วีดีโอ

@@peterdragon2822 You'll be interested in this video, where I show how I go from ABC-active to zettels: th-cam.com/video/cwxRqmTpffY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=p88_hdhiunjDKYmJ

@peterdragon2822 Great, that you like my content so much. I wouldn't say my channel is a combination of Birkenbihl and zettelkasten as much as it's about thinking tools (of which Birkenbihl has collected and invented many). The right tool depends on what you want to do. Zettelkasten can be great to grow a train of thought over time (with many (sub-)branches and the occasional link between branches). It wouldn't be the right tool to, say, solve problems. Also, don't get too hung up on the whole literature vs. main note thing. That seems to be a distinction Sönke Ahren introduced. While Luhmann did often write quick notes on a zettel while reading, it seems he never developed that into a real system of his zettelkasten. He would sometimes do it but not other times. The important thing is that you read actively (or listen actively). ABC-active or CaWa-active can be a great tool for that. Depending on what it is you're engaging with, tools like CaGas, grouping, ranking or solving examples/exercises yourself might be a better option or a necessary extension to really understand what you're reading.

This is a very open-ended question. Here're just my first thoughts. Let me know if they cover what you're interested in. There're two levels here. First, the cognitive level (where he talks a lot about encoding and so on). Second, the actual doing. I've only watched some of his videos, so I comment with those in mind. He might add other things in some of his other videos. There is pretty solid evidence now that our ability to remember information is based on how much attention we pay when encounter it, how deeply we process it and how often we retrieve it. There's also other evidence from creativity research, that deeper processing enables us to use our knowledge more creatively. Btw, when people hear retrieval, they usually think of flashcards but whenever we process the information we also need to retrieve it - a fact most people don't know about. So, I think his emphasis on deep processing is spot on (but there're other aspects as well). There're great tools that help us with encoding and there're also tools that help us focus on retrieval. They help by avoiding cognitive overload. A hammer doesn't increase the strength of our muscles, but it multiplies the force exerted on the workpiece (which has the same effect as if we had become stronger). In the same way, thinking tools (of which learning tools are a subset) don't increase our mental capacity - but we can still tackle mental challenges that would have otherwise led to cognitive overload. So, I also agree with him here. His definition of a mind map differs from that of most other people. He takes it literally and says it should be a map of your mind. I also entertained this definition a few years back (before I started this TH-cam channel) but ultimately decided against it. What most people picture when they hear mind map is one of a few very similar things. I think, now that this image has already been deeply ingrained in people's minds, redefining what a mind map is confusing more than it helps. That's why I no longer use mind map in the way Justin does. He says that grouping concepts is a very good way to engage with a topic deeply and that there is not any real benefit of putting it in graphical over a list form. I agree with both statements. Grouping is used extensively in many fields of science and it saved my butt more than once when I was still working as a systems engineer in the automotive industry. I'm using grouping extensively, but usually in a list format. There are cases in which a graphical representation is better when you need to consult your grouping later. In that case, a form of the mind map that uses less space is normally preferred - depending on the field, people call it a tree map, tree diagram or dendrogram. Any mind-mapping software can routinely translate outlines, tree diagrams and mind maps into one another - because they are equivalent. Rewriting an outline as a tree diagram or vice versa doesn't result in deeper processing. Then there are the "mind maps" that Justin prefers over the classical form. The end products might look very similar, but they are an entirely different family of tools. The reason is that they help you with a different type of mental processing. Specifically, they help you to chart different types of relationships: spatial, temporal, causal and more. I also use them extensively. As I showed in this video. Now, Justin says that it doesn't matter how you graph the information, the important things is the deep processing it triggers. In fact, there are many correct ways of representing the information depending on your background knowledge. Again, I agree with him. I would add, though, that for certain problems, certain types of diagrams are more likely to help you. So, it makes sense to use them as a starting point when you can (and there are many many diagram types people find useful so they have given them special names - such as flow charts, sequence diagrams, causal loop diagrams, state machines and many more). For me, they are a subgroup of a CaGa (see how I use grouping here?). You can learn more about CaGas here: th-cam.com/video/zaCZex2IzfA/w-d-xo.html

