The forms of thinking, writing, and elaboration that go into creating permanent notes for a slip box are natural means of facilitating actual, long-term learning.

Elaboration is thinking deeply about the meaning of what we've read, how it could inform or answer different questions, and how it can be linked or combined with other knowledge. It is one of the best-researched and most successful learning methods. While it seems to have some subtle differences, it sounds broadly similar to the Feynman technique and is related to the idea of writing questions based on one's notes in the Cornell note taking method.

The Cornell notes practice of writing questions in the empty left column as a means of testing knowledge can be an effective tool after taking notes to ensure that one has actually learned and understood the broad concepts. They can also be used for spaced repetition purposes as well.

Valuable though they may be as teaching and learning tools, they don't figure directly into the idea of permanent notes from a zettelkasten perspective.

In modern literate contexts, it is easier to establish doubletalk in oral contexts than it is in written contexts as the written is more easily reviewed for clarity and concreteness. Verbal ticks like "you know what I mean", "it's easy to see/show", and other versions of similar hand-waving arguments that indicate gaps in thinking and arguments are far easier to identify in writing than they are in speech where social pressure may cause the audience to agree without actually following the thread of the argument. Writing certainly allows for timeshiting, but it explicitly also expands time frames for grasping and understanding a full argument in a way not commonly seen in oral settings.

Note that this may not be the case in primarily oral cultures which may take specific steps to mitigate these patterns.

Link this to the anthropology example from Scott M. Lacy of the (Malian?) tribe that made group decisions by repeating a statement from the lowest to the highest and back again to ensure understanding and agreement.

This difference in communication between oral and literate is one which leaders can take advantage of in leading their followers astray. An example is Donald Trump who actively eschewed written communication or even reading in general in favor of oral and highly emotional speech. This generally freed him from the need to make coherent and useful arguments.

Chapter 9 of How to Take Smart Notes looks at some of the psychology research involving attention, multitasking, decision making, willpower, concentration, expertise, planning, to highlight the value of the design and structure of the zettelkasten as a positive tool for helping one to be more productive in their thinking and writing work.

Ahrens provides a quick overview of some research on distraction, attention, and multi-tasking to make the point that:

The simple structure and design of the zettelkasten forces one's focus and attention on small individual tasks that cumulatively build into better thinking and writing.

(Summary of Section 9.2)

Properly framed note taking methods are themselves a hermeneutic circle for thinking and creating.

(Gadamer 2004).

All intellectual endeavors start from a preexisting set of ideas. These can then be built upon to create new concepts which then influence the original starting point and may continue ever expanding with further thought.

Ahrens argues that most writing advice goes against the idea of the hermeneutic circle and pretends as if the writer is starting with a blank page. This can prefigure some of the stress and difficulty Ernest Hemingway spoke of when he compared writing to "facing the white bull which is paper with no words on it."

While it can be convenient to think of the idea of tabula rasa, in practice it really doesn't exist. As a result the zettelkasten more readily shows its value in the writing process.

Is there evidence that this is true?

Let's be honest that there are certainly methods for doing all of this within our brains and not needing to rely on external structures. This being said, using writing, literacy, and external structures does allow us to process things faster than before.

Can we calculate what the level of greater efficiency allows for doing this? What is the overall throughput difference in being able to forget and write? Not rely on communication with others? What does a back of the envelope calculation for this look like?

By crosslinking one's notes in a hypertext-like manner one is able to give them many different contexts. This linking and context shifting is a solid method for helping one's ideas to have sex with each other as a means of generating new ideas.

Is there a relationship between this idea of context shifting and modality shifting? Are these just examples of building blocks for tools of thought? Are they sifts on different axes? When might they be though of as the same? Compare and contrast this further.

The point of good tools of thought is to allow one to keep track of the ever increasing flood of information that also allows them to juxtapose or combine ideas in novel and interesting ways. Further, this should provide them with a means of generating and then improving upon their new ideas.

Whether it's for writing, to do lists, or other productivity spaces, a well designed system is something that one can put their absolute trust into. This allows one to free themselves from the burden of tracking and dealing with minutiae so they can get serious work done.

https://reallifemag.com/rank-and-file/

An interesting example of someone who fell into the trap of thinking that a particular tool or tools would magically make them smarter or help them do a particular line of work without showing any deep evidence of knowing what they were doing. The discussion here flows over a number of mixed note taking domains with no clear thrust for what they were using it pointedly for. The multiple directions and lack of experience likely doomed them to failure here.

