Conversation

Andric
@andrictham
Because the “cognitive science of better externalized thinking”, like almost all branches of science, is a closed world that admits only a few. No surprise there! The more barriers to said thing, the less of that thing will be observed.
Quote Tweet
Cedric Chin
@ejames_c
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.
Show this thread
1
1
Andric
@andrictham
Quote Tweet
Andric
@andrictham
Replying to @andrictham @interstar and @ejames_c
It’s probably easier for someone with deep knowledge of cog-sci to learn UX design & work with a software eng to build new tools. Than the reverse. The question shouldn’t be “why do TfT folks…”, it should be “why don’t cogsci folks…”
1
Andric
@andrictham
My guess is that if cogsci theory folks would build tools for thought, then the tools for thought ecosystem would be as vibrant a field of technology as crypto is. Cryptographers build cryptosystems, cognitive scientists build… what again?
Quote Tweet
Andric
@andrictham
Replying to @andrictham @interstar and @ejames_c
Since it costs a lot to become well-versed in theory (high bar to entry) vs to build (low bar to entry, effectively permissionless), there will always be more people who can build. $100 million question is why don’t folks with knowledge build tools in their own domain?
1
1
Andric
@andrictham
As a user of tools for thought, I know what features do certain jobs for me or how they do them better. What do cognitive science theories do for me? A piece of trivia that I might file away as “good to know in an alternate universe where I’m a bestselling author of hard SF”
1
Andric
@andrictham
Replying to
@ejames_c
Thanks for writing this btw, I finally had time to read it thoroughly and kudos for taking the time to summarize this research. What’s most surprising to me was that CFT as a theory predated tools like
@RoamResearch
for decades!
1