[HN Gopher] Tools for Better Thinking
___________________________________________________________________
Tools for Better Thinking
Author : andsoitis
Score : 713 points
Date : 2022-06-06 22:24 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (untools.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (untools.co)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| (2020)
|
| Submitted 3 times in the past month alone
|
| Some previous discussion from a few years back when this was
| newer https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23339830
| jjn2009 wrote:
| an (audio)book of this would be great
| BigElephant wrote:
| How does an audio book help here? A lot of these require
| visuals to understand.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| krick wrote:
| Does anybody know of something similar, but written in a more
| elaborate book-like fashion?
|
| It's not about format, of course, it's just that all these model-
| zoo's are only half of the story -- not useless, but rather
| _incomplete_. That is, if you learn a lot of them, one day you
| _might_ remember something and find it useful -- or you might
| not. This is a bit abstract, but I want to say you rarely ever
| need any special _tools_ of thinking (or maybe even tools in
| general) -- you want a _technology_. That is, a relatively broad
| (but precisely defined) instruction of how to identify and
| approach a set of problems in some domain. I.e., it is more about
| _when_ to use a tool or technique, rather than being a exhibition
| of such tools. I mean, there is important difference -- that 's
| kinda the difference between going to college and going to a
| museum.
|
| For example, GTD is a technology (doesn't matter good or bad). It
| tells you when to use tools/techniques suggested (and a better
| book would have more showcases and exercises to internalize the
| idea, IMO). This site or coursera's famous "Models Thinking"
| course -- aren't.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > Does anybody know of something similar, but written in a more
| elaborate book-like fashion?
|
| Not book-like, but I put many things that I learn into Anki:
| https://apps.ankiweb.net/
|
| I sync it to my phone with AnkiDroid:
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ichi2.anki
|
| I occasionally review the actual facts as flashcards. But
| having the notes already in flashcard format has been my secret
| weapon for seeming intelligent for years.
| DecayingOrganic wrote:
| This is something I also did in the past. I would "ankify"
| the books I read, hoping to maximize my retention of the
| material.
|
| However soon I ran into some problems, turns out I couldn't
| remember the cues. The same way you can't remember the
| capital of a country if you don't remember the country itself
| first!
|
| This led me to question the actual value I was getting from
| this whole ordeal.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Thank you for the perspective. Perhaps because I
| occasionally, but not obsessively, review the material it
| stick better for me.
| rsanek wrote:
| I find this happening over the long term (3-5 years after
| adding) too, but I think of it as more of a feature than a
| bug. Anki significantly extends the amount of time concepts
| stay in my brain, but it's unrealisting for me to expect it
| to do so over a decade or more without my interacting with
| the source material outside of simply flashcard review.
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| "De Bono's thinking course" by Edward de Bono influenced me
| greatly
| caffeine wrote:
| I found the book "Good Strategy, Bad Strategy" was pretty close
| to what you are talking about.
|
| * Good definitions of what is or is not a strategy
|
| * How to identify whether you have an actual strategy or just
| some empty words or a repetition of the objective
|
| * A lot of examples of different strategies, bad strategies,
| and non-strategies
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11721966-good-strategy-b...
| ryloric wrote:
| Third time I came across this book in less than 10 days. I
| swear there's a name for this phenomenon..
| louky wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_illusion
|
| I've seen references to this terrorist group multiple times
| this week!
| nrjames wrote:
| You might want to check out The Thinker's Toolkit:
| https://www.amazon.com/Thinkers-Toolkit-Powerful-Techniques-...
| kqr wrote:
| I like your question. I don't have much of a concrete answer,
| but systems theory paired with queuing theory has been broadly
| useful for me in assessing situations and making back-of-the-
| napkin consequence estimations of various decisions.
|
| Of course, I don't know of any book that teaches systems theory
| "as a technology" -- it's something I've learned by reading a
| lot of books on different things and picking up the threads
| they have in common.
|
| Systems theory relies, really, on a complete map of the causal
| network of a situation. We're not at a point where we can give
| a step-by-step instruction for inferring the causal network
| behind situations. We have some ideas on how to statistically
| do this in a limited fashion (see Judea Perl) but the general
| problem is still one of creativity, intuition, fact-checking,
| Bayesian probability, and so on. You get good at it by doing it
| a lot in various situations and reflecting on your performance
| -- the way you get good at most mental skills.
