It looks like you had an idea that Evergreen notes or Zettelkasten will improve your “bare” thinking. I have a different impression. Each of us has our own limitations on how many objects we can keep in working memory, how well we can operate with them, how fast we can think, and so on. Those abilities fluctuate. If I’m exhausted or ill, I see significant limitations on my ability to think. The same limitation applies if I injure my ankle, which limits my ability to run and jump.
We have tasks that are too complex for our “bare” thinking even under ideal conditions. So, we use “tools” like thinking on paper, using frameworks, and so on. One part of Zettelkasten is collecting data and building relationships between it (and most articles are dedicated to that part). The other part is deliberate practice: working through this data and these relationships, and trying to develop new ideas (this part is often omitted or expected to happen accidentally without applying effort). So, for me, Evergreen notes or Zettelkasten won't help you to improve "bare" thinking, but rather to overcome some of its limitations.
> I don't feel that there are "horizontal," mesh-like connections between features in these reference frames of abstract concepts, as depicted in the picture above. At least, not in my mind.
Yes, it’s difficult to analyze such relationships in one’s mind, but it’s much easier when you think on paper. You can “isolate” some parts and think through them, not worrying about forgetting or losing some other good ideas, and also being able to quickly change context in your mind.
In relation to the “strictness of ontologies,” I have two ideas. First of all, those connections are characterized by the person who creates such relationships, not by the objects or the tools used. You and I can find different relationships in the same data, and that reflects different life experiences and thinking processes. The second idea is that unexpected connections from seemingly unrelated domains can help to look at a task at hand from a new point of view, and in this way advance in solving it. Associative thinking may be very helpful.
Has your perspective changed (and how) after three years from the moment when you wrote this article?
I'm a heavy Anki user and spaced repetition learning is extremely powerful but it also has some serious weaknesses. It is super easy to remember facts, but if you are not careful, you only know, but you don't understand anything. So it is easy to jam tons of tiny facts in your head without forming any connections between them.
It looks like you had an idea that Evergreen notes or Zettelkasten will improve your “bare” thinking. I have a different impression. Each of us has our own limitations on how many objects we can keep in working memory, how well we can operate with them, how fast we can think, and so on. Those abilities fluctuate. If I’m exhausted or ill, I see significant limitations on my ability to think. The same limitation applies if I injure my ankle, which limits my ability to run and jump.
We have tasks that are too complex for our “bare” thinking even under ideal conditions. So, we use “tools” like thinking on paper, using frameworks, and so on. One part of Zettelkasten is collecting data and building relationships between it (and most articles are dedicated to that part). The other part is deliberate practice: working through this data and these relationships, and trying to develop new ideas (this part is often omitted or expected to happen accidentally without applying effort). So, for me, Evergreen notes or Zettelkasten won't help you to improve "bare" thinking, but rather to overcome some of its limitations.
> I don't feel that there are "horizontal," mesh-like connections between features in these reference frames of abstract concepts, as depicted in the picture above. At least, not in my mind.
Yes, it’s difficult to analyze such relationships in one’s mind, but it’s much easier when you think on paper. You can “isolate” some parts and think through them, not worrying about forgetting or losing some other good ideas, and also being able to quickly change context in your mind.
In relation to the “strictness of ontologies,” I have two ideas. First of all, those connections are characterized by the person who creates such relationships, not by the objects or the tools used. You and I can find different relationships in the same data, and that reflects different life experiences and thinking processes. The second idea is that unexpected connections from seemingly unrelated domains can help to look at a task at hand from a new point of view, and in this way advance in solving it. Associative thinking may be very helpful.
Has your perspective changed (and how) after three years from the moment when you wrote this article?
I'm a heavy Anki user and spaced repetition learning is extremely powerful but it also has some serious weaknesses. It is super easy to remember facts, but if you are not careful, you only know, but you don't understand anything. So it is easy to jam tons of tiny facts in your head without forming any connections between them.