Better for what? In which situation? What do you want to accomplish? What problem are you trying to solve? ABC-lists, CaWas, concept maps, flow diagrams, block text and a lot of others are only tools. Asking whether one is better than the other is like asking whether a drill is better than a band saw. It all depends on what you want to do. ABC-lists are great as a "brain-storming" tool. They're for taking stocks which ideas and concepts are already in your mind. To create a "mental product" (to keep with the metaphor), you'll usually need to use several tools in combination. You can, for instance, first use ABC-lists to collect a list of concepts and then build a concept map with those words. What I'm showing in this video, though, is not necessarily meant to lead to finished products. It's just meant to keep a topic active in your mind and explore it without purpose. So, you're "just" playing with the topic. But that can lead to new insights or new ideas you might not have had during "purposeful" engagement with the topic. The examples I showed were drawn at random from a pack of cards with tools. You can totally add concept map to that stack.

Glad it's so useful

When I made the video, I had not yet started using a zettelkasten. My original intent was to show how you can develop your ideas over time and Luhmann's zettelkasten was simply the method that I could find the most descriptions about. After I've been using a zettelkasten for over two years now, my understanding of what a zettelkasten is has matured. Now I would say "a method of how to make notes, store them, review the notes, organize them, and make way how to retrieve specific topic easily" is exactly what a zettelkasten is NOT...! It's rather a tool to help you grow your train(s) of thought/ideas on a certain topic. That means not all notes go into a zettelkasten, but only those that advance your train of thought/ideas in some way. And they can come from reading, talking to people, reflection, categorising, creativity sessions or from wherever. The important thing is that they help you build your train of thought/ideas. Over time this train of thought/ideas will grow very long with many, many sub-trains. And some of these (sub-)branches will be connected. You can also have a few topics you're working on. But to use a zettelkasten well, you must be selective. You must select what goes in and out and also what (sub-)branch the new zettel extends. This is a very powerful use of the categorisation technique and helps you to better remember the information too (but that's only a nice side effect). My zettelkasten, for instance, has two main focus topics: systems (sub-topics: systems theory, phase transitions, self-organisation, systems control and systems design) and thinking (sub-topics: innovation, thinking tools, creativity, intelligence, memory and the history of science [and soon probably decision making as well]). Of these, creativity, intelligence and memory are incredibly closely connected (and decision-making will be just as close as the rest of the bunch) and still fairly close to thinking tools. Also, innovation and phase transitions are quite close. Due to this, a zettelkasten is not the right tool for everything. It's only useful if you want to build a conceptual framework for a topic. (I hope I'm not too restrictive now. I'm also still learning.) This means that for many tasks I'm doing on an almost daily basis (such as bug fixing or data analysis), it can't be used - even though they also require deep and creative thinking. Oh... and just because you're able to develop conceptual frameworks doesn't say anything about how useful they are, mind you. For that you need to put them to the test and that requires thinking that can best be aided by other tools. Also, while technically it should not matter what technology you use, I found an analogue zettelkasten much more effective than a digital one. I started with a digital one but only after switching to an analogue version did I really start using it. I can't really explain why, but using an analogue zettelkasten just feels "right". It triggers certain thought processes that a digital zettelkasten does not trigger (at least not for me - and several other people had the same experience). So, now I would recommend to give the analogue version a try first. Yet in the end, you're still correct: we should work with ideas instead of tools. Anything that makes working with ideas easier is fair game. 🙂

@@bf-thinking thank you for your clarification. However, I do agree that zettelkasten is not the right tool for everything. In my engineering field, we actually don't develop a good idea from notes, but rather from experimental or simulation works. So, when I wrote the comment above, I think this "version" of zettelkasten which is storing, organizing, etc, was to make me easier to store and retrieve information. Of course, I should modify this method to make it works. For example, I want to collect some ideas and relate them. Those ideas are coming from papers or books, then I should make a link with the sources so that when I want to find a certain keyword, I can see where the idea was coming from and where I can get the source from the links (to external references). So basically, it's about storing, retrieving and organizing information. Actually, I have tried to read Luhmand's work, one of his book. To be honest, that book is really difficult to read and follow. It seems, only Mr. Luhman and his God know what he's talking about. Too many wording, references and citing, which is very difficult for me to follow. Maybe because I am an engineer... I think I won't use my zettelkasten for something like that, but rather as "second external brain".