Thinking that the tool will solve a particular problem without knowing what the tool does or how to use it properly will surely set one up for failure. You can use a screwdriver like a hammer, but your results won't be as good as using a hammer and using it properly.

Is that a bad thing, to have something to look forward to? It implies that new technological inventions are the only way to make progress, but it is undeniably progress. Not everyone will hold this view, and no one should force it upon you. So why are people constantly criticing "techno-utopia" views instead of creating and moving towards their own visions of the future?

https://learningaloud.com/blog/2021/12/07/writing-to-learn-and-more/

https://github.com/SkepticMystic/graph-analysis

Analyse the structure of your Obsidian graph using various analysis techniques

https://www.obsidianroundup.org/ite-not-second-brain/

Eleanor Konik describes why second brain is a terrible term for note taking apps.

At what point could digital tools be said to be thinking? Do they need to be generative? It certainly needs to be on the other side of serendipitously juxtaposing two interesting ideas. One can juxtapose millions of ideas, it's the selection of a tiny subset of these as "better" or more interesting than the others and then building off of that that constitutes this sort of generative thought.

topic sentence

https://vimeo.com/232545219

from: Eyeo Conference 2017

• http://eyeofestival.com/2017/speaker/robin-sloan/
• https://vimeo.com/channels/eyeo2017/232545219

Description

Robin Sloan at Eyeo 2017 | Writing with the Machine | Language models built with recurrent neural networks are advancing the state of the art on what feels like a weekly basis; off-the-shelf code is capable of astonishing mimicry and composition. What happens, though, when we take those models off the command line and put them into an interactive writing environment? In this talk Robin presents demos of several tools, including one presented here for the first time. He discusses motivations and process, shares some technical tips, proposes a course for the future — and along the way, write at least one short story together with the audience: all of us, and the machine.

Notes

Robin created a corpus using If Magazine and Galaxy Magazine from the Internet Archive and used it as a writing tool. He talks about using a few other models for generating text.

Some of the idea here is reminiscent of the way John McPhee used the 1913 Webster Dictionary for finding words (or le mot juste) for his work, as tangentially suggested in Draft #4 in The New Yorker (2013-04-22)

Cross reference: https://hypothes.is/a/t2a9_pTQEeuNSDf16lq3qw and https://hypothes.is/a/vUG82pTOEeu6Z99lBsrRrg from https://jsomers.net/blog/dictionary

Croatian acapella singing: klapa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sciwtWcfdH4

Writing using the adjacent possible.

Corpus building as an art [~37:00]

Forgetting what one trained their model on and then seeing the unexpected come out of it. This is similar to Luhmann's use of the zettelkasten as a serendipitous writing partner.

Open questions

How might we use information theory to do this more easily?

What does a person or machine's "hand" look like in the long term with these tools?

Can we use corpus linguistics in reverse for this?

What sources would you use to train your model?

References:

• Andrej Karpathy. 2015. "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Recurrent Neural Networks"
• Samuel R. Bowman, Luke Vilnis, Oriol Vinyals, et al. "Generating sentences from a continuous space." 2015. arXiv: 1511.06349
• Stanislau Semeniuta, Aliaksei Severyn, and Erhardt Barth. 2017. "A Hybrid Convolutional Variational Autoencoder for Text generation." arXiv:1702.02390
• Soroush Mehri, et al. 2017. "SampleRNN: An Unconditional End-to-End Neural Audio Generation Model." arXiv:1612.07837 applies neural networks to sound and sound production

Similar statements have been made by others:

I could quote Luhmann on this as well, who thought that "without writing one cannot think," But there is nothing peculiarly "Luhmannian" about this idea. Isaac Asimov is said to have said "Writing to me is simply thinking through my fingers." And, to give one other example, E. B. White (of "Strunk and White" fame) claimed that "writing is one way to go about thinking." In other words, writing is thinking. And since I do almost all my significant writing in ConnectedText these days, it might be called my "writing environment."—Manfred Kuehn

I think this was Luhmann's full quote:

Ohne zu schreiben, kann man nicht denken; jedenfalls nicht in anspruchsvoller, anschlussfähiger Weise.

(Translation) You cannot think without writing; at least not in a sophisticated, connectable way.

