- Related to (5.2.4.3) Disadvantages of using existing classification criteria, such as topic-oriented is better Topic-orientation calls a good “summarizing criterion” a “topic” and counterposes it with “summarizing on a time line. The text calls a good “summarizing criterion” a “concept” and uses “author, book, event, project, topic” as an example of a bad summary. The claim is the same, just the use of the word “topic” is different.
When reading a book and taking notes on its contents If you write A, B, and C in your notes about X when that book X contains multiple concepts A, B, and C, when you see something related to A elsewhere, you will say, “Huh? I think I saw something related to that, but where was it?” The problem is that
Evergreen notes should be concept-oriented Evergreen Notebook is conceptually oriented.
-
Evergreen Notes are,
- Not authors, books, events, projects, topics, etc,
- It is best to factor in each concept.
-
This way, when you take the time to update your notes and post links,
- Discover connections across books and disciplines
- [Evergreen notes must be closely linked
- Discover connections across books and disciplines
-
The easiest way to take notes is to start a new one for each book, project, or research topic.
-
This notebook covers so many concepts that it is hard to find what I wrote when the concept comes up again later!
-
You need to remember the name of each book or project that deals with that topic
- (In contrast, Evergreen notes should be atomic.)
-
If you read another book written about the same concept,
- I might write a new note about that book, though,
- That way, there is no accumulation
- (Contrast: Knowledge work should accrete).
- In that way.
- New ideas combined with old ideas,
- It does not form a stronger whole.
- Notes on that one concept are scattered in several notebooks,
- Perhaps referred to by a different name,
- Each will be embedded in a larger document.
-
It is not just about accumulation.
- Also with new ideas about the concept,
- Must integrate previous thoughts on the concept
- There is no pressure to do so.
- Is there tension between the two?
- Only when all of these ideas are considered simultaneously do we see some powerful distillation?
- We need to make an effort to understand.
-
Suppose you read two books on the exact same subject,
- You may be able to easily tie your notes about those two books together.
- However, novelty connections can appear in unexpected places.
- Organizing your notes by concept can create surprising connections between ideas that came from completely different books.
- You may not have realized until now that these books are related, and in fact, they may not be related except in this one respect.
-
Organizing by concept makes note taking a little more difficult
- but it is a convenient method.
- In other words, when you write a new note, you need to look for where it fits into the whole.
- Therefore, you may find yourself exploring a web of previous notes and ending up in unexpected places.
This assumes you’re using a system that requires you to find the right place to write before you write, if you’re using a system that connects after you write, don’t worry about it.
-
Over time, we accumulate notes,
- Combine it in increasingly complex ways.
- (Evergreen note titles are like API’s),
- Generates new insights (writing evergreen notes helps accumulate insights).
- Combine it in increasingly complex ways.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/常緑のノートはコンセプト重視であるべき using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.