Hey cool, I'm an engineer too (turned neuroscientist). 🙂 I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're trying to do. Do you want to extract results from papers, save them as separate documents (linked to their sources) and then classify them / link them together, so that you can run complicated queries on them to retrieve information that belongs together? Let's make a concrete example. Say you're researching better lubricants for ball bearings. You link each paper you read to its research question(s). You also translate each method into a step-by-step recipe (or even a flow chart) - as far as you can do that from the description in the methods section (and also link that to the appropriate source). You then link these recipes/flow charts to the appropriate test method they used, the type of test bench, the statistical technique they used and so on. And you similarly, extract each piece of result and (if applicable) the connections the authors made between results. You again link that to relevant concepts and/or categories. Then when you're planning your own experiment, you need an overview of all the test methods that were used by studies who had similar research questions as yours or used a similar type of lubricant or something like this. Or if you have studies with conflicting results, you want to compare the methods they used to see whether the difference in results can be explained by differences in methods. Is that roughly what you want to do? Or am I completely misunderstanding you?

@@bf-thinking wow... your explanation is way more better and clearer than what I was trying to say. Yes, that exactly that I was trying to say. So, that type of zettelkasten probably is more suitable for engineers or scientists. That is to understand things, concepts, data, and easy to retrieve if we want write paper about this topic, especially when we do literature review, state of the art, find the novelty, and understand the research problems..

@@gondala To explain things clearly you need to understand them well. My explanation is maybe clearer because I too have been struggling with this problem for many years. For what you're describing Luhmann's method is not the right one at all. His zettelkasten worked completely differently. I know, people are using the term zettelkasten to mean anything that consists of individual "elements" that are "linked". But while in principle that's fine, this can lead to confusion and miscommunication. So, for the sake of having a clear discussion, I propose the following vocabulary (based on my current understanding of commonly used terms). Graph database: 'Any thing for storing data that consists of individual "elements" that are "linked".' The term graph in this case refers to the graph from graph theory. Zettelkasten: A system similar to Luhmann's zettelkasten. (I actually don't think it's a graph database, but I'm not yet sure on this point...) It's a method to grow your train(s) of thought on a particular topic(s). And the notes must be arranged in a tree structure. There are also "long-distance links", but, contrary to what most TH-cam videos make you believe, they are only a minor component. Importantly, it's a tool to help you think first, and a database second!!! Entity: A node type in a graph database that holds data. Depending on the type of graph database, an entity might have attributes that store the data or it might be linked to so-called literals which are another type of node that hold the actual data. This might sound esoteric, but I'm an entity of the type human. And I'd still be the same human even if I changed my name or were to lose a leg in an accident. This "abstract me" that we usually are only semi-conscious of is the entity that represents me. Ontology: A way of representing knowledge in graph form. Or more precisely, the knowledge is broken down into individual statements involving entities and their attributes as well as the relationship between different entities. E.g.: entity_1 is of type human. entity_1 has name "Martin". entity_1 has age 36. human has mortility_value "mortal". And so on. This can then be represented as a graph or it can be written in a more structured textual form that can be processed by computers. Query: A way of retrieving data from a database. Essentially, you're translating a question into the data you need to answer this question. The system then goes forth and fetches the data for you (and represents it in some form, e.g. a graph, a table, whatever). You can then take the result to improve your understanding, use it as a basis for planning (say, your experiment) and so on. But the query itself is "dumb", it just fetches the data you specify. (Which is why I think there is not really a query as such in a zettelkasten, because interacting with a zettelkasten always requires thought.) The type of graph database I'm most familiar with (I'm using the word "familiar" quite liberally here) is the Resource Description Framework (RDF). And the querying language that goes with it is called SPARQL. The beauty of RDF is that you can easily connect several databases in a single query. This is not easily doable with most other types of databases. I have a feeling that for what you want to do, the following setup might work. One database that stores the data about papers (incl. title, authors, methods, results and so on). The other database is an ontology that models your knowledge about your topic. If you use RDF, you can then query one or both of them as you need. (I might fall into the trap of trying to do everything with RDF simply because I recently learned about them, mind you.) Here're some resources that helped me understand RDF. Maybe they're also useful for you. medium.com/wallscope/tackling-big-data-challenges-with-linked-data-278b0761a6de medium.com/wallscope/understanding-linked-data-formats-rdf-xml-vs-turtle-vs-n-triples-eb931dbe9827 medium.com/wallscope/creating-linked-data-31c7dd479a9e medium.com/wallscope/constructing-sparql-queries-ca63b8b9ac02 medium.com/wallscope/comparing-linked-data-triplestores-ebfac8c3ad4f cambridgesemantics.com/blog/semantic-university/learn-rdf/ cambridgesemantics.com/blog/semantic-university/learn-rdf/rdf-nuts-bolts/ Let me know whether this was helpful at all or whether I'm overshooting the mark.

