Created
May 11, 2020 8:41 AM
Topic
分享者
Plidezus
状态
来源
Tags
推荐到索引
产品沉思录
- We form complicated beliefs about how the world works, through observations, abstractions (like defining words), model building, and inductive and deductive reasoning 我们通过观察、抽象（如定义词等）、建立模型、归纳推理和演绎推理等方式，形成了关于世界如何运作的复杂信念
- Our beliefs and observations come together in a non-linear way The observation you make today influences your belief about Premise A (I can trust person X to know about Y) That update cascades to flip decisions or reasoning chains you've formed long in the past (Z is true) 我们的信念和观察是以非线性的方式形成的 你今天的观察，影响了你对前提A的信念（我可以信任的人X知道Y的情况） 但是随着新的信息输入和连接，将会颠覆你在过去很久以来形成的决策或推理链（Z是真实的）。
- That's how things work in your brain -- There is a structure between the thoughts -- the structure resembles something like a graph of nodes and edges with probabilistic weights. 这就是你大脑中的工作原理 —— 思维之间有一个结构 —— 这个结构类似于一个由节点和边组成的图（Graph），还附带概率权重。
- We don't put numerical weights on things -- we use words like -- Maybe, Definitely, Probably -- and we feel in our gut something like our probability score for the belief 我们不对事物进行数字加权 -- -- 我们用 "可能"、"肯定"、"可能 "等词，在我们的直觉中，我们会感觉到类似于我们对这一信念的概率得分
- As William James says "Belief is the willingness to take irrevocable action" -- when you make a big decision -- marriage or divorce, moving to a city or country, taking or leaving a job -- you feel some resonance around how much you believe you are doing "the right thing" 正如威廉 · 詹姆斯所言，"信仰就是愿意采取不可改变的行动" —— 当你做一个重大的决定时 —— 结婚或离婚，搬到一个城市或国家，接受或离开一份工作 —— 你会感觉到你有多相信自己在做 "正确的事情"，从而产生某种共鸣
- The thing is, if you want to take those thoughts out of your head, basic human I/O says you have to turn the graph into a stream. You can only speak or write one word at a time. 问题是，如果你想把这些想法从脑子里拿出来，基于人类现在的I/O接口，你必须把图（Graph）变成一个流（Flow）。因为你一次只能说或写一个字。
- For others (including your future self) to absorb, effectively criticize, and build upon your thoughts, they have to take that stream of words/ideas, and rebuild the original graph in their own heads. 要想让别人（包括你未来的自己）吸收、有效地批判并建立在你的思想基础上，他们必须把那一串话语/想法，在自己的脑海中重建原图。
- Good communicators make this process easier -- this is why speakers, teachers, and salespeople will often follow the formula of - Tell them what you're going to tell them - Tell them - Tell them what you told them It lays out the scaffold of the idea, then fills it in 好的沟通者会让这个过程变得更容易----这就是为什么演讲者、教师和销售人员往往会遵循以下公式的原因 - 告诉他们，你要告诉他们什么？ - 告诉他们 - 告诉他们，你告诉了他们什么 它把想法的脚手架铺设好了，然后再把它填入其中
- For really important ideas though, this is hard. Because some ideas or model aren't going to make sense when you've only heard one piece of them, or they look counterintuitive when you've just heard the scaffold 不过对于真正重要的想法，这是很难的。因为有些想法或模型在你只听了一个片段的时候是没有意义的，或者当你只听了一个脚手架的时候，这些想法或模型看起来很反直觉。
- An example -- A sociologist I trust was recently raving to me about Niklas Luhmann, who he claimed "has the best model of society that exists" but it doesn't make any sense until you've read about 600 pages of his writing. His ideas are like a foreign language. 一个例子 -- -- 我信任的一位社会学家最近对我大谈尼克拉斯·卢曼，他声称他 "拥有现存的最好的社会模式"，但在你还未读过他大约600页的著作之前，这没有任何意义。他的观点就像一门外语（你完全不知道他在说什么）
- A foreign language you don't learn by mastering a single word (though you do need to learn one word at a time), but through immersion, seeing more and more words together in context, until things start to click. 一门外语不是通过掌握一个单词就能学会的（虽然你确实需要一次学会一个单词），而是通过沉浸式的学习，在上下文中看到越来越多的单词在一起，直到事情开始有了眉目。
- The problem with our note taking systems is this -- even if we have to eventually present our thoughts in a linear sequence -- writing isn't just a tool for communication. First and foremost, writing is a tool for thinking, it is a way of expressing our thoughts to ourselves 我们的笔记系统的问题是这样的 —— 即使我们最终要把我们的想法以线性的顺序呈现出来 —— 写作不仅仅是一种交流的工具。首先，写作是一种思考的工具，它是一种向自己表达思想的方式。
