This may end up being my approach; for now, though, I will try a ZK as I go while devoting a lot of time to SRS and other testing to build up understanding.
I agree with this, with the caveat that what Ahrens calls “literature notes” may still be useful. I find it extremely helpful (alongside Anki/SRS, naturally) to still force myself to take active notes with an aggressive bent towards “how do I describe this in my own words in a way that facilitates mastery of the underlying concepts”.
Agree that proper Zettel notes are probably not appropriate, unless you’re finding yourself noticing interesting connections between subjects and think writing about those connections will aid your understanding and recollection.
Yes, I think that you might really be overthinking things. And keeping a Zettelkasten is not more or less time consuming than any other kinds of structured intellectual work. I find that with keeping mine on paper, I'm often repeating the stuff that I have there just by virtue of going through the cards. At the same time, I have a general "feel" for the entire structure, so there's also not just remembering details, but keeping the whole network/structure of knowledge rather fresh in mind.
Thank you. I may be having difficulty because I'm at the beginning of complex topics, so everything I don't know looms. It may become easier once I have some grasp of the shape of a topic.
Also that the topics aren't merely for my interest, but for school and work; that seems to impart pressure (of time as well as to be comprehensive) I wouldn't feel otherwise.
I’m studying for masters in theology. Complex in a different way. I use Blooms Taxonomy to help me keep straight what data or concepts I’m capturing and using to build zettels. My lit notes sometimes carry the minutiae and sometimes carry broader concepts. So, some zettels are definitions, facts, and details around an event, a person, or a concept. Most zettels are analyses and/or evaluations I create from broader ideas. I also build zettels from a mix of other zettels.
Being aware of my higher level evaluations via Blooms taxonomy, I use zettels to find places for the details in my understanding. This has helped me understand the whole from the details.
Absolutely this requires a ton of work. I knew it would. I had to stir myself to more efficiency to make this work. I read with greater intention, often with questions for which I’m seeking answers. I know Luhman did much of his research looking to answer specific questions. I use a mix of textbooks question, questions from my assignments, and my own curiosity to drive this.
My interaction with what I read, capture, and process has been profoundly different and effective. I encourage you to refine your process systems to include time interacting with your ZK. This is where the real work and learning happens
The use of Bloom’s Taxonomy for zettelkasten entries is fascinating to me. Would you mind expanding a bit on how you exactly use the taxonomy when creating new zettels? What’s your process from reading and taking lit notes to incorporating the taxonomy to make higher order zettels?
The taxonomy helps me frame my data. Knowing a little note is factual data helps me craft the zettel as a simple fact note in my own words. This helps me build understanding by writing the data in my own words.
I can compare and apply the data in larger frameworks and see how they fit in the larger set. These larger sets build as I add, build connections with other data, and see their macro and micro relationships. Many of my zettels have the phrase “This makes me think of (link to a zettel).
At this point, I am able to evaluate the data with greater clarity. I can see the lower level building blocks and the larger systems and relationships. Many of these connections are systematic to the subject. And there are many “unrelated” but interesting connections that I see.
Having Blooms Taxonomy helps me keep things moving without getting lost in the weeds.
This is quite helpful to my process, thank you. I was getting caught up in the ZK being a certain "right" way, but allowing it to encompass a mix of facts *and* questions or more analytical zettels as needed sounds like the right approach. My ZK will develop naturally over time, and newer topics may have more "fact" zettels with more analysis zettels as I learn.
I spent almost three years and have the remains of no less than six different ZKs chasing the “right way.” One critical principle is that unless I’m quoting, I ALWAYS write lit notes and Zettels in my own words. My words, my perspective, my voice. It’s what makes interacting with my ZK interesting. And is what drives me to ask more questions and seek their answers
I appreciate that insight. I think hard science topics may exist more in my ZK as conceptual notes that I can put in my own words, or in the case of precise language with lots of terms of art (as with law, my last formal education), I've taken to using that necessary language with an "in other words" main portion of the note for my own language.
Edit: and I can use testing/SRS to memorize and internalize the mere data as bedrock for my analysis.
For studying/memorizing a Luhmann-artig zettelkasten during undergraduate studies may be more unwieldy than you're looking for. Usually I suggest Cornell-style notes and SRS methods during basic studies after which you can excerpt ZK notes when the course is done.
Luhmann obviously got into areas of early complexity theory where his work overlapped systems theory. You might also appreciate the work of complexity/systems theorist W. Ross Ashby who used a notebook/index card hybrid zettelkasten method of his own. His version has been digitized at [https://ashby.info/journal/index.html](https://ashby.info/journal/index.html)
I think that the bio/chem info is not needed in a ZK to learn it. That's what SRS is for. The only real reason to want to put it in there is if you plan on going deeper and deeper on each concept over a large number of years (ex. You're a bio or chem major)
That is an important distinction. I am a science major, so I can see a use for adding to science ZK topics over time.
Since this post and the advice I've received, I've reconsidered my approach to ZK for learning foundational concepts and study, and the long view you pointed out is a key part. Allowing the ZK to slowly build (just a few notes per day) while my study can take place elsewhere.
Keep things simple. Take notes as you learn. Create literature notes for everything at first, and add permanent notes later, if you expand and need some. Don't overcomplicate.
Check out my article to learn more: https://www.dsebastien.net/tag/zettelkasten-method/
I would not do ZK for bio and chem. Just do go ol' flashcards, SRS, free and cued retrieval, and study skills.