It's true that I presented the games in a variant for multiple players. But several of them also work alone (namely: categories, categories+, grouping, CaGas). You can see some ways of using them here: th-cam.com/video/xdSI9vOsk9U/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/cwxRqmTpffY/w-d-xo.html

Also, you don't want to memorise names and formulae. Instead, you need to build up a mental model. How do the countries / states look like? Where are they located relative to one another. How does the land look like? How can you subdivide it into regions? What is the characteristic of the regions (climate, resources, industrial centres, population centres...).? How do material and people flow from region to region? And so on. You can learn that much better with maps and Google Earth that you explore in detail. That way you'll learn names incidentally as well. And then you can use the categories game or ABC-lists. And it's much better to learn physics from experiments and by working through problems. Search for "simple physics experiments at home" and try to get them to work. Don't just settle for the solution they show you. After you got the experiment to work as described, see what happens when you start playing around with the settings (change distances, dimensions, temperatures, voltages and so on). Can you spot patterns? That way you can again build up a mental model. That's one part of physics. The other part is solving problems. For that you need to translate your model into mathematical form and then solve them for the thing you want to find. And as you progress, you'll see that you can use the way you solved simpler problems as building blocks to crack more complicated problems.

@@bf-thinking thank you so much I have already watched your videos and I'm finding them enormously helpful in making my understanding better of the material, as for places one practical thing in doing is to see the people vlogging about those places in TH-cam and I embed them in my obsidian vault, lol it's super cool plus umm just for the rote memorization par instead of flashcards I'm trying to make concept cards that connect small pieces of the puzzle and I try to free recall first to connect them then I try a cued recall using images as hints and finally for the spaced repetition stuff I put them into anki and make new caGas and categories, it's hard and only tells one that learning is complex and messy lol but your approach to learning is sooo awesome! Keep making more enlightening stuff ☺️☺️☺️

@@averagetechnologyenojyer You can do a special form of recall (that is at the same time a synthesis) if you take several CaGas, bring them into a logical sequence (an important step in its own right, if you created them from different sources) and then create a text based on them. Describe what the CaGas show, introduce necessary concepts to understand them and chain the description together to get an overall flow (ideally driving towards some sort of "conclusion"). You probably need to create several drafts before you got something you're satisfied with (esp. in the beginning), but it can be very valuable for understanding a topic deeply.

@@bf-thinking wow that is something I'd never thought of so it's like synthesis from something that I've made? Cool! I'll do that definitely and if I'm successful and have deep insights I'll tell you in the comments in the future (although I'll have to do it extensively) but I'm kinda in love with the approach of caGas already because I used obsidian and ecalidraw a lot so hehe let's see how this goes. Thanks for sharing the great insights! 😁

He read a lot every day. In fact for the most part his days just consisted of reading and making notes. He did certainly not read all his references cover to cover, but for many (most?) of his sources only the part of the text he was interested in. But in the end, if you don't have a system to capture your thoughts about your texts and slowly grow and develop them over time (in which ever form), you're less likely to develop great ideas. Also, you don't necessarily read as much as Luhmann did to develop great ideas. It depends entirely on the field you're operating in. And most fields consists of more than just reading. And yet, this will also give you ideas (either as you do the other tasks or when you review what you've been doing) and you can also capture those and work on them over time.

