3 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2025
    1. Your research interest should be genuine. It’s a mistake to choose something you think is “safe” to fail at. It may seem rational to experiment with something where failure has no serious consequences (e.g., having to start over). But this only leads to a lack of motivation to build the intensity and seriousness needed for thorough work. If the content of your Zettelkasten isn’t important to you and only serves to learn the Zettelkasten method, you’ll quickly become superficial and sloppy with the content. The Zettelkasten method requires serious engagement with the content – it cannot be learned with dummy content.

      Bad advice. Safe to fail probes are not 'unserious', bc of aiming to limit the downside should they fail. The point is having the probe to explore 'cheaply' within the actual context of work. First part, the interest should be genuine, is completely true. It does not mean you can't do risk containment though. Probes are real and safe simultaneously. [[Probe proberend handelen 20201111162752]]

  2. Jun 2023
  3. Apr 2023
    1. My experiment illustrated how the vast majority of any medical encounter is figuring out the correct patient narrative. If someone comes into my ER saying their wrist hurts, but not due to any recent accident, it could be a psychosomatic reaction after the patient’s grandson fell down, or it could be due to a sexually transmitted disease, or something else entirely. The art of medicine is extracting all the necessary information required to create the right narrative.

      This is where complexity comes in, teasing out narratives and recombine them into probes, probing actions that may changes the weights of narratives and mental models held about a situation. Not diagnostics, but building the path towards diagnostics. Vgl [[Probe proberend handelen 20201111162752]] [[Vertelpunt 20201111170556]]