You know, I read so much that I NEVER take notes and I really should because I love to read non-fiction best. And I love to write so taking notes would not be any sort of problem.
But I’d probably do it in a journal-type app and just use tags to correlate it. That’s what I’d do just reading strictly for pleasure. I’d likely use Agenda.
If I intended to read in order to do research, I’d tend to sum up what I’ve read and maybe take rather excessive notes here and there, as at times I get rather compulsive (but I am no going to fret about it). I’d put it all in Scrivener and sort it as I go. That is where I’d do drafts and a final work. Sometimes I just sit down and write (without drafts) but I am trying to be more professional about it although they do turn out well.
Dredging up an old thread that is very relevant to me just now as I attempt to digest very large amounts of academic reading. It has been very helpful.
The marginalia approach makes sense to me, with relatively little friction, but is problematic when there’s little space to write, or I’m using combinations of ebooks, PDFs, websites, audiobooks and paper books.
I’ve borrowed a leaf from Jonathan Edwards (Jonathan Edwards’ Organizational Genius). He kept extensive notes and records of ideas in notebooks. Each notebook and notebook page was numbered. In the book (Bible) margin he would write the notebook number and page so he could easily refer back. There might be several different references over time as he returned to passages from different angles.
So if I take a note from a book in my notebook, I just write in the margin of the book e.g., NB1/3 (notebook 1, page 3). This system could be adapted - if you’re using daily notes it could just be the date; mindmaps could reference the node. For ebooks I just add a quick note with the reference.
In my notebook I’m also using the Cornell system, and leaving space at the bottom of each page. I go back after reading and write a brief Feynman-like summary of what is on that page. I’m finding my engagement and recall is greatly enhanced by handwriting and by summarisation. It’s all pretty quick to do, and much more effective than highlighting.
Ok, I’m impressed. I “meet” very few people who have or are reading Edwards. I’ve read a lot of Jonathan Edwards. For those not familiar with him, this is a decent summary. His The End for Which God Created the World is one of the best philosophical/theological works I’ve ever read–a hard read–but worth it. It along with Augustine’s City of God are seminal works.
As a side note, you may be interested in Scapple as a digital supplement for connecting ideas. You can see a video here.
Very interesting concept – Edwards practiced “zettlekasten-lite”
I haven’t read Edwards since a grad school course in early American literature. It’s “enlightening” (pun intended) to be reintroduced to him in a different, sort of modern, way.
I work as an instructional designer in higher education. This means I regularly dive deep into learning models and theories and stay up to date on research-based practices of the same.
Much earlier in this thread @JohnAtl mentioned the book How to Take Smart Notes. This book introduces the Zettelkasten method of note-taking. The part of Zellelkasten related to your question describes documenting the ideas and thoughts you have related to the text in your own words and the ways in which it might relate to other existing throughs and ideas you wrote down. The whole system is quite compelling — kind of like “contextual computing” and hyperlinking but invented by a German socialist using 90,000 index cards.
This system leverages multiple cognitive theories on learning and retention. When practicing this form of note-taking you are constructing your own meaning from the text and linking it knowledge already acquired. Both practices have strong foundations in cognitive development theory to facilitate learning.
It is an easy read and speaks exactly to what you are asking. As a Mac Power User, of course, I don’t use index cards. My system is a combination of Zotero, Obsidian, Instapaper and Readwise.
Even funnier, earlier in the day Sonke Ahrens released a 2nd edition of the book. His approach is a little bit literal an interpretation of Niklas Luhmann’s approach for my own needs.
Yea, I intentionally avoided getting into the weeds of the system. It was useful for me to understand it, wasn’t difficult to develop a collection with similar benefits using internal links in a tool like Obsidian. I do have folders within Obsidian, however, for literature notes, fleeting notes, permanent notes, and index pages.(post deleted by author)
