I've realized that most of my tendencies to set up elaborate note-taking systems and frameworks have been an attempt to address my anxiety around learning and productivity. I'm constantly in the mode of "learning defensively" - questioning what I'm absorbing into my mental toolkit, how much I retain, and how much I'd be able to conjure if I needed to solve a problem in that domain. In this context, noting down whatever I come across in Obsidian canvases or webs of interlinked notes or making Anki flash cards gives me some comfort about what I'm doing, and of course satisfies the urge of organizing and categorizing things.
But when I relate these activities to learning itself, it becomes difficult to gauge how much of it is necessary. If I don't constantly serialize or test what I'm learning, how do I know I'm learning anything at all? And externalizing so much starts to feel like a burden and gives me less confidence in my own intrinsic ability to just go and do things.
I was going to post an "Ask HN" on this topic to see if other people related to this. If anyone has been in this mindset before and managed to break out of it, I'd be curious to know what helped!
I don't know your specifics, so I'm going to reply with what I've learned about learning:
I found reading a textbook, and typing notes into a dumb markdown file with the textbooks name is good enough. Typically: definitions, quotes, and personal thoughts while reading. Did this for stats/comp sci/etc. Obsidian + markdown worked for that, even without plugins. Being able to text search is useful, which is why I don't hand write.
Anything beyond that you have to be cautious about paralyzing yourself from trying XYZ PKM.
Theres a quote from stephen king that goes somewhere along the lines of "during first draft don't try referencing or fixing grammar because it breaks your train of thought". I think similarly, when learning something, choose the thing thats most out of the way (usually the simplest) that is least likely to break your train of thought.
In terms of tracking how much you're learning, I'd be very very slow and incremental in what tooling/methods you pick. For me, I just trust myself after reading/notetaking a textbook. Usually homeworks get very easy which is a good sign. Being able to explain what I learned to someone else is a good sign.
> Usually homeworks get very easy which is a good sign
I agree, but having homeworks in itself is a big advantage! It means you're in a structured learning environment where someone has taken the care to create a learning path and added checkpoints with carefully designed problems designed to refresh + assess what you've absorbed until that point.
When you're learning outside the classroom (for yourself or on the job), there's this sudden loss of all bounds where you now also have to draw a line of what knowledge is reasonable to acquire and what is out of scope. For example, when working independently on personal projects, I sometimes get sucked into reading about the details of protocols, standards, RFCs etc. and have a difficult time deciding when to stop.
One answer is learn just enough to solve the problem at hand at move on, but if you're in a field like eg. security you feel an obligation to do your due diligence when designing something. And of course, with LLMs now it's possible to move past any problem without learning anything at all, so you have to be even more intentional in which things you do decide to learn.
This is why I always recommend an education over self learning programming. I can absolutely see the argument in places like the US where it costs an arm and a leg, but in Europe and other places with free education it's pretty much a no-brainer to me.
Not only does it help you learn in a structured way with predetermined goals etc, but you end up with fairly solid evidence of what you've learned.
I think the self learning path is much more difficult, both figuring out what to learn and then proving what you know to a potential employer. I tried that first and did learn some things, then I tried calling a potential employer who asked me a few questions, quickly assessed that I wasn't up to their standard and recommended a formal education. I took his advice and my career was pretty much on rails from then on.
A common argument is that they teach a lot of "useless" stuff and you can tailor your learning better on your own. I think it's really hard to figure out what to learn when you have no idea what the options are, and I think you won't know what's useful until you end up using it. Many people go through their whole careers doing things the wrong way because they don't know they need to learn something that would help them do better. There's also nothing stopping you from learning extra things beyond the curriculum, in fact I would recommend that.
Another common one is "I didn't learn anything in university" and all I can say about that is if you spent 3 years where your job was learning, and you didn't learn anything, then that's on you.
>Another common one is "I didn't learn anything in university" and all I can say about that is if you spent 3 years where your job was learning, and you didn't learn anything, then that's on you.
I don't think that's what people mean when they say that. They followed the curriculum and then when they started working they found they needed little of what they had studied and had a lot of gaps in their knowledge that needed to be filled.
That will always be the case though. No education is perfect, it will lag behind infustry standard because it takes time for the curriculum to catch up and industry standard still evolves rapidly.
I also think this view severely underestimates how much you actually end up using. For example you (are supposed to) learn at least one and more likely 2-3+ programming languages. We learned DSA which I very frequently see mentioned as "useless" which just tells me they never understood the topic to begin with. We learned about databases which I'd say most developers end up using. We learned about web development which sure if you go on to work on embedded systems or something you might not use it but it's a stretch to say it's useless.
I think the DSA example encapsulates a lot of this. Most people aren't top students who actually understand the topics, most people are mediocre and lazy. They learn barely enough to pass then they forget 90% of it and then they complain that it was a waste of time. Well duh. Of course it's a waste of time when you didn't actually learn it.
They go to uni just for the piece of paper and then complain that all they got was the piece of paper.