- The kind of thinking I'm talking about, the kind where you are carefully thinking about the structure of your beliefs, is incredibly exhausting, and rare. Kahnemann calls it "System 2" -- its also essential if you want to do things like launch rockets and cure disease. 我说的那种思维，就是你仔细思考你的信念结构的那种思维，是令人难以置信的疲惫，也是很难得的。卡尼曼称其为 "系统2" —— 如果你想做火箭发射和治疗疾病等事情，它也是必不可少的。
- System 2 thinking is exhausting because it requires holding so much in your head -- the relationships between complex beliefs, the models you've built from years of experience and observation, 2nd and 3rd order effects of actions you might take. 系统2思维是很累人的，因为它需要在你的脑海中保留很多东西 —— 复杂的信念之间的关系，你从多年的经验和观察中建立的模型，你可能需要二阶和三阶思维才能采取的行动。
- To do that kind of thinking, we can't be limited to the 7+-2 slots of working memory available to us, we need to get things "out of our head," To quote Neil Levy "Notes... do not make contemporary physics (etc) easier, they make it possible." 要做到这种思维方式，我们不能局限于工作记忆的7+2槽的工作记忆，我们需要把事情 "从脑海中 "剥离出来，" 引用Neil Levy的话说："笔记...........并不能让现代物理学（等）变得更容易，而是让它成为可能。"
- The problem with existing notes systems is that they're locked into metaphors from when everything was analog. Files go in folders, and can get tags. At best, they add in the capacity for links to other files-- since links are now something everyone will be familiar with. 现有的笔记系统的问题是，它们被锁定在一切都是模拟的时候的隐喻中。文件都在文件夹里，而且可以得到标签。充其量，它们增加了链接到其他文件的能力——因为链接现在每个人都会熟悉的东西。
- For one example —— you're trying to answer a hard question -- an open question like "Why did X happen?" or "What should I do to make Y more likely". One thing you may want to do is generate a large number of sub-questions to pursue —— folders right? tags? 举个例子 —— 你想回答一个难的问题 —— 一个开放性的问题，比如 "为什么X会发生？"或者 "我应该怎么做才能让Y更有可能"。你可能想做的一件事就是生成大量的子问题来追问——文件夹对吗？ 标签？
- You may want to collect a bunch of resources (build on other people's thoughts) -- like journal articles, essays, you may read a bunch of books... But then, you will quickly find that each paper may be relevant to many of the questions you're considering. 你可能想收集一堆资源（建立在别人的思想基础上）----比如期刊文章、论文，你可能会看一堆书...... 但是这样一来，你会很快发现，每一篇论文可能都和你考虑的很多问题有关。
- Well now you're in a bind -- the nice thing about folders (or a Workflowy Tree) is that it let you take a high level question and focus on smaller pieces -- but now each of those articles you read has claims that it makes that fit in different places in your hierarchy 现在你陷入了困境 —— 文件夹（或Workflowy Tree）的好处是，它可以让你把一个高层次的问题放在较小的部分上，但现在你读到的每一篇文章都有它的主张，这些主张在你的层次结构中的不同位置上都有。
- The same article (or quote, or fact) might help you answer three different questions -- so do you put a copy of it in all three locations? -- if you do then any change you make to it later (anytime you refine or build on that idea, or invalidate it) will require 3x the work 同一篇文章（或引用或事实）可能会帮助你回答三个不同的问题 —— 那么你是否把它的副本放在所有三个地方？—— 如果你这样做了，那么你以后对它做的任何修改（无论你在什么时候对这个想法进行完善或建立在这个想法的基础上，或使其失效）都需要3倍的工作
- If you rely on tags, you can group the same item into multiple collections, but you lose the ability to move from a higher "strategic level" down to the more granular question -- and you end up trying to remember which of your 100 tags is useful to each concept. 如果你依赖标签，你可以把同一个项目分成多个集合，但你就失去了从更高的 "战略层面 "下移到更细化的问题上的能力 —— 最后你会试图记住你的100个标签中的哪一个对每个概念有用。
- Folders are a good idea -- because hierarchical organization is fundamental to human thinking -- we like categorizing things. Folders are a bad idea because every actual thing fits into multiple categories. 文件夹是个好主意 —— 因为分层组织是人类思维的根本 —— 我们喜欢将事物分类。文件夹是个坏主意，因为每一个实际的东西都可以归入多个类别。
- Tags are a good idea because they allow you to create those overlapping collections. They are great for browsing, and that is a genuine source of insight. They are bad because they are flat (and difficult to merge together) & require you to guess your structure ahead of time 标签是个好主意，因为它们允许你创建那些重叠的集合。它们对于浏览来说是很好的，这也是一个真正的洞察力的来源。它们是不好的，因为它们是扁平的（而且很难合并在一起），需要你提前猜测你的结构。
- What is missing in our existing systems is this -- we need better way of organizing the questions we are trying to answer, and making explicit the lines of reasoning we hold. 我们现有的系统中缺少的是这样的东西 -- -- 我们需要更好地组织我们试图回答的问题，并使我们所持的推理思路清晰化。