Luhmann’s “you” or "one" in his quote is obviously only a Western cultural referent which erases the existence of oral based cultures which have other ways to do their sophisticated thinking. His ignorant framing on the topic shouldn’t be a shared one. Oral cultures managed to do their thinking through speech and memory.

Who says the link in bio needs to go to a company's homepage? Why couldn't it be a custom landing page geared toward the social media site the link is placed on?

The reasoning here is completely false.

Great Marbella Estates is a group of professionals with years of experience in the real estate market, the important mission we pursue is helping our clients to meet and get their right property.

Our team has access to all the properties available for sale in the Costa del Sol and direct contact with the new development constructors and developers.

We are people who understands people, we ourselves has bought properties before and know all the challenges involved first hand.

I only highlighted this as I have no real suggestions, everything on the syllabus is ok to me.

1. Luhmann, Zettelkasten II, index card no. 9/8g (my translation).

The act of taking notes helps to focus the mind and one's concentration. This facilitates better and deeper thinking. While he erases oral cultures and those who used mnemonic techniques, Niklas Luhmann said, "without writing, there is no thinking."

Meaning that 99% of the people use it are using it "wrong" because they're not using it for HTTP authentication and don't send a WWW-Authenticate header field with their 401 response?

Hmm. That's a tough one. On the one hand, the spec does say they must send it.

Initial opinion

But on the other hand, one could argue that that requirement only applies if using 401 for HTTP authentication. And that saying it's wrong to do so (as they claim at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3297048/403-forbidden-vs-401-unauthorized-http-responses/14713094#14713094 and https://hyp.is/JA45zHotEeybDdM_In4frQ/stackoverflow.com/questions/3297048/403-forbidden-vs-401-unauthorized-http-responses) is having a too strict/narrow/literal interpretation.

HTTP is meant to be used widely in many very different uses and contexts, most of which do not use this very specific HTTP authentication scheme; my opinion is that they shouldn't be denied from using it, just because they don't have anything useful WWW-Authenticate header field. (Or (which is also fine with me), just put something "emptyish" in the field, like "Unused". Unless that would trigger a Basic auth modal in the browser, in which case we shouldn't, for practical reasons.)

Why shouldn't we be able to repurpose this same status code for uses that are still authentication, but just not HTTP authentication per se?

Is it really wrong to repurpose this useful status code for other contexts, like cookie-based app-defined authentication systems?

I say that it's okay to repurpose/reuse 401 for any authentication system (that uses HTTP as a part of it, even though not using HTTP's own authentication system), as long as we try to maintain the same semantic as originally intended/described here. I think it's okay to use 401 as a response to a XHR request, and then have the client redirect to a login page, which provides a way to authenticate again (reattempt the authentication challenge), analogous to how it works for HTTP authentication.

Revised opinion

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3297048/403-forbidden-vs-401-unauthorized-http-responses/14713094#14713094 has made me change my mind and convinced me that...

Authentication by schemes outside of (not defined by) RFC7235: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication should not use HTTP status 401, because 401 Unauthorized is only defined (by current RFCs) by RFC7235: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication, and has semantics and requirements (such as the requirement that "A server generating a 401 (Unauthorized) response MUST send a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at least one challenge.") that simply don't make sense or cannot be fulfilled if using a non-HTTP authentication scheme.

403 Forbidden, on the other hand, is defined by the broader HTTP standard, in RFC7231: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content and RFC7235: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication.

In conclusion, if you have your own roll-your-own login process and never use HTTP Authentication, 403 is always the proper response and 401 should never be used.

Couldn't a custom auth system use WWW-Authenticate header?

The question was asked:

Doesn't RFC7235 provide for "roll-your-own" or alternate auth challenges? Why can't my app's login flow present its challenge in the form of a WWW-Authenticate header? Even if a browser doesn't support it, my React app can...

And I would say sure, if you want (and if the browser doesn't automatically show a Basic auth modal in this case and thwart your plans).

They might be on to something here with that question!

But that should probably be the test of whether you can/should use 401: are you actually using WWW-Authenticate header?

Indeed I found an example where it is used for OAuth2.

What does "are not considered when deciding whether to use 401 or 403" mean exactly? What exactly should not be considered, and what exactly should be considered instead? In other words, how did someone arrive at the conclusion that "if you have your own roll-your-own login process and never use HTTP Authentication, 403 is always the proper response and 401 should never be used."? Why is 403 okay to use for non-HTTP authentication, but not 401?