Wenn du Untertitel einschaltest, kannst du duetsche Untertitel auswählen

"Guided questions" can also be improved if you tell the AI what it should act as and that it should ask follow-up questions to what you tell it. So far, I only tried it with typing my answers. Speech-to-text should help with this as well.

What exactly do you struggle with?

Yes, scanning the index can also be a good source for important concepts. The words with the highest number of citations are usually the most central to the book.

@@bf-thinking I like the abc idea. I will give it a go. Thank you.

@@asexualatheist3504 I hope it'll be useful. Let me know if you have questions.

@@bf-thinking thank you, I will.

I cracked open a new book on Mexican history. The ABC method is a great way to build the scaffolding for improved learning. Thanks again.

The thing is that our brain is not good at learning isolated facts. It's good at finding structures and connections. In fact, mental structures and models help us to remember facts. There's some fascinating research with chess players who were asked to remember positions on a chess board. Better players could memeorise the positions better and faster, because they are storing this type of information in a more structured way. The actual position of the figures on the board are like the facts you are trying to learn. Good teachers provide you with the necessary models, but most teachers prefer to teach isolated facts, because that is easier for them (but worse for the students). So, it pays off to invest a bit of time in the beginning in building up these models (which will later be refined and extended the more you learn). This might feel as if it slows you down initially, but only for a little while. Later it allows you to speed up and you'll save time in the long run and learning will be easier and more enjoyable.

I haven't studied medicine, so I can't give you too many concrete examples. But I can say something about learning anatomy and other biological topics. Anatomical knowledge is like geographical knowledge, it's all about the spatial arrangment of components (bones, blood vessels, cell organelles or what have you). It's just all in 3D. So, you can build your own physical models. You can get really artistic, if you like, or just use wires and thread for a very abstract representation. Or you could draw the arrangement in 2D, where applicable, create models in Blender or whatever or just mentally imagine the layout of the components (the last one can be very hard and you're more easily distracted). At the begining, you'll only be able to place the principle compknents down. But that's ok. Once you "got" those, you'll find that it'll be much easier to learn more nuances in relations to the principle components (in fact there's a good chunk of organs that are named by their position relative to other organs - just in Latin). If you do that, you need to actively and repeatedly engage with the components and their relations and by doing that you encode them much better (not to mention that you need to use active recall). So, you'll learn a lot without being fully aware of it. A lot of the knowledge that you need to learn has to do with classification. That means we have a mass of (organs, cells, illnesses...), how can we tell them apart? And again, the world is not a mess, but there is an underlying structure. So, repeated categorisation can be a great aid in helping to remember the "facts". In a way, it's all about arrangement again, just in this case it's logical, rather than physical arrangements. Certain illnesses have common symptoms that other illnesses do not show (some symptoms, such as fatigue, are very unspecific, while others are highly specific). If you do that, you'll find that the first couple of items are always easy to categorise. But as you add more and more items things start to get hairy and you need to reconsider your choices. You again heavily improve encoding, because you need to actively engage with each item, and you use active recall. Then there are also processes (the progression of an illness, cell respiration, immune responses...). You again have an arrangement of components or items. But in this case it's a temporal arrangment (first A, then B...). Graphs and diagrams are really good to visualise those (e.g. flow charts, causal-loop-diagrams, scatter plots...). This can be as simple as taking a text that describes a process, noting the names of the individual steps and writing them on a separate piece of paper with arrows between them (the tail pointing to the previous, the tip to the next step of the sequence). For more complicated processes, you'll need more complicate representations. So, you again use active thinking to improve encoding and quite naturally also encorporate active recall. The idea is always the same, though. The "facts" that are usually taught isolated are really part of a (spatial, temporal, logical) structure. Learning isolated facts is hard, learning facts while thinking through a mental model or structure is easy. Unless you try to learn the strucutres as isolated facts - then it's just as hard as learning the isolated facts themselves.

