is that it produce competent syntopical readers.

Please explain to me how it is not evident to programmers that this is how we program.. we cannot hold more than seven items at a time. We cannot fracture. As Miller mentioned, 2 3 digit numbers are outside t capacity, but if you multiply them by paper w, if we free your memory, we can let the brain focus on the v

If you assign the memory function to a diagram, you can let your brain concentrate on the manipulation function.

Once we codify, we no longer have to keep the information in memory, for example : This hurts my brain

There are five roads in Brown County. One runs from Abbeville to Brownsville by way of Clinton. One runs from Clinton to Derbyshire by way of Fremont. One runs from Fremont to Brownsville by way of Abbieville. That's all the roads in Brown County, and all the roads in and out of those towns.

Which towns have roads connecting them directly to three other towns? Which towns have roads connecting them directly to only two other towns? How many towns must you pass through to get from Brownsville to Derbyshire?

But if we diagram it to a map, all of this makes sense.

"The learning of numbers and language must be subordinated ... Visual understanding is the essential and only valid means of teaching how to judge things correctly." ~ Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi

Pestalozzi was the guy who designed the educational system in which Einstein, the most extraordinary visualization of his time, was born q

https://papress.com/products/grids-guides-black-a-notebook-for-visual-thinkers

https://milanote.com/

Metropolitan State University of Denver. “Writing as a Thinking Tool,” June 17, 2021. https://www.msudenver.edu/writing-center/faculty-resources/writing-as-a-thinking-tool/.

Thinking, Fast and Slow - amazon.com Wikipedia

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman | Goodreads

Niklas Luhmann's zettelkasten system doesn't impose a heirarchy upon it's contents and in some ways its structure anticipates the ideas of hypertext and the internet's structure.

Also similar to the idea from Umberto Eco: https://hypothes.is/a/jqug2tNlEeyg2JfEczmepw

People like me that have learned about this way for thinking and the challenge that is finding alike minds that want to explore and build this for the next generation. Sometimes the difference between a blue thought and a revolution is having who to talk to about it. How can we connect people working on the same problem how do you put in the same metaphorical room the people trying to push the envolope

https://bryanmmathers.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_Bono

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po_(lateral_thinking)

He then pushes a button and "plays back" the opinion whenever it seems appropriate to do so. He has performed acceptably without having had to think.

This seems to be a reasonable argument to make for those who ask, why read? why take notes? especially when we can use search and artificial intelligence to do the work for us. Can we really?

thinking process when writing had to be inspired (by something deeper)

• see only writing what comes natural, following natural movements, wu wei

(~13:00) Koe argues for making information relevant (Dr. Sung always says you must make info relevant) through the learning for the solving of a particular problem, either for a client, your business, or your personal life. Your problem becomes the lense through which you learn.

For self-education this is ideal.

Dr. Sung's approach differs in that he advocates for the creation of relevancy through inquiry (the asking of relational questions) which is also incredibly powerful, however this is more suited to gaining more motivation for forced learning, i.e., in the formal education system.

In addition, Koe's lense is, I think, more of a high-level filter, whereas Sung's questioning is applicable on the content level. Therefore, both approaches could be, and should be, combined into the same overall (self-)educational system.

Dan Koe seems to argue against a specialistic education based on the argument that it is nigh-impossible for a teenager to decide what they want (to be) for the rest of their lives. He also gives the argument that it results in a lack of creativity and underlying knowledge (that which connects the dots, instead of compartmentalization) which would result in abnormal performance.

I can bypass the limitation of the first point by giving the counter-point that when one has an insane amount of metacognition, which can be trained, it does not matter if one changes path later; why? Because one can easily learn the new subject matter and skills.

However, the second point is interesting and I think I agree with it. That said, I think there is a continuum, instead of only two points, between super-specialists and super-generalists. I myself enjoy specializing. And I believe a team of specialists (that can also work together) can accomplish much more than one (or even multiple) generalist.

machine translation:

Anyone who follows Warburg's list of notes is following his train of thought; from the banking system in Florence, medieval commercial society, the development of individuality, the restless professional work of the Calvinists and the reformed form of asceticism to Warburg's own origins in an old Jewish banking family. 378 The Zettelkasten is Warburg's Ariadne thread through his labyrinthine library and his labyrinthine thinking: from werewolf to history. A thought, an idea or a new concept does not emerge in a linear progression, but in a process of moving idea units and cross-references back and forth, which lasts until new interfaces and nodes have formed.

social media is here to stay... personally, I try not to engage as often but I do find my self checking facebook in the morning before I leave the house for work. All I can say is that I can try to limit myself and realize why am I using social media for? is it for networking, for friends and family or other things.

sadly, this is the scary part of life because you have young minds who don't really know the difference.