> ...typing notes into a dumb markdown file with the textbooks name is good enough
What sorts of things are you writing into your markdown file? After 3.5 years of uni I still don't know how or why to take proper notes to enhance my learning.
> I still don't know how or why to take proper notes
I find that there is some element of ritual to "proper" notes. Its personal, and everyone differs. Any given system may sound logcal and sensible, but its most important that you write something, anything. Everything else doesnt really matter. I like to use real paper and pen, and start with a wide ruler drawn margin on the left (of course, you can buy paper with this. I prefer to do it by hand. It feels right.) and the date and subject at the top.
Then I put keys on the left (page numbers, question numbers, subtopics, speakers in a meeting) and values on the right (insights, things that seemed cool, the steps of a particularly tricky bit, definitions of words)
I put a dash before tasks I have to do, and a question mark on words or concepts I heard but didn't understand and I need to go look up later.
Literally none of this is necessary. It supports my learning only in the sense that it makes me feel like im doing things right. I rarely ever come back and read them (usually only ad-hoc looking for something I knew I wrote but cant remember, not a structured review of them). Your system is for you to figure out yourself. A lot of it came from imitating my math teachers. But maybe the description helped?
Some days I write the date and a margin, and nothing else. No pressure, not every day is a notes day. Some days you learn a ton, and others don't challenge you at all. Thats normal too.
> It supports my learning only in the sense that it makes me feel like im doing things right
I think my downfall might have been questioning the efficacy of my method beyond it just "feeling right" and trying to find ways to show myself that I am learning.. maybe the correct approach is to just do whatever and hope for the best
BTW, this is darn near to being bullet journaling. It’s also almost exactly how I ended up taking notes after experimenting with bullet journaling and throwing out the parts I don’t really use.
40 years ago we just wrote as much as we could down. The teacher usually hand wrote on the chalkboard. Some courses had slides, a precursor to PowerPoint. There is some reasearch that writing down on paper or with a stylus puts the stuff in extra places in our head.
Taking notes is like lifting weights. You don't need the weights to be higher, and you don't need the notes to exist. The process of writing organizes thoughts.
For students, that is. If you're writing papers or a book you should probably structure and manage your notes somehow. But for uni classes, well, it isn't even recommended that you read your notes. Or teachers' slide decks.
Lectures, slides and notes are merely a hike through the territory. You're supposed to range it by yourself later, seek out papers and books. Digest as much material as you can as early in the course as you can. Taper it off towards exams and do not study for a few days beforehand.
Basically the opposite of every student's instincts. It works though. Learning takes inquiry, breadth and depth and lots of sleep to sink in. Cramming for exams is self defeating.
I would add that writing down your reactions to the books and not the book content itself is helpful. If something reminds you of something else then write about that. I mostly throw away all these things as the point is just to write them not to read them back
Yep. I consider it essentially "explaining it to myself". It serves a similar purpose as trying to teach someone else - trying to write something concisely and clearly is difficult unless you actually understand it, and then it often feels obvious. So if I'm struggling, I should probably think about it more (which the struggling is also accomplishing), and maybe go back and reread it to make sure I get it.
It's kinda the purpose of note-taking imo. At its core, it's a mechanical way to enforce "think more about it". Simply putting words down in some form is at least partly achieving that, though if it's mindless it doesn't tend to provide very much benefit beyond that point.
(this is also why I despise mandatory note-taking in classes. they have universally expected something like a dictation, and that isn't how I take notes. (I'm fully aware these are just awful teachers and it isn't how all others operate, and there were many other signs they were awful))
I think of myself as a thought hoarder - my anxieties center around not wanting to forget a thought, no thought left behind because I never know when that thought might (or might not) be useful.
It becomes a problem of organising my thoughts so that I can find them and reconnect them and bundle them together into ideas. Which later might become understanding and wisdom.
Obviously this is not nothing new, Zettelkasten is solving the exact the same problem. And through out history many collections of notes have been found and archived. These systems will benefit much from LLMs, purely for the organizational advantageous.
I have taken another approach inspired by mind maps to create my own visual PKM[1]. It has become a giant scrapbook with notes, videos and imaginary, ideas and half-finished projects, and everything in-between. The advantage is that it's a giant visual program, it's a mind map created using a visual programming environment. I'm constantly extending it with new tooling to help me keep my thoughts in order.
In the end, it's the tweeking at my scrapbook while adding to the scrapbook that then causes more tweeking until something arises that was expected but which is very much welcome.
I'm starting to break out of this mentality by noticing that
1. I excelled at my exams without any strange note taking systems;
2. I remember many details down the road, even things I thought I had forgotten. For example, I needed some Linear Algebra, and I was surprised by how much I recalled after 10 years, so much in fact that in 3 days I was on par with when I passed my exam. It would have been worth it to make an Anki flashcard for every theorem?
3. In the exam I used such method I just needed much more time that when I used my minimalist note taking. So much in fact that I question the efficiency of such methods.