|
| I may have ended up answering a different question to the one
| you asked, but these were my thoughts.
|
| ----
|
| I guess with all my rambling I'm trying to say that ultimately,
| "better thinking" boils down to "a more complete understanding
| of situations" and the best way to get there in my experience
| has been the scientific method, democracy (in the true sense of
| the word), and curiosity. These are very complex technologies
| that are not easy to teach.
| lobocinza wrote:
| It's not what he asked me but what you said reminded of this
| blog:
|
| https://harishsnotebook.wordpress.com/
| donjoe wrote:
| I recommend Haberfellner - Systems Engineering (ISBN
| 303013430X).
|
| The Incose handbook for systems engineering:
| https://www.incose.org/products-and-publications/se-handbook
|
| (You might be able to find an older version for free)
|
| Disclaimer: I've been participating in a Systems Engineering
| master program @ university a while back which was based on
| both Haberfellner (and is finally available in English also)
| and Incose.
| rramadass wrote:
| You may find the following useful;
|
| * The Thinker's Toolkit: 14 Powerful Techniques for Problem
| Solving by Morgan Jones.
|
| * Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking by Richard Nisbett.
| thomaspaillot wrote:
| You might be interested in reading << The Macroscope >> from
| Joel de Rosnay. A good read if you're interested in the theory
| behind systems thinking.
| lstamour wrote:
| Has it been so long that folks have forgotten
| https://gamestorming.com/ ? It used to be a classic.
| https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/gamestorming/97814...
|
| Here's an updated version, maybe? https://coda.io/@dave-
| mastronardi/gamestorming-a-toolkit-for...
| wodenokoto wrote:
| > Has it been so long that folks have forgotten
| https://gamestorming.com/ ?
|
| Forgotten? I've never even heard of it.
| lstamour wrote:
| Interesting. Just searched HN and it seems you're right, it
| didn't get much traction with developers, perhaps because
| it was billed as a facilitation toolkit and not about how
| to generate or validate better startup ideas, like Design
| Sprints.
|
| http://eurydice13.com/2019/01/how-to-prepare-for-and-run-
| a-d... shows something of an example of how it used to
| work. It made more of a splash in UX and Design circles.
| For example: https://talks.ui-patterns.com/videos/design-
| practices-for-co...
|
| There was a point in time where it seemed like I was seeing
| it everywhere. At conferences, meetings, university
| classes, hackathons and any number of presentations, etc.
|
| Here it was at SXSWi in 2011:
| https://www.imagethink.net/game-storming-sxswi/
|
| Also: https://co-learning.eu/tags/gamestorming/
|
| It's true that once Google Venture's Design Sprints book
| took off, it became a bit of a benchmark in the space of
| collaborative idea workshops etc.
|
| But before Design Sprints, there was Gamestorming.
| https://vimeo.com/18880751 It might seem a bit overblown.
| I'd call it a brand name that happens to reflect a style of
| work popular before Agile and Scrum made everything cookie-
| cutter from a backlog.
| darekkay wrote:
| If you want to consume the Untools content via a daily RSS feed,
| check out my project: https://tips.darekkay.com/
| derelicto wrote:
| This is one of the hacker new posts that makes me open 50 tabs
| laybak wrote:
| haha same! "# new tabs opened" is a poetic metric
| yakshaving_jgt wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/214/
| phforms wrote:
| I think it is telling that most of the tools on this website (and
| in similar collections I have seen) are diagrammatic in nature.
| Diagrams might have been the most important "tools for thought"
| since our ancestors invented lists, tables, calendars and maps,
| long before recent note-taking app startups used this expression
| for their marketing purposes (which is absolutely fair and I am
| always happy to see when thinking tools become more popular
| outside of business/science contexts).
|
| I think it has something to do with how intertwined structure is
| with diagrammatic representation. Models as well as systems are
| all about structure, which is why you often see them represented
| in diagrams (and if you don't, you may still think about them in
| diagrammatic terms). And yet, historically diagrams have often
| been neglected in science until very recently.
|
| I believe digital tools are still missing a lot of their
| potential as thinking tools because of how text-centric they are.
