I always check for proof of good synthesis when reading yet another Second Brain guide.
Yes, yes, you can tell me how you’ve set up the perfect notetaking workflow, but can you show me how it’s helped you?
I want proof of work, dammit.
11
10
103
Conversation
Replying to
Yeah, this take goes too far the other way — it’s too reductive. I assume you’ve seen numinous.productions/ttft/ ?
1
Replying to
Yep! I was linked to this after showing that post to someone else as well. Good nuance.
1
Replying to
I also recommend reading The Dream Machine, by M. Mitchell Waldrop. The early pioneers of computation were motivated by creating a better tool for thought. More famously, Doug Englebart successfully bootstrapped his research lab in the pursuit of augmenting human intelligence.
2
1
Replying to
I've read that! It's a fantastic account. I think it's important to clarify that most of my frustration is not against the idea of "tools for thought" as an idea or goal, but the usurpation of that banner by a series of glorified nested list apps
2
2
Replying to
Right, gotcha!
I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss them as well, though.
If they can enable better output, I’d definitely embrace them. It’s just that the claims right now don’t seem to match up to what I do when I’m synthesizing. So I’m investigating the space, but critically.