Replying to LO30382 --
At said:
>Long before him, even in previous centuries, some writers used a numerical
>scheme to do mind mapping. It worked like this:
>-Main Idea
>(After each heading, some text follows)
>1 Concept A
>1.1 Sub-concept Aa
>1.2 Sub-concept Ab
>1.3 Sub-concept Ac
You are absolutely right, and this is probably the main reason why it is
such a hit. People don't realize that they are doing what they have always
been doing, just placing it in a different format. Actually, once you want
to leave this hierarchical format, the weakness of mindmapping methodology
becomes very clear; it is very weak in showing multiple interrelationships
(matrices are much better for this), loops, conditional relationships and
time sequences. Mindmaps are great as in introduction to mapping in
general though, because of their tacit familiarity, and they are great
outliners.
To me the power of mindmaps lies in their ability to condense a lot on a
particular topic on a single page of paper. This is great for digestive
learning, because it takes a load off one's short term memory; one does
not have to remember things from one page to the next in order to connect
them. In other words, mindmaps are short term memory crutches.
A weakness in Buzan's methodology is that he insists on putting just one
keyword on each line; he should instead emphasize the difference between
using it for digesting information and using it for brainstorming. In the
latter, putting just one word for the concept is fine, because you want
your mind to go in multiple directions, and keep generating ideas by the
question "what does this remind you of?". In the former, you do not want
that, rather you want to increase sureness about the identity of the
concepts and how they relate; this cannot always be done by just one word,
even in the context of a map.
At said:
> I do not perceive knowledge
> as merely the whole structure ("being") of interrelated concepts. I see
> these
> concepts ("beings") as having evolved from each other by certain mental
> actions ("becomings"). This evolution is the reason why knowledge as a
> whole is the capacity to act ("become")!
My comment:
Yes, the process of making a mindmap is definitely full of liveness. That
is why they look so impressive to those who made them and often so
confusing and kind of "so what?" to those who did not. The author is happy
about the process he went through.
At said:
> A mind map is for me not merely WHAT concepts are related as a whole
> to a main idea. It is also HOW these concepts became related to each
> other.
My comment:
How true. It is the process of mindmapping that excites people and has
made them such a huge commercial success. It shifts ones thinking from the
conventional"what's next?" to "what is this related to and how?" which
makes you go back and forth, up and down continuously.
At said:
> For better or worse, it is such an
> unconventional interpretation which may give liveness to the subject.
My comment:
Absolutely! If you hadn't I would probably have hit the delete button;-)
At said:
> I have searched the web for other people having a similar viewpoint on the
> wholeness as well as the liveness of knowledge and how it can be presented
> graphically. Out of some 30 hits i can recommend
> < http://www.grove.com/new/new_gfretro.html >
> It seems that they have developed their graphical representation of mind
> and its processes over many years independently from Buzan.
My comment:
Those look like true Bastard Maps to me ;-) An even more blatant example of
how maps are often more for the author than for the audience. Edward Tufte
flip if he saw those things ;-)
Terje
--"Terje A. Tonsberg" <tatonsberg@hotmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.