Say what you will about Tim Ferris, but maybe he was onto something when he said only learn the bare minimum to get something done and more than that is a waste (4 hour workweek).
That needs to start all conversations in this area. Not everyone had the same goals.
Second, what is your specific problems?
Again not everyone had the same problems. There are common problems with common solutions (often multiple conflicting solutions that work in isolation but perhaps not for your life), learning what works for others can thus be helpful. Beware, not all problems are big enough to be worth addressing for you.
The important part is find what works for you. Sometimes you don't need to measure what you learned - which seems to be your concern- if it is important and you learned it you will remember when needed. Of not you need to look it up again. It can be liberating to realize that you don't need to measure everything. Sometimes that isn't good enough though, so back to the first two questions.
> That needs to start all conversations in this area. Not everyone had the same goals.
That's a very good question. In my case, when learning in the mode I described above, my brain is often more worried about the amount of unknown stuff versus focusing on what I am working on at the moment. With that, learning starts to feel like a burden and leads to burnout (even though I enjoy solving problems). I can become closed off to new information, and disheartened at everything I don't know.
The problem I'd like to solve is being able to retain excitement about learning while working on projects without it feeling like an obligation. There are probably more base issues to address for this (eg. being less controlling of outcomes). And there's particularly a lot of doubt now that AI coding is the norm, and I feel uncomfortable with moving faster because I feel attached to all the details. That has turned the debate much larger about what anyone really needs to know if they can blitz through stuff at the speed of prompting.
Well if you write down a snippet of code, and later upi reliaze you need that code a gain but don't remember it but do remember that you must have written a note about it, then writing down the note was useful.
The issue I'm still working on is how do I find such notes when I don't exactly remeber what they were about.
> how do I find such notes when I don't exactly remeber what they were about
I can't claim to have solved that; but I do have a personal rule about notes. I don't create a note unless (1) I'm willing to endow it with at least some metadata, and (2) I'm willing to manually link it to another note so that I've at least dropped one breadcrumb.
The process itself is necessary, not the notes. I used to take notes in classes and meetings. At some point I realized I never read them because they were illegible. No structure, bad handwriting, just key words, no sentences. What I do now is play cards on my phone. It performs the same function of keeping my mind focused on the conversation rather than wandering off. I’ve learned to combine this with focused note-taking where I write down specific things to remember: tasks, facts, significant statements. But it’s the process that allows me to focus, the notes or gazillion solitaire games completed are a side effect.
Wow you take learning methodology so seriously. When it comes to learning (or in fact pretty much anything) I really hate structure. I thrive in chaos. When I want to learn something I just start and fill in knowledge gaps where I need, and just roll with it, and if I fall and make mistakes it's ok. If I don't retain something I don't care, it must not have been important and I can always pick it up again.
For this reason I deeply hate formal certifications especially in IT. It's too much jumping through stupid hoops as well as the world according to <vendor>. But I'm still known as one of the most knowledgeable people in the company because I'm always building stuff and jumping on new things.
But lately I find IT to be becoming really rigid. We have all this governance and iso bullshit in work now where they want us to be certified before we can even start on something. I've been able to duck out of it most of the time by jumping on side projects but in the end I probably need to move to a smaller company that isn't so much into all the overhead.
Ps I do admire people who can be so structured. I just can't be like that. I have heavy ADHD which is probably the main cause :) But it's interesting to hear.
It is funny, I like reading about standards and certifications! I'm definitely more on the anxious side which leads to information hoarding tendencies and trying to think as much as I can before I act. I would love to get pulled a bit in your direction and be a bit more trigger-happy with making decisions and putting out things.
Be careful what you wish for :) It did give me the reputation of being a cowboy. It has to match your personality otherwise I'm sure it will make you feel uncomfortable and out of control.
However it also seems to tie me to projects that nobody else wants because the path forward is not clear or they are deemed unsafe bets, which means I have a lot more agency as most of the management and oversight also doesn't want to link their names to it too closely :) Which is exactly what I want. I noticed a lot of people get more conservative in their approach as they move up in their career. Probably because they have more to lose. For me having challenging and interesting work is more important than my career path.
And I am pretty successful with my approach meaning results. I always feel like if there is a way to do something I will find it and that generally does end up being the case. At work it's becoming a harder and harder fit though as governance processes ramp up.
In personal projects I'm even more like this and I do end up not finishing many of them. It is what it is. I do find that brainstorming with a good AI model can help the momentum going though. I know several projects I have hardly progressed with until I started doing that.
But when I relate these activities to learning itself, it becomes difficult to gauge how much of it is necessary. If I don't constantly serialize or test what I'm learning, how do I know I'm learning anything at all? And externalizing so much starts to feel like a burden and gives me less confidence in my own intrinsic ability to just go and do things.
I was going to post an "Ask HN" on this topic to see if other people related to this. If anyone has been in this mindset before and managed to break out of it, I'd be curious to know what helped!