This episode is shorter, because I didn’t find many useful ideas in Chapter 3. And the ideas I did find interesting were not citable, so I had to look the originals up. That took most of the time, but did ultimately not produce many new notes.
I did add a couple, though, and in the last 5 minutes extracted a few notes from a comment I left behind that also affected the previous chapter’s outline.
It’s interesting that after a couple of session I already begin to form an opinion of the quality of Epstein’s research. There’s lots of endnotes, but the quality is … well, enjoy this episode to find out more!
Please enjoy episode 3, hitting early this week because I’ll be traveling for a couple of days – and cannot muster the strength to wait until Friday to hit the “publish” button.
This chapter was harder to process. There seemed to be parts missing in the story. Maybe I’m too sloppy and haven’t noticed the missing pieces? Either way, something’s amiss in Range land. I also notice that the topics from chapter 1 were connected to the topics here somehow, but it’s just a hunch how things will fit together eventually. I’m looking forward to the next episodes, because I hope it “clicks” and I know how to split the sequence of notes in the structure note up into new Zettel notes and then work with the more powerful web of notes instead of this monolithic book overview.
Anyway, here’s a picture of the work-in-progress web of notes, starting from the book overview.
Everything was a ton easier this time. In the previous episode, I processed the classic study by Ericsson et al on deliberate practice1. That was by far the hardest nut to crack, and on top everything was recorded. That took a noticeable amount of cognitive capacity, too. And the studies I wanted to have a closer look at were either not available in full-text or irrelevant in detail, so I could focus more on the actual connection-making and writing. (The part I actually like, heh.)
Part of Sascha’s feedback last time was that I should decide for myself what I want from a study: Do I want to acquire expertise in the fields of cognition, learning, or sports? Certainly not right now. So I limited what I was looking for in the papers tremendously in this episode, aiming for a very superficial understanding.
Looking at the footage, I also notice I added more commentary on top of the paraphrases. You could say there’s more of my voice in the notes this time.
Update 2019-10-02: Here’s a visualization of the notes before I recorded Episode 3.
K. Anders Ericsson, Ralf Th. Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-Römer (1993): The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance, Psychological Review 3, 1993, Vol. 100, S. 363–406. ↩
@diogenes, a student of philosophy, psychology and history in Vienna, asked some questions on the forum. I’d like to elaborate a bit on that. There will be specific use cases for the Zettelkasten Method. The method itself is a meta method of knowledge work. It translates what we understand of knowledge acquisition into basic actions that can be incorporated into any (knowledge work) workflow. Here, I will show a couple of applications to a more specific case.
Personal Cognitive Work Load
Even though I would consider myself as a relatively good student I often struggle to process all the stuff that i’ve learn about during the lectures + processing the stuff for an upcoming exam.
My maximal cognitive Work Load (=Capacity for Deep Work) seems to be only 3-4 Hours. But on most of the work-days the lectures alone require three hours of concentration. So therefore I run out of cognitive energy to process the stuff of previous lectures or stuff for an upcoming exam.
What are you’re experiences with your personal cognitive work load?
As a coach, I have one benchmark for my clients. Unless they are able to concentrate for six hours straight with an approximate 80–90% effort, I consider them to have attention and concentration issues. That means that there is work to do on this matter.
My personal capacity is, depending on the day, 6 to 10 hours at this level of effort. Of course, there are some days I cannot manifest this capacity fully. Christian’s capacity is, in my estimate, quite similar.
We have different bottlenecks in our attention system.1 My orienting system is my bottleneck. I am quite sensitive to specific kinds of distractions. I am not so distracted by other people. But I tend to fall into rabbit holes. Sometimes, in my deep work sessions, I start with a paper on brain lateralization but end with pages on dog training. Christian stays way more on point, though he doesn’t rise to the same intensity as I and his bottleneck is getting up to speed at all.
Concentration is a special form of attention which is governed by the brains own attention system. We all have different bottle necks.
Is it possible to expand the capacity for deep work? Peterson and Newton estimate the maximal duration of focused knowledge work at 3-4 Hours per Day.
I explicitly added the measure of intensity to my comment. I think Peterson is referring to really pushing oneself. That is a different story. Most deep work shouldn’t be done at a hundred percent effort.
If you train for weightlifting or powerlifting in a Russian Style workout, you accumulate high volume with a moderate intensity. You stay very calm and don’t hype yourself up before any lift. It is quite different from our western style of training. See the video below for your own amusement.
