Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
I'm thinking of going primitive, with discursion into zettelkasten
Dormouse:
I’ve noticed that most discussion of zettelkasten seems to be about the perfection of the process with little interest in workflow or efficiency. Apart from a frequent attraction to database options that make IDs and linking quicker. Maybe that can be justified if the zettelkasten itself is the desired endpoint. Otherwise I’d expect anyone interested in working productively to maximise effectiveness. Which means expending time and effort commensurate with the gains.
Taking the typical academic, reading a journal in his area of interest. Let’s say an experimental scientist..
If there’s a paper very closely aligned to her/his (I was tempted to write his - are most zettelkastenites male, I wonder?) own work, I’d expect detailed notes on the question, the design and methodology, the stats, results and interpretation. With a number of rounds of reconsideration, comparison with other experiments, own work etc. Probably 20-50 notes in all. With a lot of time and thinking going in to it. And all at or close to the time of the original reading.
The rest of the journal might only warrant one note. Looking at topics covered, paradigms and stats used etc. Useful for considering changing trends in the field. A bit of a reminder of what’s in it. But not immediately useful, so undeserving of more time.
Seems to me that this approach is essential if the zettelkasten is to be a useful tool rather than an albatross hanging around the users neck.
superboyac:
I’ve noticed that most discussion of zettelkasten seems to be about the perfection of the process with little interest in workflow or efficiency. Apart from a frequent attraction to database options that make IDs and linking quicker. Maybe that can be justified if the zettelkasten itself is the desired endpoint. Otherwise I’d expect anyone interested in working productively to maximise effectiveness. Which means expending time and effort commensurate with the gains.
Taking the typical academic, reading a journal in his area of interest. Let’s say an experimental scientist..
If there’s a paper very closely aligned to her/his (I was tempted to write his - are most zettelkastenites male, I wonder?) own work, I’d expect detailed notes on the question, the design and methodology, the stats, results and interpretation. With a number of rounds of reconsideration, comparison with other experiments, own work etc. Probably 20-50 notes in all. With a lot of time and thinking going in to it. And all at or close to the time of the original reading.
The rest of the journal might only warrant one note. Looking at topics covered, paradigms and stats used etc. Useful for considering changing trends in the field. A bit of a reminder of what’s in it. But not immediately useful, so undeserving of more time.
Seems to me that this approach is essential if the zettelkasten is to be a useful tool rather than an albatross hanging around the users neck.
-Dormouse (December 17, 2019, 10:24 AM)
--- End quote ---
What initially attracted me to this idea is the prolific output of that guy, regarding writing books. So I think it's ok that the process is rigorous and somewhat difficult, because the time spent on that fine-tuning and curating seems to be what makes the putting together of a book or something so much faster. So i think the efficiency is in the ultimate output of these notes. The process is definitely not efficient. But i experienced decades of very efficient note gathering and archiving....and it has only resulted in a great big hodge podge of notes and ideas. If i want to do anything with all that, I will STILL have to spend a lot of time going over and curating, etc. So that's why I'm going to give this zettel a try.
I am currently doing two tests with it...a screenplay, and a book about basketball (analytical, not fiction). I am finding the screenplay is more difficult to apply the zettel method to. The basketball book is easier because they are facts and more academic in nature. But I'm still trying both.
Dormouse, regarding your sources...I still don't quite understand. If you have pdf's of articles or even textbooks, you put the actual pdf file in that source directory? and then you annontate it? i was almost thinking you copied the text into a text file, and then annotated....but that would be crazy.
Dormouse:
Dormouse, regarding your sources...I still don't quite understand. If you have pdf's of articles or even textbooks, you put the actual pdf file in that source directory? and then you annontate it? i was almost thinking you copied the text into a text file, and then annotated....but that would be crazy.-superboyac (December 17, 2019, 04:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
Digital copies of articles, books etc simply live in a Publications file.
If I write a note on them, then they're moved to the Sources file in the zettel, so that I have all my links together. Probably no annotating or highlighting. Just the one link.
If i am examining the source in more detail, I will probably highlight as I go and then copy each highlight into separate notes. Quickly add the 1st brief note, then revisit for the better written 2nd pass note. I don't discard the first note, although it may have outlived its purpose (no time saved by discarding; there may be a future value in having a better detailed history of the note and development of thought). I keep all these on one document.
Further notes will then add and comment on cross links etc. These may be done at any convenient time.
Dormouse:
What initially attracted me to this idea is the prolific output of that guy, regarding writing books. So I think it's ok that the process is rigorous and somewhat difficult, because the time spent on that fine-tuning and curating seems to be what makes the putting together of a book or something so much faster. So i think the efficiency is in the ultimate output of these notes. The process is definitely not efficient.-superboyac (December 17, 2019, 04:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
I believe that Luhmann's process was efficient.
He didn't treat all material the same. I don't know what fraction of his academic reading made its way into his zettel, but I'd be surprised if it were more than 25% and probably less than 10%. Academics skim a lot, have a rough memory for what they have seen and only pay close attention to what is in their own field. A lot of reading ends at the abstract. They do also have to take notes in areas where their knowledge is slight, but they're required to give a lecture - but they'd be exceptionally skimpy notes. He emphasised the need to be selective in the reading and note-taking. He also emphasised the need to only do what you feel like doing when you feel like doing it - another way of improving selectivity.
Selecting the material to make notes on, managing the depth of the notes, controlling the time and effort spent making links - all these are an intrinsic part of the process, but they tend to be ignored.
Dormouse:
I've decided to regularly import snippets from Evernote to The Journal. Seems simple to do, and The Journal has convenient document save options. And i can set it up to suit my eyes which is a big advantage over native Evernote client where I'm stuck with white text on black background - functional, but tiring after a while.-Dormouse (December 15, 2019, 09:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
Because there doesn’t seem an adequate manual, I’ve been having to try things out on The Journal, so I accept that I might have missed some of the features I want.
So far, the biggest irritation for a program that is a diary equivalent is, despite hierarchical organisation, the Category and Calendar mode seems to works as fixed folders rather than virtual folders or filters. Evernote has this one nailed.
I’ve not found a convenient way to see all notes from a given chunk of days. Search requires a text term as the basis for the search. History will apply, but I think that’s simply backwards from now.
There are possible workarounds. Search for a ubiquitous word like ‘the’. Combine all categories and use annual or monthly journals instead of daily. Use Topics instead of Categories.
But still.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version