- When you can't do something as simple as say -- I'm building ideas Y and Z off of idea X (where X is the combination of A, B, and C), and make that relationship explicit, you're bound to get lost. So says I. 当你无法做到像说 —— 我正在从想法X（这里的X是A、B、C的组合）上建立Y和Z这样简单的想法，并把这种关系说清楚，你就一定会迷失方向。我也是这样说的。
- What I want in a second brain: I see something online (or I capture a thought myself) and think -- oh, that's interesting. Interesting for what? I don't know yet, but if it's good, its because I expect it to influence my thinking about something else in the future. 我想要的是第二大脑。我在网上看到一些东西（或者我自己捕捉到一个想法），然后想 —— 哦，很有趣。有趣是为了什么？我还不知道，但如果它是好的，那是因为我希望它能影响我未来对其他事情的思考。
- The key thing I need though, is a way to A) filter down these observations for the ones that are most important, and B) connect my thoughts together, and build new thoughts out of old thoughts 不过，我需要的关键是：A）筛选出最重要的观察结果，把这些观察结果过滤掉；B）把我的思想联系在一起，从旧有的思想中建立新的思想。
- Occasionally, I find an idea which invalidates a whole slew of other observations -- like the concept of "Chinese Robbers" -- which basically convinced me that I too was susceptible to media manipulation. (See also Immigrant Violence and Hate Crimes) 偶尔，我发现一个想法会使其他一连串的观点无效 -- -- 比如 "中国强盗 "的概念 -- -- 基本上使我相信，我也容易被媒体操纵。（另见 "移民暴力和仇恨犯罪"）。
- Evernote is great for capture Clipping articles, web pages, powerpoints, YouTube videos. What it is bad at is taking those things you capture and then carving them into pieces (this 30 second clip, that slide, this sentence), and then putting those in new contexts/threads. Evernote很适合捕捉 剪辑文章、网页、powerpoints、YouTube视频。 它所不擅长的是把你捕捉到的那些东西，然后把它们雕刻成碎片（这个30秒的片段，那个幻灯片，这个句子），然后把这些东西放在新的上下文/线程中。
- Because it supports threading, and the limits to tweet length force you to address ideas atomically, Twitter can actually be a better second brain than Evernote 因为它支持线程，而且对推文长度的限制迫使你以原子化的方式处理想法，所以Twitter实际上可以成为比Evernote更好的第二大脑。
- Because it supports threading, and the limits to tweet length force you to address ideas atomically, Twitter can actually be a better second brain than Evernote Twitter作为第二大脑的坏处是，你要远离那些可能会让你感到尴尬的想法，或者让你面临社交风险的想法。
- For better or for worse, keeping your second brain public makes you a node in the Global Social Computer In The Cloud 不管是好是坏，保持你的第二大脑公开，都会让你成为全球社交计算机在云端的一个节点
- Twitter isn't the really the right tool yet either. And I wouldn't count on it moving in the right direction Twitter也不是真正正确的工具。我也不指望它能朝着正确的方向发展。
- The "right tool" would be able to beat index cards, organized in a Zettelkasten system Which means taking "cards" out, laying them on a table, reorganizing them, and then building a new thread "合适的工具 "将能够击败按Zettelkasten系统组织的索引卡。 也就是把 "牌 "拿出来，铺在桌子上，重新整理，然后建立一个新的线程
- 索引卡的优势
- 每张卡片包含一个想法
- 你可以把你所关心的牌拿出来，把它们分门别类，铺在桌子上，寻找它们之间的关系，算出顺序
- 当你想保存新的原创想法时，你做一个新的卡ref'ing ids，并将其回链
- if a thought crosses your mind and you don't tweet it, did you even think it 如果一个想法在你的脑海里闪过，你不发出来，那么你真的想过吗？
- My current best recommendation for a second brain is a combination of Twitter and a fast plain text notes system with great search, and internal links with autocomplete，Specifically nvalt 我目前最推荐的第二大脑是微博和快速的纯文字笔记系统的组合，有很好的搜索功能，内部链接有自动填写功能的内部链接，特别是nvalt
- A plaintext notes system doesnt store web clipping -- but if you've got a good system for managing and clearing your tabs and browser's native bookmarks, you don't need that Here's what you want instead 纯文本笔记系统不存储网络剪贴 ----但如果你有一个很好的系统来管理和清除你的标签和浏览器的原生书签，你就不需要了。 这是你想要的东西
- 这哥们懂了 https://twitter.com/rjs/status/1130609983408578561
- Christopher Alexander's essay "A city is not a tree" is great essay showing how the hyperplanned cities ended up sterile places no one wanted to live If your notes only live in segregated category folders, they wont ever flirt or f•ck or come to life 克里斯托弗-亚历山大的散文《城市不是一棵树》是一篇很好的散文，说明了超规划的城市最终是如何沦为没有人愿意居住的无主之地 如果你的笔记只存在于隔离的类别文件夹中，它们永远不会调情、打炮或活过来。