Having said that, there are many ways to increase the possible capacity for deep work. At the same time, you will decrease the drain on yourself if you don’t use up all your capacity. Some methods:
Mindfulness Meditation, besides its spiritual aim, is a training method for attention control. Mindfulness is a special state of attention, as there are many others. Start with 5 minutes in the morning and increase it to at least 20 minutes. You will see results after six to twelve months. Though it could be that you feel improvements much earlier because of additional acute effects.
Eat very clean, and rich in micronutrients. Eating brain is not only for zombies. Brain is very nutrient-dense and healthy. There is a simple reason for it: The brain needs a lot of nutrients. Therefore, it is nutrient rich. You doesn’t have to eat brain explicitly. But you concentration will improve if you switch from a pizza diet to a paleo-type diet. Eat fatty fish a couple of times a week. Consume foods like kale, berries and stinging nettles. And consider supplementing creatine and some adaptogens.
Do a combination of strength and endurance training. Both are needed for a healthy brain. Train daily, but briefly. A short 30–45min workout per day (as part of your morning routine) is sufficient. Mix in very light days (one day could be very slow jogging for 30 Minutes)
Engage in temperature stress. Cold training and sauna.
Break up your deep work with small breaks to shake up the tension. 3–5 minutes of movement every 40 minutes of work is good enough.
If you cannot concentrate on specific material, change the subject or the mode. If you wrote on your computer on psychology, switch do drawing a diagram on paper about some historical event.
Consume coffee three times a week, tops. It is a real mental drain.
Block everything not needed. You smartphone needs to be in another room. Switch off the door bell etc.
Cool down. After an exhausting deep work session you should go into nature. Take a walk in a park if you don’t have woods or true nature available. Just walk as long as you need to feel refreshed.
There are many lifestyle choices that matter. The brain is an organ. It needs to be healthy to be able to concentrate.
Should I not consider lectures as deep work and therefore save some concentration?
It depends on how you structure your studying. I wouldn’t do it. I personally had a very hard time to even stay awake during lectures. I think they are way too slow and not very engaging. I can listen to recorded lectures speeded up to 1.5x the original speed. To me, lectures are a drag and would cost me a lot of energy in a very inefficient way. Therefore, I didn’t engage a lot. Obviously, when I slept through them. :)
Structuring Deep Work-Units
As some of you may know, as a student you’re free to organize your time spent studying (I call it Deep Work-Units).
So therefore I would like to know how you organize your learn-sessions on a daily basis.
I had different schedules. Here is one example:
0600: Wake up, morning routine (meditation, mobility)
0700: Creative work like writing new stuff.
1100: Strength Training, eating, relaxing.
1400: Non-creative work like emails or appointments.
1800: Crossfit-Style Training.
1900: Dinner. Read till sleepy.
Would you recommend doing all your knowledge work in the morning in a four hour stretch (of course divided by short breaks) or would you recommend to do two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon/evening?
The latter. But aim for more work. Don’t accept those limits.
I have to admit that I’d like the idea of finish the knowledge work for the day in an four hour stretch in the morning but don’t know about the efficacy of this method.
It is not all about efficiency but also on motivation. It is the principle of front-loading. Here it is front-loading of the day. When you have done all the things you consider duty, the rest of the day will feel free and joyful. The same thing goes for the week. If you did most, or even all, of your duties in the beginning of the week you feel very light towards the end. Adopting this habit will make you feel you can get everything done, instead of being stuck in doubt if you will ever get anything done/instead of always thinking about what’s still left unfinished.
Structuring the Semester
Do you process the lectures immediately (on the same day or the day after) or do you wait until just before the exam to process the lectures?
Let’s say I didn’t sleep through the lecture. Let’s say it was a seminar or a recorded lecture that I listened at 1.5 times the normal speed while I am walking in the woods, sometimes stopping to make some notes.
In that case, I would process the notes twice. One time, on the same day to order them, rephrase the knowledge atoms and make an effort to write down possible open questions and connections to different topics.
Example: On a lecture on Freudian psychoanalysis, you can ask if there is differing relevancy in different countries for his work. Is there a difference between Anglo-Saxon and German ways to approach Freud’s work? How would a behaviorist tackle an issue differently? Do similarities exist?
The second time would be days or weeks later. Then I’d process the notes like any notes to integrate them into my Zettelkasten.
