In a computer, swapping out to disk is to take an extreme performance hit. So computations usually load data into RAM and process in cache.
Something very similar happens with the way I do synthesis. Notes are for retrieval. But all the connection building happens in my head.
Conversation
Sure, I can externalise and capture the connections between ideas, but the connection building *must* occur in long term memory, where I sit on or investigate some topic for a very long time.
And this appears to be similar to a lot of other synthesisers I know.
2
9
Connection building between notes is like saying 'perform computation on disk, with no loading to memory'. It's silly — too slow. In my experience it leads to surface level connections or thoughts.
The really deep connections happen at the substrate of thought.
1
8
Because it's a lot faster.
To use my Complexity piece as an example, the 'smell' of the idea was to notice that people who were infected by the CAS idea-virus seem to all have a similar approach when thinking about complex domains.
Noticing this similarity was the key insight.
1
5
I could've written it down in a note.
But when the idea is a seedling, sometimes you shouldn't crystallise it because you're not sure what you're noticing. You just want to sit with it, in your head, and notice how the shape of the idea itself changes as you investigate.
1
1
16
Eventually two things — a meeting with two years ago where he argued against predicting the future, and a paper on Complexity investing (nzscapital.com/news/complexity), crystallised the shape of the idea in my head.
It was like pulling the cloud down and firming it up.
1
10
The organising principle was that all the similarity between these thinkers that I had been noticing (for about a year!) was that they were acting without prediction. They observed the nature of the complex system and reacted to it.
This finally allowed me to write the piece.
1
8
My point: good, deep synthesis is more like this than not. You sit with an amorphous cloud of an idea in your head, and wait until you can find an organising principle to give structure to the cloud.
'Connecting ideas' or 'connecting notes' misses the point.
2
2
9
The limiting factor is getting better at 'sitting with the cloud', 'noticing interesting threads in your inputs', and 'developing taste for good organising principles'.
You think better by learning to think better, not by making better notes as a substitute for thinking.
6
1
28
Replying to
what's your take on using writing to make yourself think better? putting ideas on paper in your on words exposes the flaws and holes in your thinking - or so the standard argument goes
1
2
Replying to
This is accurate. A lot of the rigour in my thinking comes from writing. But there is this duality between an idea needing to exist like an amorphous cloud, and an idea needing to go through some rigorous sharpening process that comes through writing.
Both are important.
And I guess the interesting question here is when do you make the switch? I’ve definitely gotten better at this over time, but I can’t tell you what cues I use to know when it’s time to take a cloud and firm it up.
(And I do still sometimes get this wrong).
1
1
"Don’t assume that most concepts have definitions. Look and see. How many of your concepts can you define? If you can name more than a few, you’re not thinking hard enough"
1
1
Show replies