Oh, I think I understand the difference now.

They should have said:

Authentication by schemes outside of (not defined by) RFC7235: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication should not use HTTP status 401, because 401 Unauthorized is only defined (by current RFCs) by RFC7235: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication, and has semantics and requirements (such as the requirement that "A server generating a 401 (Unauthorized) response MUST send a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at least one challenge.") that simply don't make sense or cannot be fulfilled if using a non-HTTP authentication scheme.

403 Forbidden, on the other hand, is defined by the broader HTTP standard, in RFC7231: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content and RFC7235: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication.

In conclusion, if you have your own roll-your-own login process and never use HTTP Authentication, 403 is always the proper response and 401 should never be used.

See also my comments in https://hyp.is/p1iCnnowEeyUPl9PxO8BuQ/www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7235

Engel calls his system the Caper Star because the "spirited leaps of imagination" are required to help the student on their quest.

72 Emanuele Tesauro, Il Cannocchiale aristotelico, 5th ed. (Venice, 1669), 83. On this inven-tion, see also Umberto Eco, Dall’albero al labirinto. Studi storici sul segno e l’interpretazione (Milan, 2007), 45–7.

Emanuele Tesaurio's Indice Categorico was a tool for thought which aimed to discover new information by using metaphors and analogies with respect to the categories or taxonomies so as to draw links between them.

From a computer science perspective, isn't the index card functioning like an external memory, albeit one with somewhat pre-arranged linked paths? It's the movement through the machine's various paths that is doing the "thinking". Or the user's (active) choices that create the paths creates the impression of thinking.

Perhaps it's the pre-arranged links where the thinking has already happened (based on "work" put into the system) and then traversing the paths gives the appearance of "new" thinking?

How does this relate to other systems which can be thought of as thinking from a complexity perspective? Bacteria perhaps? Groups of cells acting in concert? Groups of people acting in concert? Cells seeing out food using random walks? etc?

From this perspective, how can we break out the constituent parts of thought and thinking? Consciousness? With enough nodes and edges and choices of paths between them (or a "correct" subset of paths) could anything look like thinking or computing?

Example in literature of wampum being described as wealth existing for political purposes.

Nash, D. (n.d.). The CDC Got Lost Trying to Follow the Science. Retrieved January 14, 2022, from https://www.barrons.com/articles/cdc-guidance-covid-isolation-pandemic-51641847943

https://www.goedel.io/p/tools-for-thought-but-not-for-search

Searching for two ingredients in an effort to find a recipe that will allow their use should be de rigueur in a personal knowledge manager, sadly it doesn't appear to be the case.

This sort of simple search not working in these tools is just silly.

They should be able to search across blocks, pages, and even provide graph views to help in this process. Where are all the overlaps of these words within one's database?

https://www.goedel.io/p/tft-performance-methodology?ck_subscriber_id=1372436421

Set up for some experiments in Obsidian, Roam Research, and Logseq to test performance.

How can the idea of agency expansion within games be used as a broader tool?

Rebuilding one's earlier context and switching between apps are tremendous sinks of time and energy when writing, thinking, and creating.

It's better to get as much done as possible in the present so as not to need to do all the work over again later.

There is an interesting difference between artificial intelligence and intelligence automation. Index cards were already doing the second by the early 1940s.

Notice how it was created >= 14 years ago and is still open.

Notice how they just keep updating it by adding "Depends on:" "No longer depends on:" (cleaner than adding the details of those related/sub issues directly here)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRnQ8lYcvFU

rewatched

One's native language is one of their most important tools for thought.

CDC studies confirm mask-wearing in schools reduces spread of COVID-19. (2021, September 27). New Atlas. https://newatlas.com/health-wellbeing/cdc-mask-mandate-children-schools-coronavirus-effective/

Stories are an important way of thinking about and explaining the world. They may also be a potential brain hack.

Note their use here just after Hari has mentioned that connecting with people (often by way of their stories) is a basic human condition and need. Also note that Hari was previously a columnist with a slant, has he realized that this is the better way to convince people of plausible sounding things? Particularly without source, attribution, research, and potentially cherry picking data.

Are we blinding ourselves by telling stories? Particularly without comparison or actual testing?

