Frequently asked questions about thinking, epistemology, and cognitive tools. 1490 answers
A claim and its supporting evidence are different objects that should be stored separately.
What you saw and what you concluded from it are distinct and must not be fused.
What you saw and what you concluded from it are distinct and must not be fused.
An atomic note should carry enough context to be understood without its original source.
Take one note or document you've already written. Decompose it at three different levels of granularity: (1) a single-sentence summary, (2) three to five key claims each as a separate note, and (3) a fine-grained breakdown where every distinct assertion gets its own card. Compare the three.
Believing there is one correct grain size and spending hours trying to find it. This creates paralysis: you never finish processing your notes because you keep second-guessing whether each one is 'atomic enough.' The antidote is to name your purpose first. Granularity follows purpose — not the.
You choose how finely to decompose based on your purpose — not on some inherent "correct" level of detail. The same material supports different grain sizes for different uses.
A well-formed question is as valuable an atom as a well-formed answer.
A well-formed question is as valuable an atom as a well-formed answer.
The definitions you use quietly shape every conclusion built on top of them.
The definitions you use quietly shape every conclusion built on top of them.
Pick a word you use constantly in your work or thinking — something like 'quality,' 'success,' 'productive,' or 'fair.' Write down your operational definition: what specific, observable conditions must be true for that word to apply? Then ask a colleague or partner to do the same for the same.
Assuming that because you and someone else use the same word, you share the same concept. This is the most common and most invisible failure in collaborative thinking. You can build an entire argument, strategy, or relationship on a shared word that maps to completely different meanings — and.
The definitions you use quietly shape every conclusion built on top of them.
When you write the same idea twice you have not yet named the pattern they share.
When you write the same idea twice you have not yet named the pattern they share.
When you write the same idea twice you have not yet named the pattern they share.
Ideas evolve. Your system should let you see how any atom changed over time — not just what you believe now, but what you believed before and why it shifted.
Ideas evolve. Your system should let you see how any atom changed over time — not just what you believe now, but what you believed before and why it shifted.
Ideas evolve. Your system should let you see how any atom changed over time — not just what you believe now, but what you believed before and why it shifted.
Find a belief you have held for at least three years — about management, about a technology choice, about how relationships work. Write down what you believed three years ago as Version 1. Write your current position as Version 2. Then write one sentence describing what evidence or experience.
Overwriting old notes instead of appending new versions. When you delete your previous position and replace it with your current one, you destroy the evidence of your own intellectual growth. You also lose the ability to notice patterns in how you change your mind — which directions you tend to.
Ideas evolve. Your system should let you see how any atom changed over time — not just what you believe now, but what you believed before and why it shifted.
A tag is the simplest way to declare that two atoms share something in common.