How do you take notes during the lectures? Do you just mark down possible connections for the zettelkasten, write down interesting informations or do you take notes at all?
I do drawings and key points. In lectures I tend to do more of engagement notes that notes I actually use. Engagement notes are those types of notes that you do to process the material at the moment but then won’t store them.
How to you process the lecture afterwards? Just processing your notes, processing the PowerPoint-Slides of the lectures and feed them in into the zettelkasten?
I have a problem with processing lectures to my Zettelkasten: The content you gather is what one person says another said. I always go to the primary source. So, I’d use the material that is produced during lectures in three ways:
I use engagement notes for better depth of processing.
I’d process them immediately after that. This increases depth of processing even further. (And in consequence recall).
Then I’d use them as a guide to primary sources to process them fully.
Christian’s Lament: My capacity to concentrate depends. During my favorite days, which are long, uninterrupted work-days, I dry up noticeably after about 5 hours of programming at around lunch time. After a break for exercise and, ideally, some food, I can easily put in another 3 hours. Took me a while to get there, though, and the years prior I was happy if I could squeeze 3–5 hours out of any given day in total. Back when I was going to uni, I was slogging through lecture-filled days most of the time. The first semester was the worst: everything was new, all the people were strangers, and I was attending classes for 2 majors at once. (Which was a bad idea.) It pushed me to stay awake during lectures, but I didn’t post-process much. I was just too happy to be done with the day, exhausted from all the new info (especially all the maths major courses!), and that was that. Most processing, if at all, I crammed into the mornings I had to myself when I didn’t have to commute to uni early. Not all was wasted, but neither did I preserve a lot for my future self. Then again, I learned how to read and how to learn effectively, got accustomed to the way academics write, including 18th century continental philosophers, and got introduced to interesting mental models like systems theory. I value all that, and it shapes my thinking. I’m happy I’m not 16 and stupid anymore. But boy am I curious what I’d be able to write today if had known the basic skills earlier in life, and then had the motivation in uni to actually adhere to all the meta-knowledge. :)
Please welcome Gerrit Scholle, aka gescho from the forums! Gerrit kindly took the time to write up his recent thoughts as a self-contained blog post, with colored pencil drawings and all! Enjoy.
A recent forum post led me to an idea that seemed to be brewing in my subconscious for a little while.
In a Zettelkasten, the individual notes contain (ideally) singular grains of knowledge, or ‘knowledge atoms’ (named after the principle of atomicity). Those are joined with connections of many kind and form strings of thought. Going with the nuclear physics imagery, I like to call those connected notes ‘knowledge molecules’. Graphically, this looks as follows:
The red, blue and green structures in the image above are individual knowledge atoms stringed together into molecules.
Those molecules are the discussion threads about individual topics – when you start at the first connected note, down the rabbit hole you go. Other times, a molecule has a lot of short, stubby branches with definitions and examples in individual notes. In that case, it acts more like a topic category or an index for a topic.
These Knowledge molecules emerge because of the way you assimilate knowledge into your note system. Most often, you will work through one or more sources of knowledge and then input it into the Zettelkasten. Because a source will talk about closely related topics, they form molecules naturally. Where this isn’t the case, they will be attached to already existing molecules, shining new light on a topic, which is why you’re encouraged to look through already existing Zettels when attaching notes. In either case, the following behavior will occur:
As the number of knowledge molecules increases, there will be more and more connections between individual knowledge molecules. These connections emerge between individual atoms of separate molecules. With enough connections, these interconnections gain a meaning of their own:
A new (pink) molecule appears!
And the same, looking at the emergent knowledge molecule from the its own perspective, with traversable paths to already existing molecules branching out to the side.
They will either form over time, naturally, or are actually separate, deliberate knowledge molecules that are just joined with already existing ones. They can also be manufactured by hand, for example if a source suggests a connection between already existing topics. The reverse can also be true, where a topic has a subset of topics that form their own knowledge molecules.
There are two more ways to connect new information: Sequential notes about a source, and combinatory notes about a topic. These are typical ways of writing notes and can’t connect ideas together. To see why, let’s have a look at each of them:
Theses are sequential notes about two different ideas from two different sources, separated into their own files, be it hand-written or electronic document. Typical for sequential notes are book notes/excerpts and lecture notes.
