Colored pens/pencils for hand-drawn mindmaps

[Vilmosz]

Take Buzan with a grain of salt -- but DO take him

I spent a solid 18 months creating mindmaps -- and they yielded no tangible (repeat TANGIBLE -- as opposed to creative/imaginative) results for me on any of the projects I worked on. I question, of course, whether I utilized the method properly, or whether I knew enough about them at all. But, regardless, here's what I feel, looking back on all the mindmaps I created (and I was actually pretty religious in following Buzan's advice) -- they are just that: maps. They can reveal thought processes, they can show you steps and ideas you hadn't considered or thought about. They can even show you how YOU think which is invaluable. But I do not believe they can help you get things done, anymore than a map can take you to a destination. You need some sort of locomotion modality to accomplish that.

(I'm going to take another look at the examples he uses in his books -- I'm curious to remind myself exactly what the mindmaps used for illustration had as objectives.)

As I take furtive steps in understanding the GTD approach, it seems (and I'm stating the obvious) very focused on tangible results. These two approaches -- one a method for enhancing creative thinking, the other a system for getting things done -- are perfectly complementary. We ought forgive someone like Buzan for the trespasses of hyperbole and not dismiss his whole agenda (which I don't think anyone here is suggesting anyway) simply because he clearly overstates things.

 

[andersons]

get out the salt shaker (partly kidding)

Good discussion. Yes, there really are some nuggets of truth in The Mind Map Book. But it annoys me because there are so many blatantly false assertions! It's just crazy how on one page Buzan will be spot on about, say, spreading activation; and then a few pages later he'll say something unbelievably ridiculous. I recognize the false only because this is my field of research. I guess I didn't recognize an agenda or exaggeration when I read it; I would have thought Tony Buzan really believes what he's saying; but maybe I'm just being naive.

I was prepared to shake some salt; I didn't necessarily expect to learn anything about the brain from Buzan; I've already seen the hype on his website. But I was curious about his technique because I have seen so much enthusiasm for it! I do scientific research in brain and cognitive sciences, with a focus on learning. Yes, the rigorous kind of research that doesn't sell . I don't know if I can market what I have learned: your brain has unbelievable, unlimited potential to learn new knowledge and skills (so far in agreement with Buzan), BUT the main thing required for learning is to spend the time. There is no learning shortcut that eliminates the need to spend time to get results.

The main benefit I see of mind mapping is if it gets you to spend time 1) organizing ideas and 2) visualizing them. If you want to organize and visualize by following the Mind Map rules, fine; but there are many ways to organize and visualize information, and all will work about the same, given the same amount of time spent doing them. There is no need to have spokes radiate from a center. There is no hope of actually representing the structure of either brain systems or neurons in a mind map. But fortunately, you don't need to in order to use your brain. That's my grain of salt.

Another interesting topic in the book was Buzan's reference to Shereshevsky ('S') from Luria's The Mind of a Mnemonist. Buzan describes synaesthesia as if it's a good thing, but it's a sensory perception disorder. People with synaesthesia don't just associate, say, a color and a taste, as in a mind map; they actually taste the color. This sensory disorder confuses them and makes social interaction difficult. And exceptional memory is really not good either. 'S' had exceptional memory in that he remembered every detail of everything he ever saw or experienced. It was a terrible liability that interfered with his life. Forgetting is an important and valuable function of the human brain. The Mind of a Mnemonist is an interesting little book; I recommend it.

My favorite book about creativity is How To Get Ideas by Jack Foster.

 

[Skiptomylue11]

Wow, that book sounds really strange. Maybe its a big joke? , what does he recommend to convey information then? Just plain out weird!

 

[kewms]

The main benefit I see of mind mapping is if it gets you to spend time 1) organizing ideas and 2) visualizing them. If you want to organize and visualize by following the Mind Map rules, fine; but there are many ways to organize and visualize information, and all will work about the same, given the same amount of time spent doing them.

Hmmm.... That might explain why I find mind maps helpful. They are more engaging than lists -- more colorful, more visually complex, more opportunities to doodle and sketch, etc. -- and so I tend to spend more time with them. Listmaking feels like work, while mindmapping feels like play.

(Therein lies the pitfall, too, which is spending so much time drawing pretty maps that you never follow them anywhere. Eventually one must put the crayons down and get to work.)

Katherine

 

[Desultory]

I've tried mindmaps a couple times, but when I'm done filling the page I'm left wondering: okay, now what do I do? How does this help me plan what to do next?

I prefer freewriting to work out problems.

 

[Skiptomylue11]

I've tried mindmaps a couple times, but when I'm done filling the page I'm left wondering: okay, now what do I do? How does this help me plan what to do next?

It doesn't

A mind-map is not to tell you what to do next. It is to merely generate as many ideas possible about a certain subject. After you create the mind-map, then you must process the mind-map into lists or choose the most effective solution(s) from your ideas. You must decide what to do next given the information from the mind-map.

 

[Vilmosz]

Great post, Andersons. Yes, the work. The one thing so many of us seem so determined to try to find a way around that we spend an inordinate amount of time working at it. GTD offers no such refuge.

