Increasingly curious as to why the tools-for-thought folk talk a lot about note-taking tool features and plugins and not at all about the cognitive science of better externalised thinking.
29
26
220
Conversation
An example of why paying attention to the cognitive science is important:
Quote Tweet
One of the basic ideas: bullet points make it easy to create the *facade* of order. You don't need to specify logical relations, like "A causes B" or "A explains B" - bullet format encourages jumbles without narrative or logical cohesiveness.
Show this thread
5
3
37
Also relevant (though this one demands some understanding of cognitive flexibility theory, and why learning in ill-structured domains is markedly different from structured domains): citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downlo
Replying to
For the record, I’m genuinely interested in thinkers who grapple with the underlying cognitive effects of their tools. The main point I’m making with the link out to the Tufte thread is this:
Quote Tweet
Replying to @jithamithra
That wasn’t the point of linking to that thread 
Sure, TfTs don’t push you to summarise, but then what do they push you towards?
Are the forms of cognition they encourage better in some ways, or worse? What ways?
Where are the Tufte-style analyses?
Sure, TfTs don’t push you to summarise, but then what do they push you towards?
Are the forms of cognition they encourage better in some ways, or worse? What ways?
Where are the Tufte-style analyses?1
14
Replying to
“Rather than acquiring knowledge from examples (as in well-structured domains), the knowledge is in the examples.” I found that part really useful, thanks!
1