I like Justin Sung as well. His videos are always well researched and he goes deeper than most others in the study sphere. I never really understood the point of Bloom's taxonomy to be honest. It might be that I got to know other frameworks first and Bloom's taxonomy is not adding anything to these frameworks. Or maybe I just don't understand it well enough. I like Daniel Schacter's "7 sins of memory" framework, though. Both for understanding how learning, remembering and forgetting works and also for sorting learning tools. But to really understand how to improve learning, we must not only focus on memory, but also on applying. That's studied in creativity, intelligence and expertise research. All four areas are interacting with one another and you can't really separate them in practice. But it's still useful to think of them as separate systems to make thinking about them easier. And that's where chunking comes in. As you learn (if you really learn and not just memorise by rote), your mind structures the knowledge. Concepts with similar properties get grouped together as a new concept which might then in turn might get grouped with other similar concepts and so on (of course, a concept can be in several categories at the same time - our mind can handle this). At the same time there's also a web of cross-connections (logical or otherwise). As we are thinking (making sense of visual, auditory ... input, discovering new patterns, solving problems, creating new output), we move up and down this mental structure and along the cross-connections. This reduces load on our working memory and increases overall efficiency.

@bf-thinking I just watched your videos. Brilliant, any suggested reading to take it forward. Also, how to approach subjects like medicine, where you don't need to reach higher order but to remember huge amount of facts. How to go about such subjects

​@@g12nm What reading resources are you looking for? More applied ones or those that give you a theoretical grounding? In the latter case Daniel Schacters "The seven sins of memory" is a good one (although I have only read some of his papers so far, the book is still on my list) as is Ellen J. Langers "The power of mindful learning" (I did read that one and I liked it). Don't really know a lot of applied books, I'm afraid. There are a few by Vera F. Birkenbihl in German that haven't been translated. (That's part of why I started the channel, to make her work available to a non-German-speaking audience. But I focus more on thinking in general of which learning is just one aspect and I also expand on her ideas.) I saw your question about medicine and I'll get to it, no worries. But it requires a longer response, so you'll need to wait another day or two. At the moment, I'm very busy with finishing my PhD dissertation.

@bf-thinking thanks a lot, I am looking for applied ones. I will be looking forward to your response. a) just clarifying the question a bit more. I can easily reach hither order extremely easily. When i go for debates/ other competitions, this is extremely useful. But for subjects for medicine, history, such thinking has no relevance, you are bombarded by facts and facts to be learnt. Active recall seems to be the only remedy. I am looking forward to your insights Does Vera F's books addresses such issues. Justin seems to claim that his methods can reduce 70 hours learning per week to 5- 10 hours with more efficiency. Love your content. Please make more videos

@g12nm Sorry that I only reply now. The last stage of my PhD has been more challenging than I anticipated. But now the thesis is submitted and I got more time again. Thanks for hanging in there. I disagree strongly that higher order thinking has no relevance for medicine, history and so on. In fact, I think it's the only way to learn these subjects if you want to reach any depths. Memorisation by rote (which I think you mean by active recall - I'll comment on active recall later) might help you to pass a few of the early exams, but it's an uphill battle. The further you dive into the topic, the harder it becomes. And if you ever want to use your knowledge in a real life situation, you'll probably crash. In contrast, if you "really learn" a subject, it will get more fascinating and feel less like learning the more you know about it. It might still be challenging, but you'll actually start to love the challenge. In much the same way that a challenging workout can be pleasurable for a trained person. As I said in my response to your other comment, our brain is really bad at learning isolated facts. And usually, all facts are part of an underlying structre (the world is not random - not completely). Learning these structures is much easier for our brains (probably because a lot of what's happening around us is only relevant if it's part of a structure). But actively creating and / or exploring these structures is exactly the definition of "higher" thinking. And by thinking on this level, you automatically encode the information much more strongly because you process the information on a deeper level. From your comments regarding active recall, I think you might mix up active recall and flash cards based spaced repition. Flash card-based space repition is one form of active recall, but there are many other forms as well (in the same way that a dog is an animal, but there are many more types of animals than just dogs). In fact, whenever you remember information top tell it to someone else, try to write it down, solve a problem using the information (be it real life or a practice problem) or also categorise items, you need to use active recall. So, deep processing and active recall cannot really be separated from one another especially if the deep processing happens over a range of time (it is useful to still make the distinction to better understand the contribution of each). It is possible to do active recall without deep processing. That's called rote memorisation (whether it's flash card-based or not). But without deep processing you won't get a lot of understanding and then the subject remains difficult and boring. A more "rote" form of active recall can be useful sometimes, but only if the context in which you need to recall the information does not change much (e.g. people keep asking you very similar questions and expect a certain response). Even in those situations, this "more roty" form of recall should come at the end when you already understand what you try to remember.