Your post, and some aspects of this discussion, recall for me another interesting "hobby" I took up around the same time I became enamored of mind maps. This was the matter of improving my self esteem, and I mention it in this forum because of how very interwoven self-esteem is said to be with vision, clarity, values and achievement -- in other words, simlilar ground we're here on GTD to address. Anyway, I had read books by a congnitive behavioralist named Nathaniel Branden. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/s...s&index=books&field-author=Nathaniel Branden). A lot of what he says is important, particularly about the concept of learned helplessness (something which, IMHO, we saw played out to a degree in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina). Building on his "brand" Branden created a method of sentence completions which he claims has been therapeutic in helping people overcome low self-esteem. And, he says, improving self-esteem with his method will automatically segue into improved productivity, clarity, etc. I played around with Branden's sentence completions for a couple of months with absolutely no results whatsoever. Flah forward to a couple of months ago -- I was at the university library when I noticed a fascinating book called SELF-EFFICACY (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...d=I3MKHLFIGYOVK3&v=glance&colid=2ZD5M2E4O4NXP) which I browsed. The book explains that self-esteem has nothing to do with productivity -- there are people with low self-esteem who are high achievers, and people with high-self esteem who are delusionally and grandiosely content. Interesting! Also, in retrospect, seems obvious -- think of all the accomplished people you may have read about who grappled with self-esteem and self-worth.

I'm looking forward to reading SELF-EFFICACY carefully; I'm sure that it will explain how HARD WORK, a high tolerance for frustration and the ability to endure obstacles and failures are key ingredients to achievement (all of which, by the way, I have yet to master to any degree). Like Buzan, Branden offers a concept that makes intuitive sense -- then he offers a system -- and then he makes a tremendous leap; that following his system will unlock something within us that will lead to a flow-like momentum in which achivement is inevitable. Of course, we can only wish this were so.

 

[kewms]

A mind-map is not to tell you what to do next. It is to merely generate as many ideas possible about a certain subject.

That depends on how you use the mindmap. Maps can be used for brainstorming, but can also be used to organize ideas, visualize a series of actions, see relationships between ideas, identify more or less likely lines of inquiry, and so forth. While many people prefer to work from more conventional lists, there is no reason why you can't work directly from a mind map if you choose.

All a mind map really is, is a graphical outline. (Some software tools make this explicit, by letting you convert from map to outline form and back.) Anything you can do with an outline, you can do with a map, and vice versa.

Katherine

 

[Day Owl]

HARD WORK, a high tolerance for frustration and the ability to endure obstacles and failures are key ingredients to achievement....

Well said, Vilmosz.

Here's a similar take on this subject from a more ancient source -- the Vedas:

Six qualities are needed for success in any venture:
1. Proper effort
2. Perseverance
3. Courage
4. Knowledge of the given pursuit
5. Skill and resources
6. Capacity to overcome obstacles

 

[andersons]

Wow, that book sounds really strange. Maybe its a big joke? , what does he recommend to convey information then? Just plain out weird!

Well, it's quite clear that he's a big fan of mind maps to convey information. That's it. He believes they are the magic to "maximize your brain's untapped potential" (front cover). There are a whole bunch of chapters on how to use mind maps for various applications -- 11 applications in all, actually.

But in practice, the information in the book is often presented in lists, so whether he's aware of it or not, he must not really believe what he says about lists. I'm just guessing, but I bet he made a mind map for each chapter, then took the stuff from different branch levels and turned them into lists in order to write his book. The irony is that the resulting book is not well written. There's not enough elaboration in the bulleted lists. The lists themselves need better organization: some ideas overlap, while others are not related to each other.

To be fair, the application chapters may be better. I haven't gotten to them yet.

 

[andersons]

Hmmm.... That might explain why I find mind maps helpful. They are more engaging than lists -- more colorful, more visually complex, more opportunities to doodle and sketch, etc. -- and so I tend to spend more time with them. Listmaking feels like work, while mindmapping feels like play.

Yes, I think they are more engaging. And engaging is definitely not a trivial thing; motivation is a huge factor in learning.

Mind maps are probably especially appealing to people with some artistic skills. Sadly, that's not me. Mine are, well, kinda ugly. Making them look nicer requires too much time and patience for me since I'm not good at it. Some of the example mind maps are beautiful, like the tree on p. 119.

I have used visual techniques to organize and remember information since elementary school. My techniques look nothing like a mind map, and not nearly as pretty as the sample mind maps, but I think they accomplish the same goal of visual organization. I use codes. I use lots of arrows and easy-to-draw symbols (like circles). I sometimes color code, not artistically but just to link related ideas. Hence my colored Sharpie recommendation earlier in the post. I like highlighters too.

 

[andersons]

The book explains that self-esteem has nothing to do with productivity -- there are people with low self-esteem who are high achievers, and people with high-self esteem who are delusionally and grandiosely content.

Yes, it appears that the self-esteem movement has fallen out of favor. Today's students have measurably much higher self-esteem than students did in the 70's, but this improved self-esteem has not led to educational utopia once envisioned. And yes, self-efficacy is a popular concept now. If I recall, Bandura is the key researcher there.

I had a friend who attended a $30,000/yr prep school (my friend was on full scholarship) while the school radically overhauled its curriculum to emphasize self-esteem. It was really something to see parents fork over that kind of money so that their kids could learn "you're a worthwhile, valuable person" instead of calculus.

 

[andersons]

All a mind map really is, is a graphical outline. . . Anything you can do with an outline, you can do with a map, and vice versa.

Except that when you say the word "outline," students' eyes glaze over. Outlines are hated!

This is like telling a child there's really no such thing as Santa Claus! Ruining the magic! ;-)