Quite sad that his handwriting is so bad... I would love to see what stuff he wrote to get inspired for my own process...

His writing is even harder to read than Niklas Luhmann's in some instances.

Will he become as successful as Elon Musk?

Books are about large blocks of uninterrupted time...

( ~13:00)

Perhaps. I don't think so. With a Zettelkasten I believe you can write without 4-hour deep work blocks... However, maybe he is right... I haven't really written yet so I can't be certain.

"The Stoic Practice is a Dialogue With The Self" -- Ryan Holiday (~7:58)

I think this is also true for Zettelkasten. You write for yourself. Only you need to understand your notes, nobody else.

"You can see I have quite a lot notes I have to make."

This is a difference in mentality between Ryan Holiday and me (as well as Muhammed Ali Kilic)

@M.AKilic50

Our mentality (inspired by GTD and other standard productivity stuff, mostly Flow) is to avoid creating homework.

You don't HAVE to make notes on something. You select what you deem valuable and are interested in working with at the moment.

Because of the marginal gains effect I wrote about earlier, it doesn't matter if you don't make a lot of notes. Besides, you can always return later--especially with a proper bib card and potentially a custom index/ToC for a book.

A Zettelkasten is the lazy man's path to excellence.

(this is an ironic statement of mine because a Zettelkasten asks a lot of work over time. However, it doesn't have to be on a day to day basis. Plus you work only on what you want, hence it doesn't require that much discipline.)

"If you do one or two positive contributions a day, it adds up." - Ryan Holiday

Perhaps this is the essence of both Zettelkasten and Commonplace books; Marginal Gains.

Exponentional Increase over time. Upon first glance, it seems linear (1+1 = 2)... However, the formula is different because, at least in Zettelkasten, a new note means N new possible connections as this new note can virtually be connected to all other notes. In a Zettelkasten this is explicit, in a commonplace book connections are implicit.

Engaging in a Zettelkasten/Commonplace book in this way is equal to inherent spaced repetition and recall perhaps?

Especially if you allow some time of rumination... Read book, wait a few days to a few weeks before processing it. The book's contents remain in the back of your mind.

Then when processing you get engaged with the substance again and therefore interrupt the ebbinghaus curve.

Perhaps I need to argue more with the authors and the content, as Adler & van Doren also recommend.

This might be a limitation in (the way I do) Zettelkasten. Because I am not writing in the margins and not engage in "tearing up" the book, I am less inclined to argue against/with the work.

Maybe I need to do this more using bib-card. Further thought on implementation necessary...

Perhaps a different reason is that I like to get through most books quickly rather than slowly. Sometimes I do the arguing afterward, within my ZK.

I need to reflect on this at some point (in the near future) and optimize my processes.

Watching this now, I am reminded that I really want to read more. To become erudite.

Learning and Intellectualism can both be found in the act of comparison, or more broadly, analysis. One must do this perpetually when reading to dissect and gain most (long-term) (syntopical) value out of it.

In other words, Luhmann is urging to engage in pattern recognition.

True intellectual work using the Zettelkasten demands pattern recognition when reading. Domain specific knowledge + pattern recognition = efficient reading; for it allows to distinguish signal from noise, value from trash.

Is this a criticism by Luhmann on the conventional notion of syntopical reading in Adlerian terms? Probably without knowing Adler's work.

Because science/truth work (knowledge) is constantly in revision, conventional syntopical reading on a topic of science is without necessary value?

Perhaps unless stored and expanded upon in a ZK?

Further thought is required to disseminate this paragraph.

For true deep processing and learning, intellectualism, one must think beyond the single source they are consuming and think about everything they know. Although keep in mind selective attention for true learning and thinking.

This process is habitualized by means of Zettelkasten and further aided in tool like hypothes.is

About the originality of thought.

Reply to me:

Kathleen Spracklen An example would be useful there. Future video?

I am grappling the difficult concept of what constitutes an "original thought". I think it is easy to grasp conceptually, but once you start thinking about it formally and try to put it to words, it becomes very confusing.

Although this might be my own experience and not that of others.

The reason I am trying to think about it is for my current research project on intellectualism.

Today while listening to the song I am reminded, through reflection, upon the fact that it takes quite some self-awareness and intellectual humility to prevent the rigorous defense of uneducated opinion, especially in online intellectual communities.

