Frequently asked questions about thinking, epistemology, and cognitive tools. 4568 answers
A link labeled causes is more useful than a generic link labeled related.
Open your note system and find five links between notes. For each one, write a one-word label that describes the relationship: causes, contradicts, extends, supports, exemplifies, enables, refines, or something domain-specific. If you cannot name the relationship, ask yourself whether the link is.
Creating a link taxonomy so elaborate that you spend more time classifying relationships than building knowledge. The goal is not perfect ontological coverage. It is having enough type information that traversing a link tells you something the link's mere existence would not. Five to seven edge.
A link labeled causes is more useful than a generic link labeled related.
When A links to B, B should know that A links to it — bidirectional linking reveals hidden patterns.
When A links to B, B should know that A links to it — bidirectional linking reveals hidden patterns.
A densely connected area of your graph represents deep understanding.
A densely connected area of your graph represents deep understanding.
A densely connected area of your graph represents deep understanding.
Pick two subjects you know well and one you're just beginning to learn. For each, list 10 concepts from memory. Then draw the connections between them — every relationship you can articulate (causes, enables, contradicts, exemplifies, depends on). Count the edges. Calculate the density: edges.
Treating link count as a vanity metric. You can inflate density by creating shallow, meaningless connections — tagging everything with the same broad category, linking notes because they share a word rather than a concept. Density without semantic weight is noise. The test is whether you can.
A densely connected area of your graph represents deep understanding.
An idea connected to nothing else is either missing links or not worth keeping.
An idea connected to nothing else is either missing links or not worth keeping.
An idea connected to nothing else is either missing links or not worth keeping.
Nodes with many connections are core concepts that deserve extra attention.
Nodes with many connections are core concepts that deserve extra attention.
Nodes with many connections are core concepts that deserve extra attention.
Export or visualize your note graph. Identify the 5 nodes with the highest link count. For each one, ask: (1) Is this note well-written enough to deserve its centrality? (2) Does it accurately represent what I currently understand about this concept? (3) Are there connections it should have but.
Treating all notes as equally important. If you give the same maintenance attention to a peripheral note with two links and a hub node with forty, you are under-investing in the infrastructure that holds your graph together. The other failure is creating artificial hubs — index notes that link to.
Nodes with many connections are core concepts that deserve extra attention.
Ideas that link separate areas of your knowledge graph are especially valuable.
Following connections through your knowledge graph generates new insights.
Following connections through your knowledge graph generates new insights.