Forum Posts Feed
short time memory and outliner software
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Guido
Mar 25, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I ’ d like to start a discussion about the value of outlining software and human short time memory. As a lawyer, I have to remember at least hundreds of hierarchically structured checklists and outlines and used for a cuple of time an outliner of a german criminal law professor ( http://www.normfall.de ). In his theory, Prof. Haft explains that lawyers should build structures of basically not more than 7 items ( one parent and not more than six childs ), arguing that doing otherwise would not fit to the human short time memory’s capacity as revealed the research done by George Miller in 1956 about our limitation of processing information ( ” The magical number seven - plus or minus two ” ).
Therefor an outline should not have more than 6 main chapters, each of them having not more than 6 sub-chapters. The amount of the sub - levels should not grow larger than 7. Building bigger chunks of information does not fit in our limitated short time memory and will not be properly processed.
Working with this limitation of our short time memory in mind helped me to remember my mind-maps in an adequate and complete way. Understanding the brain’s chunking mechanism is necessary for everyone working with outliner and mind-mapping software.
Posted by Graham Rhind
Mar 25, 2008 at 01:13 PM
Hi Guido,
I’m not sure I grasp what you’re getting it. Isn’t the whole point of outliners and other information management systems to be able to dump information out of the brain so that no information gets lost due to our poor in-built memories and processing systems?
We have short attention spans and small short-term memories, so I understand why marketing messages to the public or, maybe in your case, points for the jury, need to be short, make impact and be “sound-bite”-like; but I can’t see how this would need to translate into limitations in, or optimal numbers of, nodes in outliners.
If you need to memorise lists, that, I would imagine, is another matter!
Mind you, I confess to rarely using pure outliners - I use Flying Logic sometimes to sort out rambing thoughts. I don’t notice any more or fewers problems in finding my way around software by number of nodes.
Graham
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Mar 25, 2008 at 03:38 PM
Graham Rhind wrote:
>I’m not sure I grasp what you’re getting it. Isn’t the whole point of
>outliners and other information management systems to be able to dump information
>out of the brain so that no information gets lost due to our poor in-built memories and
>processing systems?
Not necessarily; one may use such systems in order to better structure information with the end goal of _memorising_ it. Or, as in my case, of better delivering it to an audience.
So indeed I do get Guido’s point. Tony Buzan notes two important advantages of mind maps: (a) better understanding of information and therefore (b) better recall of that information. For example, he suggests making mind maps of whatever books one reads.
Buzan also suggests that mind maps (that in terms of structure are nothing more than outlines) are more suitable for the human brain to comprehend and recall, because its neural layout is similar. Furthermore, he suggests complementing item titles with colours and images to increase their impression on the mind.
I don’t know whether neural research supports Buzan’s claim on the layout, but I believe it does support the one on images. So, going back to Guido’s initial point, I’d say that it sounds quite reasonable and complementary: structure information in groups of no more than six per level, show it two-dimensionally (in a mindmap), and increase the impression with images and colours.
By the way, the ‘no more than six’ rule is often used in powerpoint “six points with six words each” resulting in some really dumb presentations (see also http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html ) so I find outlines and mindmaps much preferable.
alx
Posted by Guido
Mar 25, 2008 at 08:30 PM
Hi Alex,
I ’ d like to add one important advantage of Mind-Maps that indeed are more than outlines : they reflect the way we think. We think in a network of pictures, feelings, sounds and information expressed in different manners. Though, a Mind-Map reflects better this network of different bits of information in our brains connected by billions of associations one to another.
That means in terms of outlining that we as human beings do have to communicate linearly, being restricted to a chronological order of presenting our ideas by speach or text. An outline is a good medium for presenting and communicating information. But it is not in terms of thinking, remembering or learning. In an outline, one has to process information in the following way : First 1., than 1.1, than 1.2, than 1.3, than 2, than 2.1 etc. etc. The brain thinks 1 and than at the same level : 1.2, than perhaps 1.1 and than 1.3 - the sequence simply doesn’t matter, what matters is the connection between 1 and its childs. It’s on the connection that a Mind-Map focusses. That’s what Buzan calls “radial thinking” and I invite everyone to make a short break and to contemplate the own thinking process.
If we would think in outlines, we would process and think of a lot of unneccessary information ( nodes in our mental outline ) in a given situation before reaching the essential point. Fortunately, we do not think in this way but jump in a few seconds to the only interesting information node.
Posted by Cassius
Mar 25, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Guido wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>I ’ d like to add one important advantage of Mind-Maps that indeed are more
>than outlines : they reflect the way we think. We think in a network of pictures,
>feelings, sounds and information expressed in different manners. Though, a
>Mind-Map reflects better this network of different bits of information in our brains
>connected by billions of associations one to another.
>
>That means in terms of
>outlining that we as human beings do have to communicate linearly, being restricted
>to a chronological order of presenting our ideas by speach or text. An outline is a good
>medium for presenting and communicating information. But it is not in terms of
>thinking, remembering or learning. In an outline, one has to process information in
>the following way : First 1., than 1.1, than 1.2, than 1.3, than 2, than 2.1 etc. etc. The
>brain thinks 1 and than at the same level : 1.2, than perhaps 1.1 and than 1.3 - the
>sequence simply doesn’t matter, what matters is the connection between 1 and its
>childs. It’s on the connection that a Mind-Map focusses. That’s what Buzan calls
>“radial thinking” and I invite everyone to make a short break and to contemplate the
>own thinking process.
>
>If we would think in outlines, we would process and think of a
>lot of unneccessary information ( nodes in our mental outline ) in a given situation
>before reaching the essential point. Fortunately, we do not think in this way but jump
>in a few seconds to the only interesting information node.
Guido is correct about thinking, but the mind maps usually seen are, in fact, just pictorial representations of outlines. A web-type diagram, such as The Brain is a better representation, ofr thought because it allows subitems with different parents to be linked together. Outlines and other PIMs that allow unlimited linking among different items anywhere in the outline or PIM also represent the type of thinking Guido describes.
The problem with web-type diagrams or unlimited linking is that one can soon become completely lost, even if there is a trail of breadcrumbs to help one find one’s way back. Many years ago, in DOS days, I had such a text program [possibly named Black Magic]. I couldn’t keep track of where I was.
Although I dislike most mind maps, The Brain has the great advantage of one being able to chose any node as one’s “center of the universe.”
-c
-c