I saw a book about this topic months ago and need to find it and dig it up.

Developed by Detlef Stern

https://t73f.de/blog/2021/zettelstore_0_1/

https://takingnotenow.blogspot.com/2007/12/critique-of-zettelksten.html

archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20201021193157/https://takingnotenow.blogspot.com/2007/12/critique-of-zettelksten.html

Manfred Kuehn looks at Karl Kraus' criticism of the idea of a zettelkasten as a tool which can be misused.

Of course this begs the question of what one is using their index card catalog for? Are you using it as a rhetorical thinking and creation device or simply a second memory?

The sentiment that it is impossible to think without writing is patently wrong. While it's an excellent tool, it takes an overly textual perspective and completely ignores the value of orality an memory in prehistory.

Modern culture has lost so many of our valuable cultural resources that we have completely forgotten that they even existed.

Oral cultures certainly had networked thought, Luhmann and others simply can't imagine how it may have worked. We're also blinded by the imagined size of societies in pre-agricultural contexts. The size and scope of cities and city networks makes the history of writing have an outsized appearance.

Further, we don't have solid records of these older netowrks, a major drawback of oral cultures which aren't properly maintained, but this doesn't mean that they didn not exist.

Definitely worth keeping in mind, even for my own work. Providing an evidential structure for claims will be paramount.

Is there a well-named cognitive bias for the human tendency to see everything as nails when one has a hammer in their hand?

1. DeBoer 2001

Warren R DeBoer. 2001. ‘Of dice and women: gambling and exchange in Native North America.’ Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8 (3): 215–68.

Might it be possible that these women were actually gambling information relating to their "gathering" or other cultural practices? By playing games with each other and with nearby groups of people, they would have been regularly practicing their knowledge through repetition.

How might we provide evidence for this? Read the DeBoer reference for potential clues.

1. On ‘dream economies’ among the Iroquois see Graeber 2001: 145–9. David Graeber. 2001. Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. New York: Palgrave.

These dreams and vision quests sound suspiciously familiar to Australian indigenous peoples' "dreaming" and could be incredibly similar to much larger and longer songlines in North American cultures.

David Wengrow 2010b. ‘The voyages of Europa: ritual and trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, c.2300–1850 .’ In William A. Parkinson and Michael L. Galaty (eds), Archaic State Interaction: The Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press, pp. 141–60.

Read this for potential evidence for the mnemonic devices for information trade theory.

There is certainly social lubrication of visiting people from time to time which can help and advance societies, but this regular visiting can also be seen as a means of reinforcing one's oral cultural history through spaced repetition.

It can be seen as "trade" but in a way that anthropologists have generally ignored for lack of imagination for what may have been actually happening.

hundreds of miles of ocean, arm-shells and necklaces in opposite directions. To an outsider, it seems senseless. To the men of the Massim it was the ultimate adventure, and nothing could be more important than to spread one’s name, in this fashion, to places one had never seen.

Not to negate the underlying mechanism discussed here, but there's also a high likelihood that this "trade" was in information attached to these objects being used as mnemonic devices.

Read further into the anthropology of these items, their names and histories.

Humans in general have a seven second window of self-consciousness. (What is the reference for this? Double check it.) The exception is when one is in conversation with someone else, and then people have much longer spans of self-consciousness.

I'm left to wonder if this is a useful fact for writing in the margins in books or into one's notebook, commonplace book, or zettelkasten? By having a conversation with yourself, or more specifically with the imaginary author you're annotating or if you prefer to frame it as a conversation with your zettelkasten, one expands their self-consciousness for much longer periods of time? What benefit does this have for the individual? What benefit for humanity in aggregate?

Is it this fact or just coincidence that much early philosophy was done as dialectic?

From an orality perspective, this makes it much more useful to talk to one's surroundings or objects like rocks. Did mnemonic techniques help give rise to our ability to be more self-conscious as a species? Is it like a muscle that we've been slowly and evolutionarily exercising for 250,000 years?

Focusing on literacy as one of the features that makes humanity special is a major flaw. In fact, it is likely our earlier orality and the attendant portions that come with that which made us unique within the animal kingdom. While transmission of knowledge and information may be quicker with literacy and even with computer technology, our ability to cope with it stems first from our orality.