Yes, this is a nice feature but I wonder how are they going to continue to be relevant with the younger generations. My sister is 14 years younger then me and she said that facebook is for old people.

This came to mind, last week a co-worker and I were talking about giving up some of our privacy. The question was posed, why do you think apple pods or alex's are very afforable... it's a small cost to allow the majority of people to use their services at a big cost to us.

I think the critics don't outweigh the other users concerns. Also, these concerns came after the fact and I'm sure most users are too deep in social media it feels impossible to leave facebook. I personally am involved in a few facebook groups that keep me bound to this social media outlet.

Social media is far more fierce then we thought several years ago. Social media has made it apart of my job in the marketing department. There was a time when login on facebook was a big NO-NO at work, now it's a requirement for me.

Another advising to use the analog method for learning even if one is going to switch to a digital zettelkasten.

He uses the word "good" here while others may have potentially used the word "magic", but writing in a space that values critical thinking, he would have been taken to task for having done so. In any case he's not able to put his finger on the inherent value of analog over digital.

• for: societal design, designing societies, societal architecture, transforming society, whole system change, SSO, social superorganism, John Boik

The seven main ideas for societal design: 1. societal transformation - is necessary to avoid catastrophe 2. the specific type of transformation is science-based transformation based on entirely new systems - de novo design - 3. A practical way to implement the transformation in the real world - it must be economical, and doable within the short time window for system change before us. - Considering a time period of 50 years for total change, with some types of change at a much higher priority than others. - The change would be exponential so starting out slower, and accelerating - Those communities that are the first to participate would make the most rapid improvements. 4. Promoting a worldview of society as a social superorganism, a cognitive organism, and its societal systems as a cognitive architecture. 5. Knowing the intrinsic purpose of a society - each subsystem must be explained in terms of the overall intrinsic purpose. 6. The reason for transformation - Transformation that improves cognition reduces the uncertainty that our society's intrinsic purpose is fulfilled. 7. Forming a partnership between the global science community and all the local communities of the world.

• for: whole system approach, system approach, systems thinking, systems thinking - societal design, societal design, John Boik, societal design - evolutionary approach, designing societies - evolutionary approach -paraphrase
  • currently, all societal systems function as silos
  • how does the total system change and achieve new stable states?
  • advocating for designing societal systems so that the cognitive architectures of the different component systems can all serve the same purpose
  • design a fitness evaluation score Rather than tackling problems in individual silos, John is promoting an integrated approach.

This is wholly consistent with the underpinnings of SRG Deep Humanity praxis that stresses the same need for multi-disciplinary study and synthesis of all the various parts of the SSO.into one unified Gestalt to mitigate progress traps. https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthetyee.ca%2FAnalysis%2F2019%2F09%2F20%2FRonald-Wright-Can-We-Dodge-Progress-Trap%2F&group=world https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthetyee.ca%2FCulture%2F2018%2F10%2F12%2FHumanity-Progress-Trap%2F&group=world

This method is interesting, I like the aesthetics of such commonplace books. However, in terms of functionality, it is nearly fully replaced with the Antinet Zettelkasten method. Perhaps I could use some of this to improve my journals though? In addition, this does inspire me to create progressive summarization pages of my ideas and concepts, contained in Sage Scientia, in Notion or Obsidian.

A method such as this, or Zettelkasten, can help create theoretical expertship... It might not be the MOST EFFICIENT, but it is highly effective.

The essence for this video is correct; active learning, progressive summarization, deep processing, relational analytical thinking, even evaluative.

Yet, the implementation is severely lacking; marginalia, text writing, etc.

Better would be the use of mindmaps or GRINDEmaps. I personally would combine it with the Antinet of course.

I do like this guy's teaching style though 😂

deep insight -systems thinking - system behaviour comes out of the system, its interrelationships, its goals, not the elements of the people or actors in it

https://www.linkingyourthinking.com/lytcon-2023/zsolt-viczian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StwbQGEy1c8

Does he actually touch on the idea of "modern magic" explicitly? He talks about modern technology, but does he frame it as "magic"?

This site is not about evolution per se, but is an apologist platform for creationism. Possibly interesting as a study in creative memetics for culture influence campaigns.