mit deutschen Untertiteln

I wouldn't say it's great for taking notes as such. It's great for accumulating thoughts over a long time. I personally prefer using ABC- or CaWa-active most of the times for notetaking which I then post-process using CaGas, ranking, grouping and so on: th-cam.com/video/RXhQnKSFgUA/w-d-xo.html It is then the ideas I get when doing this that I integrate into my zettelkasten: th-cam.com/video/cwxRqmTpffY/w-d-xo.html Whether these work for you depends on your specific needs. Every tool has its limitations and works well for some use cases and not so much for others.

Wow thanks, I'm spanish-speaking so I was searching the methods that you mentioned on internet and i don't find nothing. Where can i get all that information?, and thanks for your vids i'm gonna see them. Nice

@@dannescastaneda6317 Unfortunately, I don't know the Spanish zettelkasten community, so I don't know about good resources in Spanish (in fact there aren't many great resources in English either). The best source of information about the zettelkasten that I know of, is Scott Scheper: www.youtube.com/@scottscheper

And what about these methods? CaGas ABC- CaWa-active Where can I find more information such as a book or youtube channels (apart from yours) that talk to me about those topics. PD: I thought that the English community would have more information on the subject xd, I think that here in Latin America not everyone knows about the zettelkasten, much less in dept¡¡ thanks for your help

@@dannescastaneda6317 CaGas, ABC-Lists, CaWas, ABC-/CaWa-active and a lot of the techniques I'm presenting on my channel were developed by Vera F. Birkenbihl. Unfortunately, she published mainly in German and very few of them have been translated to other languages. She was a fan of puns which she used to great effect to explain points or make them easier to understand - but it also makes translating her work really hard. On top of that she used CaWas a lot to summarise her points and they can't simply be translated, you need to recreate the CaWa in another language, just like a poem. Which further reduces her translatability. There was once an audio course "The Memory Optimizer" produced by Birkenbihl at the end of the 90s. Maybe you can still pick up a second hand copy somewhere. A few websites introduce the ABC-list or Cawa, but only give you the bare minimum you need to know to get started. I don't really know of any great source in English, which is part of the reason why I started the channel in the first place.

After using the zettelkasten myself now, I found that there isn't really one workflow fits all. Depends a lot on how you prefer to work, what's your topic how you're interacting with your topic and so on. If you haven't watched it already, you might also be interested in this video where I show a little more what I'm currently doing: th-cam.com/video/cwxRqmTpffY/w-d-xo.html

A great video also. Actually is very helpful for my work at the moment: I am working a paper about abstract art and is difficult to select the info that is relevant to fill the gaps in my zettlekasten /moc. But curating is the key, I suppose. Your videos are very good! Thank you! Cheers from Lisbon!

Oh: and I am an Obsidian user and also a fan of Nick Milo and Bryan Jenks work. Actually I found your channel trough a video from Bryan Jenks.

Hi, yes I do remember you. Great! I hope you're doing ok. When you say with a vague goal in mind, are you talking about career goals? Or do you mean you don't know how to tackle a difficult / involved task?