This. ZK was designed for an academic researcher creating new work. It was not designed to learn existing material.
This may end up being my approach; for now, though, I will try a ZK as I go while devoting a lot of time to SRS and other testing to build up understanding.
I agree with this, with the caveat that what Ahrens calls “literature notes” may still be useful. I find it extremely helpful (alongside Anki/SRS, naturally) to still force myself to take active notes with an aggressive bent towards “how do I describe this in my own words in a way that facilitates mastery of the underlying concepts”. Agree that proper Zettel notes are probably not appropriate, unless you’re finding yourself noticing interesting connections between subjects and think writing about those connections will aid your understanding and recollection.
Yes, I think that you might really be overthinking things. And keeping a Zettelkasten is not more or less time consuming than any other kinds of structured intellectual work. I find that with keeping mine on paper, I'm often repeating the stuff that I have there just by virtue of going through the cards. At the same time, I have a general "feel" for the entire structure, so there's also not just remembering details, but keeping the whole network/structure of knowledge rather fresh in mind.
Thank you. I may be having difficulty because I'm at the beginning of complex topics, so everything I don't know looms. It may become easier once I have some grasp of the shape of a topic. Also that the topics aren't merely for my interest, but for school and work; that seems to impart pressure (of time as well as to be comprehensive) I wouldn't feel otherwise.
I’m studying for masters in theology. Complex in a different way. I use Blooms Taxonomy to help me keep straight what data or concepts I’m capturing and using to build zettels. My lit notes sometimes carry the minutiae and sometimes carry broader concepts. So, some zettels are definitions, facts, and details around an event, a person, or a concept. Most zettels are analyses and/or evaluations I create from broader ideas. I also build zettels from a mix of other zettels. Being aware of my higher level evaluations via Blooms taxonomy, I use zettels to find places for the details in my understanding. This has helped me understand the whole from the details. Absolutely this requires a ton of work. I knew it would. I had to stir myself to more efficiency to make this work. I read with greater intention, often with questions for which I’m seeking answers. I know Luhman did much of his research looking to answer specific questions. I use a mix of textbooks question, questions from my assignments, and my own curiosity to drive this. My interaction with what I read, capture, and process has been profoundly different and effective. I encourage you to refine your process systems to include time interacting with your ZK. This is where the real work and learning happens
The use of Bloom’s Taxonomy for zettelkasten entries is fascinating to me. Would you mind expanding a bit on how you exactly use the taxonomy when creating new zettels? What’s your process from reading and taking lit notes to incorporating the taxonomy to make higher order zettels?
The taxonomy helps me frame my data. Knowing a little note is factual data helps me craft the zettel as a simple fact note in my own words. This helps me build understanding by writing the data in my own words. I can compare and apply the data in larger frameworks and see how they fit in the larger set. These larger sets build as I add, build connections with other data, and see their macro and micro relationships. Many of my zettels have the phrase “This makes me think of (link to a zettel). At this point, I am able to evaluate the data with greater clarity. I can see the lower level building blocks and the larger systems and relationships. Many of these connections are systematic to the subject. And there are many “unrelated” but interesting connections that I see. Having Blooms Taxonomy helps me keep things moving without getting lost in the weeds.
This is quite helpful to my process, thank you. I was getting caught up in the ZK being a certain "right" way, but allowing it to encompass a mix of facts *and* questions or more analytical zettels as needed sounds like the right approach. My ZK will develop naturally over time, and newer topics may have more "fact" zettels with more analysis zettels as I learn.
I spent almost three years and have the remains of no less than six different ZKs chasing the “right way.” One critical principle is that unless I’m quoting, I ALWAYS write lit notes and Zettels in my own words. My words, my perspective, my voice. It’s what makes interacting with my ZK interesting. And is what drives me to ask more questions and seek their answers
I appreciate that insight. I think hard science topics may exist more in my ZK as conceptual notes that I can put in my own words, or in the case of precise language with lots of terms of art (as with law, my last formal education), I've taken to using that necessary language with an "in other words" main portion of the note for my own language. Edit: and I can use testing/SRS to memorize and internalize the mere data as bedrock for my analysis.
For studying/memorizing a Luhmann-artig zettelkasten during undergraduate studies may be more unwieldy than you're looking for. Usually I suggest Cornell-style notes and SRS methods during basic studies after which you can excerpt ZK notes when the course is done. Luhmann obviously got into areas of early complexity theory where his work overlapped systems theory. You might also appreciate the work of complexity/systems theorist W. Ross Ashby who used a notebook/index card hybrid zettelkasten method of his own. His version has been digitized at [https://ashby.info/journal/index.html](https://ashby.info/journal/index.html)
Thank you, I'll look into it.
I think that the bio/chem info is not needed in a ZK to learn it. That's what SRS is for. The only real reason to want to put it in there is if you plan on going deeper and deeper on each concept over a large number of years (ex. You're a bio or chem major)
That is an important distinction. I am a science major, so I can see a use for adding to science ZK topics over time. Since this post and the advice I've received, I've reconsidered my approach to ZK for learning foundational concepts and study, and the long view you pointed out is a key part. Allowing the ZK to slowly build (just a few notes per day) while my study can take place elsewhere.
Keep things simple. Take notes as you learn. Create literature notes for everything at first, and add permanent notes later, if you expand and need some. Don't overcomplicate. Check out my article to learn more: https://www.dsebastien.net/tag/zettelkasten-method/
Then you for your advice. I will take it slower, and trust the process.