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." -- Confucius

Something that intellectuals must be aware of. We must be flexible in opinion and not defend that which we actually have no knowledge of.

We can debate for Socratic sakes; to deepen our understanding, but not to persuade... Pitfall is one might come to believe beyond doubts that which one debates for.

Key is to becoming more aware of our debate behavior and stop ourselves when we realize we can't actually prove that which we think.

This is especially critical for someone in position of teacher or great advisor; he who is looken up to. People are easier to take their opinion for granted based on "authority". As an ethical intellectual we must not abuse this, either on purpose or by accident. With great power comes great responsibility.

Honestly, I can't make a lick of sense from what Mr. X is saying here lol.

At least the latter part. I understand the previous part.

Again, as Simone Weil says, media (and especially research) must contain impartial factual knowledge, not opinion and especially not propaganda. Truth is a vital need of the soul.

No amount of money should be able to buy your soul (making you spread misinformation). It's like making a deal with the devil.

Money should not be the deciding factor when it comes to determining which problems to solve and which to forego. In fact, anything that advances society as a whole, I'd argue should be free of charge. Is this possible? Not sure, but we as intellectuals should think about this.

There is a need for intellectual humility within the community of researchers, and society in general. Do not speak confident about that which you do not know.

Relation to Charlie Munger's principle.

To me, it seems that Adler et al., are arguing that a topic should be stated as a phrase with varying degrees of complexity, determined by ?

A topic should never be suggestive, for it would not be a topic in that way.

A topic is a place where minds meet for discussion.

One point for having many unread books is to show the extent of ignorance and develop intellectual humility.

As Confucius already said: "True knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."

For an intellectual, the library is not there to simply collect books, but rather to serve as a tool for research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

definition of agnotology:

Within the sociology of knowledge, agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of deliberate, culturally induced ignorance or doubt, typically to sell a product, influence opinion, or win favour, particularly through the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data (disinformation). More generally, the term includes the condition where more knowledge of a subject creates greater uncertainty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology

Wonderful conversation between Sheila Heti, her brother, and three of their friends, about the Annie Hall 'I need the eggs' joke that ends the film.

Is this responsible for some of the "group think" seen in the Republican party and the political right? Imitation of bad or counter-intuitive actions outweights scientifically proven better actions? Examples: anti-vaxxers and coronavirus no-masker behaviors? (Some of this may also be about or even entangled with George Lakoff's (?) tribal identity theories relating to "people like me".

Explore this area more deeply.

Another contributing factor for this effect may be the small-town effect as most Republican party members are in the countryside (as opposed to the larger cities which tend to be more Democratic). City dwellers are more likely to be more insular in their interpersonal relations whereas country dwellers may have more social ties to other people and groups and therefor make them more tribal in their social interrelationships. Can I find data to back up this claim?

How does link to the thesis put forward by Joseph Henrich in The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous? Does Henrich have data about city dwellers to back up my claim above?

What does this tension have to do with the increasing (and potentially evolutionary) propensity of humans to live in ever-increasingly larger and more dense cities versus maintaining their smaller historic numbers prior to the pre-agricultural timeperiod?

What are the biological effects on human evolution as a result of these cultural pressures? Certainly our cultural evolution is effecting our biological evolution?

What about the effects of communication media on our cultural and biological evolution? Memes, orality versus literacy, film, radio, television, etc.? Can we tease out these effects within the socio-politico-cultural sphere on the greater span of humanity? Can we find breaks, signs, or symptoms at the border of mass agriculture?

total aside, though related to evolution: link hypercycles to evolution spirals?

he = Mark Noll

this is very, very interesting. Obama was known to surround himself with a brain trust, Hilary was and is a policy wonk, and literally the whole point of this document, as will become plainly evident later, is to argue against intellectualism. It is not a stretch to read this as a denunciation of competence as a qualifier for office, and a defense of government by the ignorant.

Upheaval from anti-intellectualism as well as AI

Again, I don't get all the anti-science rhetoric and anti-intellectualism when it comes to talking about teaching. Was active learning invented in science classes? No. Was John Dewey a scientist? No. Either way, does any of that mean that we should reject something because it was done in the sciences or said by a scientist?

There are whole journals devoted to research on teaching humanities topics: history, philosophy, writing, literature, etc. All ignored in this article.