• Title
  • How to solve complex problems using systems thinking
• Author
  • Gino
• Date
  • July 4

(24:58) In order to perform significantly better, you need to FOCUS your attention on a single thing only. Multitasking won't work, and thinking about different things at once also doesn't work. Set up your environment to foster this insane level of focus.

GRINDE mapping: 1. Grouped: grouping knowledge together 2. Reflective: reflective of your (non-linear) thinking 3. Interconnected: making more & distant connections (stronger than the groups) 4. Non-verbal (visuals) 5. Directional: which relations are the strongest, in which order can you sequence them? 6. Emphasise (visually) the most important things (see directional as well)

Sascha's process of incoporating the problems into the ZK workflow

Not everything has to be a problem in the literal sense of the word; it's a tool for generating creative insight by means of prompting and relational thinking.

When it comes to thinking, the Zettelkasten solves an important issue which is the problem of scope, which is impossible at the current moment in mindmapping software such as Concepts.

Mainly, Zettelkasten allows you gain a birds-eye holistic view of a topic, branch, or line of thought, while allowing you to at the same time also gain a microscopic view of an "atomic" idea within that thought-stream, therefore creating virtually infinite zoom-in and zoom-out capability. This is very, very, beneficial to the process of deep thinking and intellectual work.

Think of branches not as collections, but rather as conversations

When a branch starts to build, or prove itself, then ask the question (before indexing): "What is the conversation that is building here?"

Also related to Sönke Ahrens' maxim of seeking Disconfirming Information to counter Confirmation Bias. By thinking of branches as conversations instead of collectives, you are also more inclined to put disconfirming information within the branch.

The author goes into the correlation between categorization (branching) and the use of the index and the focus on them respectively. He mentions he "learned" that branching would be more beneficial than the using of the index to make finding the cards easier.

I strongly disagree with this focus. I agree with the "relational" principle of put the card between the one that has the closest proximital conceptual relation. The Zettelkasten's power relies in serendipitous creativity (or creativity/insight by chance), this is facilitated highly by the use of connectivity between cards, where each card as you go down the "hierarchy" of "branches" will be more unrelated to the original topic. (See also Luhmann's paper Communication with Zettelkasten, Manfred Kuehn Translation and Johannes F.K. Schmidt's article on Zettelkasten within Forgetting Machines, as well as his video presentation about Zettelkasten). In short, the friction of searching for cards by following trains of thought through connectivity boosters insight by chance and therefore facilitates the power of the system.

This is also, I believe, why Bob Doto argues to let categories emerge after the creation of notes/streams of thought instead of making the names for the "branches" up front.

I believe Luhmann himself also emphasized the use of the index by calling it a system of "query into the database," the index is the main navigational map for the Zettelkasten. If you have a question for your "communication partner" the index is the way to go. For example, if I wanted to know the impact of cognitive load theory within employee management as a CEO, I would go to my index and collect the entrances for both "branches" or terms, and then start reading these thought streams... Afterward, I might synthesize and create a new branch somewhere, in one of the aforementioned categories, or an entire new one, where I put the results of this questioning.

My own system of numbering and branching in this way is the following: A number signifies a note's position within a stream of thought. I branch off if, following the relational principle, a note adds unto a thought on a specific card, but not the stream specifically. This gets signified by a letter.

So, 1a1, 1a2, 1a3, and 1a4 are all part of the same stream while 1a, 1b, and 1c would all be different "branches" stemming from the original card that would be 1 in this case. This can repeat infinitely, therefore facilitating what Luhmann calls "Infinite potential for inward growth" of the system. It's autopoietic and cybernetic. (See also: The Radical Luhmann by Hans-Georg Moeller).

Something that can benefit the finding of notes once the system grows sufficiently large is the use of "structure" or "hub" cards where you put down a few key entrances to concepts related to this stream of thought or "branch" in remote sections of the Zettelkasten.

One) Successful men realize that the most important decision in their life is the woman they choose, because outside of work, this is what they'll be spending most time on. The woman must understand the man's grand ambition, and support them with it. (Cf. Flow & The Intellectual Life as well). Women should be chosen on personality, not looks. Looks fade (attraction as well), personality "stays".

Two) Everyone deserves an opinion but not everyone deserves a say. Charlie Munger sums this up right: "I don't ever allow myself to have [express] an opinion about anything that I don't know the opponent side's argument better than they do." Or Marcus Aurelius, who says: "The opinion of ten thousand men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." In short: Only state your opinion when you can back it up!; knowledge and experience. The same goes for judging opinion (and advice) from others.