The definition of ownership here is at odds. The person invented the thought, they're just storing it somewhere else that isn't their own brain. This doesn't release ownership necessarily.

https://zettelkasten.de/posts/three-layers-structure-zettelkasten/

Could one create a rhyzomatic wiki or similar tool for thought?

YEs!

Classroom carbon dioxide levels three times above guidelines. (2021, November 26). https://schoolsweek.co.uk/classroom-carbon-dioxide-levels-three-times-above-watchdog-guidelines/

This might be the case if the tools drove the people, but isn't it more likely the way in which different people use the tools?

Which direction gives rise to more complexity?

Specifically highlighting that the "focus must be on the 'using', not the 'thing'".

This quote is very reminiscent of John M. Culkin's quote (often misattributed to McLuhan) "We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us."

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Linus Lee</span> in Towards a research community for better thinking tools | thesephist.com (<time class='dt-published'>12/01/2021 08:23:07</time>)</cite></small>

https://frankmcpherson.blog/2021/12/03/i-think-folks.html

https://thesephist.com/

<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'> Frank McPherson</span> in Frankly... (<time class='dt-published'>12/03/2021 12:49:46</time>)</cite></small>

The primary value of the card catalogue and index cards as tools for thought is that it is a self-contained, uniform and mobile carrier that can be arranged and processed based on strict systems of order. Books have many of these properties, but the information isn't as atomic or as easily re-ordered.

Current practice in UK on UDL- updated references and useful publication linked to HEA accreditation

FDA authorizes Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna boosters for all adults. (2021). Washington Post. Retrieved November 22, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/11/19/fda-clears-pfizer-biontech-moderna-booster-shots-all-adults/

Monama, T. (n.d.). Covid-19: Almost 90% of people hospitalised in Tshwane not vaccinated, NICD. News24. Retrieved December 1, 2021, from https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/covid-19-almost-90-of-people-hospitalised-in-tshwane-not-vaccinated-nicd-20211129

Fauci, A. (2021). Victories against AIDS have lessons for COVID-19. Nature, 600(7887), 9–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03569-1

Request For Information (RFI) https://en.itpedia.nl/2017/02/18/sisp-3-3-request-for-information-rfi/ Request_For_Information (RFI)" is the questionnaire with questions about all musthave criteria, general company_information about the supplier and degree of penetration of the software in the industry. SaaS.

Kit Yates. (2021, November 26). European centres for disease prevention and control has designated B.1.1.259 as a variant of concern. Fast work. Https://t.co/f6JiWVvjJC [Tweet]. @Kit_Yates_Maths. https://twitter.com/Kit_Yates_Maths/status/1464285136137170947

https://nowcomment.com/

In a category of tool like Hypothes.is. Worth checking out for UI and functionality.

rofessional development was designed using the Adaptation of Blended Learning framework to meet the new requirements of online schooling. Twenty-six teachers participated in the intervention of professional development, spanning six months.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1459547762517688327.html

Anthony Baker experimenting with ideas from Necromant and Eleanor Konik to cross link digital notes with physical paper notes.

I've thought about doing something similar to this with my physical notebooks in the past, though hadn't done block level linking as a means of potentially pulling in and linking pieces in the future.

Often for more important linked things, I'll simply import the physical version into my digital copy at the time of first use/reference, but this could be interesting for large bodies of notes which aren't digital.

https://infohist.fas.harvard.edu/news/information-cultures-series-john-hopkins-university-press

This looks like a fascinating series and who could go wrong with Ann Blair, Anthony Grafton, and Earle Havens?

Also interesting to see what sorts of things they will find interesting at the cutting edge of all these disciplines.

Facebook froze as anti-vaccine comments swarmed users. (n.d.). MSN. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/science/facebook-froze-as-anti-vaccine-comments-swarmed-users/ar-AAPY06U

Kale, S. (2021, November 11). Chakras, crystals and conspiracy theories: How the wellness industry turned its back on Covid science. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/11/injecting-poison-will-never-make-you-healthy-how-the-wellness-industry-turned-its-back-on-covid-science

What is missing in this train of thought is search. The real challenge is recalling of information easily, whether that is traditional search or something more AI-ish that can uncover connections between items that I don't see myself. What I want is a tool that can search across all my repositories, and that requires either APIs for communication or standard data storage formats. I prefer APis.

5.a.

I know I know with the Paris is it is a stone. And people used to write on stone in Egypt. And that’s where they would create their hieroglyphic alphabet.

