In a way, in zettelkasten-like systems you're perpetually moving up (connecting, summarising) what's relevant, against a slow downwards pull caused by the weight of the whole body of notes ✨
Conversation
The error correction mechanism you describe is definitely key! But I disagree with your point about search. One primary purpose of the Z is to have it “communicate” as an independent agent, surfacing ideas that weren’t top-of-mind through the process of search.
1
In “Communicating with slip boxes” Luhmann describes how it’s important that the Z is like *another person*; many key properties tuned for surprise.
1
1
1
Exactly. But here’s how I understand it: A spark in your own mind tells you go search related card X. In the process of looking for it you’ll need to make at least a few jumps where you’ll find Y and Z. Which you hadn’t thought about! 😮 There’s the system talking to you.
1
1
Likewise, you can summat/rewire for the future you to have a reasonably fast experience next time you happen to be in that area of the zettelkasten. This could be equal to building a highway between A and E to avoid doing ABCDE each time. You’re effective reducing retrieval time.
2
Now it clicked for me. Luhman's ritual with his zettelkasten is similar to what SRS for attention programming could do. Only that in the ZK it's the connectedness of a thing that makes it pop up more often!
1
I don't know if Luhmann was doing this, but he could very well pick a random card from one of his slip boxes and, if it resonated, index it to pop up more often. Leitner box + zettelkasten in one!
1
Yes! Some rough notes on this:
1
3
Exactly. One aspect that intrigues me though is, SRS for attention management and SRS for memorisation may only be related in their ability to push away material exponentially.
1
In a sense, SRS for attention management might not be more efficient than a zettelkasten + some random card picking because it doesn't relate to the testing effect.
1
1
1