Three) Successful people buy assets when the money is enough. Assets > Luxury. (See also: Rich Dad, Poor Dad, Robert Kiyosaki). Only buy glamor and other "interests" once your assets are there to secure your financial success.

Four) Be pragmatic. Do what's practical, not what is "sexy". Notice inefficiencies and solve them. The entrepreneurial mindset.

Five) The morning sets the tone for the rest of the days. Time is subjective, waking up early doesn't matter as much as waking up later. It depends on the person. Someone who wakes up at 10am can be as successful as someone who wakes up at 6am. Instead, what defines success, is a highly effective morning routine.

Six) The less you talk, the more you listen. Talking less means less mistakes. In addition, the less you talk, the more people will listen when you do speak. It puts extra weight on your message. Listening means analysis and learning.

Seven) Pick the right opportunity at the right time. Pick the right vehicle. Do the right things in the right order! The advice "don't do what someone says, do what they do" is bullshit, as you can't do what someone is able to do after ten years of experience.

Eight) Discipline > Motivation. Motivation, like Dr. Sung says, fluctuates and is multifactorial dependent... When you are lead by motivation you will not be as productive. Don't rely on chance. Rely on what is stable.

Nine) Once a good career has been made, buy A1 assets and hold on to them to secure a financially successful future.

Ten) Just because you won, you are not a winner. Being a winner is a continuous process, it means always learning and reflecting as well as introspecting. Don't overvalue individual wins but do celebrate them when appropriate.

Eleven) Build good relationships with the banks early on. At times you need loans to fund certain ventures, when having a good relation with them, this will be significantly easier. Understand finance as early as possible. Read finance books.

Twelve) Keep the circle small. Acquintances can be many, but real close relationships should be kept small. Choose your friends wisely. "You become the average of the five people you spend most time with." Privacy is important. Only tell the most deep secrets to the Inner Circle, to avoid overcomplication.

Thirteen) Assume that everything is your fault. Responsibility. It leads to learning. It requires reflection and introspection. It leads to Dr. Benjamin Hardy's statement: "Nothing happens to you, everything happens for you."

Fourteen) Work like new money, but act like your old money. Combine the hunger of the new with the wisdom of the old.

Fifteen) Assume that you can't change the world, but slightly influence it. It prevents disappointments and gives a right mindset. Do everything (that has your ambition) with an insane drive. Aim to hit the stars. To become the best of the best.

Sixteen) Private victories lead to public victories. The solid maxim is the following: "The bigger the public victory, the more private victories went into it." Work in private. Social media doesn't need to known the struggle. Let your results talk for you. This is also why you should never compare yourself to others, but rather to your own past self.

Seventeen) After extreme experience, the most complicated task will look elegant and effortless. Unconscious competence.

Learning happens when we add memory to thinking. So, thinking precedes learning, and is fundamental to learning.

note to self: is thinking required for memory?

Reply to Bob Doto at https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/14ikfsy/comment/jplo3j2/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 with respect to PZ Compass Points.

I'll agree wholeheartedly that applying methods like this to each note one takes is a "make work" exercise. It's apt to encourage people into the completist trap of turning every note they take into some sort of pristine so-called permanent or evergreen note, and there are already too many of those practitioners, who often give up in a few weeks wondering "where did I go wrong?".

It's useful to know that these methods and tools exist, particularly for younger students, but I would never recommend that one apply them on a daily or even weekly basis. Maybe if one was having trouble with a particular idea or thought and wanted to more exhaustively explore the adjacent space around it, but even here going out for a walk in nature and allowing diffuse thinking to do some of the work is likely to be just as (maybe more?) productive.

It could be the sort of thing to write down in your collection of Oblique Strategies to pull out when you're hitting a wall?

Description

It was mid-afternoon on Friday, March 11, 2011 when the ground in Tōhoku began to shake. At Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, it seemed like the shaking would never stop. Once it did, the reactors had automatically shut down, backup power had come online, and the operators were well on their way to having everything under control. And then the tsunami struck. They found themselves facing something beyond any worse-case scenario they imagined, and their response is a study in contrasts. We can learn a lot from the extremes they experienced about finding happiness and satisfaction at work.

Stocks and Flows

From Donella Meadows' Thinking in Systems. In this case, the "stock" is safety and "flows" are actions that make the reservoir of safety go up (more rigorous review of the aircraft design) or down (increased focus on the bottom line over engineering concerns).

Creative thinking