The job of the scribe is write down anything and everything that The Priest clergyman and king I had to say. They were basically secretaries.

Wiseman, E. (2021, October 17). The dark side of wellness: The overlap between spiritual thinking and far-right conspiracies. The Observer. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/17/eva-wiseman-conspirituality-the-dark-side-of-wellness-how-it-all-got-so-toxic

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

"The Zettelkasten takes more of my time than the writing of books." —Niklas Luhmann (via vimeo.com/173128404)

Some people complain about the amount of time that working in their zettelkasten or notes may take, and it may take a while, but it is exactly the actual work of creation that takes the longest. The rest of the process is just the copying over and editing.

So very few modern sources describe annotation or note taking in these terms.

I find often in my annotations, the most recent one just above is such a one, where I start with a tiny kernel of an idea and then my brain begins warming up and I put down some additional thoughts. These can sometimes build and turn into multiple sentences or paragraphs, other times they sit and need further work. But either way, with some work they may turn into something altogether different than what the original author intended or discussed.

These are the things I want to keep, expand upon, and integrate into larger works or juxtapose with other broader ideas and themes in the things I am writing about.

Sadly, we're just not teaching students or writers these tidbits or habits anymore.

Sönke Ahrens mentions this idea in his book about Smart Notes. When one is asked to write an essay or a paper it is immensely difficult to have a perch on which to begin. But if one has been taking notes about their reading which is of direct interest to them and which can be highly personal, then it is incredibly easy to have a starting block against which to push to begin what can be either a short sprint or a terrific marathon.

This pattern can be seen by many bloggers who surf a bit of the web, read what others have written, and use those ideas and spaces as a place to write or create their own comments.

Certainly this can involve some work, but it's always nicer when the muses visit and the words begin to flow.

I've now written so much here in this annotation that this note here, is another example of this phenomenon.

With some hope, by moving this annotation into my commonplace book (or if you prefer the words notebook, blog, zettelkasten, digital garden, wiki, etc.) I will have it to reflect and expand upon later, but it'll also be a significant piece of text which I might move into a longer essay and edit a bit to make a piece of my own.

With luck, I may be able to remedy some of the modern note taking treatises and restore some of what we've lost from older traditions to reframe them in an more logical light for modern students.

I recall being lucky enough to work around teachers insisting I use note cards and references in my sixth grade classes, but it was never explained to me exactly what this exercise was meant to engender. It was as if they were providing the ingredients for a recipe, but had somehow managed to leave off the narrative about what to do with those ingredients, how things were supposed to be washed, handled, prepared, mixed, chopped, etc. I always felt that I was baking blind with no directions as to temperature or time. Fortunately my memory for reading on shorter time scales was better than my peers and it was only that which saved my dishes from ruin.

I've come to see note taking as beginning expanded conversations with the text on the page and the other texts in my notebooks. Annotations in the the margins slowly build to become something else of my own making.

We might compare this with the more recent movement of social annotation in the digital pedagogy space. This serves a related master, but seems a bit more tangent to it. The goal of social annotation seems to be to help engage students in their texts as a group. Reading for many of these students may be more foreign than it is to me and many other academics who make trade with it. Thus social annotation helps turn that reading into a conversation between peers and their text. By engaging with the text and each other, they get something more out of it than they might have if left to their own devices. The piece I feel is missing here is the modeling of the next several steps to the broader commonplacing tradition. Once a student has begun the path of allowing their ideas to have sex with the ideas they find on the page or with their colleagues, what do they do next? Are they being taught to revisit their notes and ideas? Sift them? Expand upon them. Place them in a storehouse of their best materials where they can later be used to write those longer essays, chapters, or books which may benefit them later?

How might we build these next pieces into these curricula of social annotation to continue building on these ideas and principles?

The tools for thought crowd should all be reading Kalir and Garcia's book Annotation.

Vocabulary

ESP

A

ESP

Enteric fever is a type of disease but this is not a normal disease because sometime it lead to death.

Design for Resilience

Podcast

It builds on many of these traditions, but there is a rather sizeable movement in the physical world as well as lots online of sketchnotes which might fit the bill for you Roy.

The canonical book/textbook for the space seems to be Sketchnote Handbook, The: the illustrated guide to visual note taking by Mike Rohde.

For a solid overview of the idea in about 30 minutes, I found this to be a useful video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evLCAYlx4Kw