The notes don’t need to be sequential in the strictest sense – even mind-maps or sketch notes about a book/subject are still individual documents about one source. As you can see, the notes you have written for the sources are independent of each other. You have extracted individual knowledge atoms from the sources, but they remain segregated into the context of the source text. You can’t readily connect similar knowledge atoms of different sources together. For that, you need to use a combinatory note:
These are combinatory notes about one topic from different sources – you pooled all the information about a topic or part-topic into one document. This happens when you do research on a topic – when you think about it, theoretical texts have the same structure of combining different sources into a new document, as well. The Synopticon mentioned in the original forum post also falls into the category of ‘combinatory note’, pooling together many sources about one concept after another. With combinatory notes, you lose the context in which the ideas stood previously – important clues for knowledge work. Also, the researched topic stands on its own. It’s difficult to interconnect combinatory notes about different research topics.
In a Zettelkasten, you separate the knowledge atoms of a would-be sequential note into individual, small documents instead of using monolithic book notes. You can do this while reading, as described in Christian’s article about reading notes. Or you split notes after the fact with already existing sequential book notes.
You would do the same when researching a topic: Writing Zettels about your research, or dividing combinatory research documents into smaller notes. Then you just need to make a note of relevant Zettels in your Zettelkasten – using emergent structures.
This is the resulting network of knowledge atoms in the Zettelkasten which combines sequential notes about a topic into emergent, new structures.
The emergent lattice structures of vertical and horizontal strings of thought are the unique selling proposition of the Zettelkasten Method. The interconnections between the knowledge molecules are the breeding ground for new ideas. This idea formation wouldn’t be possible without free-moving connections and the atomicity of concept which is typical of the Zettelkasten principle.
A few implications for real-life knowledge work with the Zettelkasten that result from this:
Focus on presenting concepts and ideas in an atomic way. Convert already existing lecture/book/article notes into atomized bits.
Look for similar Zettels across topic boundaries. Maybe read a few (semi-)random notes and wait for any associations coming to mind. For me, doing that and then going for a walk helps immensely for ideation.
Don’t just connect structure/hub notes of similar topics. Go right down to the individual note level in the connection and specify how notes are connected, either in those notes or with a new inter-connection note.
Traverse those inter-topic connections. Look at their beginning and end. Do you have any associations with that note sequence? Make a Zettel of it, connect them to already existing Zettels, grow the molecule!
Connections between molecules won’t form if you separate your notes into categories with different Zettelkastens or folders, which is why your Zettelkasten should be monolithic.
Consider the emergent molecules as strong contenders for being writing material – they should be the most novel ideas in your Zettelkasten.
This is a recent highlight from the forums. @nickmilo22posted this the other day; we’d like to feature his essay on the blog so you don’t miss it. The following is a verbatim copy of his forum post, plus a link to @daneb’s post that @nickmilo22 added for context.
Something I read by @daneb on a recent post made me want to reflect on what the meaning and the purpose of knowledge processing is to me. I’m curious what others might think…
The Process forces us to think critically, categorize ideas, relate them to similar ideas, come up with metaphors/analogies/stories to better convey those ideas. The Process improves Thinking.
The Process solidifies thoughts you deem worthy of remembering, and by working The Process, you strengthen the ability to recall those worthy things in your life. The Process strengthens Memory.
Most importantly, it’s not the destination but the journey. Or put another way, the journey IS the destination. When I was young, my dad said we could open presents a day early if we solved his riddle. I chewed on the riddle trying to solve it. It was riveting to have a good riddle. Then my brother emerged from the computer room (having just been on the internet) and he blurted out the answer. You’d think I would have been happy to open presents; but instead I was disappointed because I was robbed of a juicy riddle. It’s not the answer, it’s the riddle itself that matters. Or put another way, the riddle IS the answer. It’s a means unto itself, full of its own joy and fulfillment. The Process is Fulfilling.
We’d like to introduce to you the latest update to The Archive. It comes with multiple tabs and windows! You can now search for different things in different windows without losing the context of your previous work.
Multiple windows were an oft-requested feature since the early beta. The benefit is obvious: you can write a note, then search for a note to link to in a new tab without losing the context of the note you were writing.
So far, Sascha and I have used the Q-Trick to get back to a note quickly. You leave qqq in the note right where you are, which is a unique search string that works much like a bookmark. Browse around in the archive, copy some links, then search for “qqq” again to paste them where you left off. Multiple windows and tabs make this hack almost unnecessary. Working with a lot of notes just got simpler for everyone!