| I don't suggest that it could have been different, given
| technical constraints and demands, but maybe computers would aid
| our thinking much more if they would actually allow us to more
| freely and intelligently draw diagrams. Ivan Sutherlands
| Sketchpad was a great step in that direction (I am sure most of
| you have seen it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketchpad) and
| more recently the work of Bret Victor
| (http://worrydream.com/MediaForThinkingTheUnthinkable/). But in
| many regards I believe that paper is still superior to what we
| have done so far.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Obsidian.md is a pillar in the modern "Tools for Thought" space
| (along with logseq and Roam Research). Obsidian's plugin
| ecosystem is enormous, and features robust, bidirectional
| integration with Excalidraw. Notes in your diagrams, diagrams
| in your notes... combining text and visual/spatial sketch and
| whiteboard tools is profoundly powerful.
|
| https://github.com/zsviczian/obsidian-excalidraw-plugin
|
| Now there's also ExcaliBrain which builds on Obsidian's graph
| view:
|
| https://github.com/zsviczian/excalibrain
| movedx wrote:
| I use miro.com because it lets me thinking visually. I can
| represent ideas and thoughts with sticky notes, images, tables,
| embedded videos, etc., and then draw conclusions or find
| problems, allowing me to go on to make better decisions.
|
| I think making "cave man drawings" (diagrams, lists, etc.), as
| I call them, when trying to think through some things is a
| clever way of starting out.
| ramoz wrote:
| Similar with excalidraw.com
| phforms wrote:
| I agree, Excalidraw has been a revelation to me and I use
| it all the time to sketch out ideas/concepts, models and
| designs. Most diagram tools never embraced the "thinking in
| action" aspect of diagramming and rather focus on
| production of graphical artifacts for presentations.
| Excalidraw gets out of my way and just lets me focus on the
| thinking.
|
| Miro also has a very intuitive and well thought-out UI and
| I like how it is like a big desk where you can work on
| multiple sheets/frames, move them around, connect them,
| zoom in/out even in real-time collaboration. But it also
| (like most of these apps) seems to me very business-
| focussed, which is fine but I think everyone should have
| something like this (or like Excalidraw) as a standard app
| on their computer, just like every OS has some sort of
| Notepad.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Needs a Youtube video on each model.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| Video for Cynefin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8
| Cynefin argues (a) well defined problems are the realm for
| automation - if this then that. (b) slightly complicated
| problems are the realm of architects - waterfall and project
| plans. (c) very complex problems are the realm of
| experimentation - capitalism and its creative destruction,
| minimum viable prototypes, wisdom of the market. (d) chaos
| totetsu wrote:
| Reminds me a bit of The Decision Book.
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9793361-the-decision-boo...
| dorfsmay wrote:
| Minto pyramid is really interesting to me because, although I had
| never heard of it before, I tend to read articles from the end
| for this exact effect.
|
| I also studied math this way, trying to do the exercises, looking
| at the answers and throughout the materiel to complete them, then
| read the materiel for start to finish. Any time I tried to read
| first I wasn't able to grab the concepts.
| nine_k wrote:
| Doesn't every scientific paper follow this rule? An abstract to
| quickly give the key ideas, an intro describing these key ideas
| in more depth, the gory details for those interested in
| methodology and repeatability.
|
| It's a great format; I wish most non-fiction followed it.
| d23 wrote:
| This reminds me of the inverted pyramid style of journalism:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
|
| Unless I'm trying to do something stylistic, I pretty much
| always try to structure my writing this way. Especially
| technical writing.
| revicon wrote:
| I met Barbara Minto at a small dinner several years ago. She is
| an amazing person and had great stories from her time in
| consulting. I've used her system so many times when I'm having
| trouble putting a complex situation into words
| adamnemecek wrote:
| I think that there are like three concepts in math or the world,
| the concepts being the adjoint, norm and fixed point.
|
| https://github.com/adamnemecek/adjoint
|
| The concept of a fixed point is so ubiquitous.
| jackthetab wrote:
| ELI5?
|
| I couldn't make heads or tails out of that or the first linked
| page.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Intuitively I knew an idea like this must exist, but had no
| idea of how it could be formulated. If it is indeed accurate,
| even just to a point, it's probably one of the most important
| abstractions/heuristics/ideas I have ever read.
|
| > _Adjointness is only a part of the story. One often sees
| equations of the following form inverse(x) = adjoint(x)
| /norm(x). Once you have adjoint and norm, you magically get
| inverse._
|
| That said, I am often spectacularly ignorant and easily seduced
| by simple views of complex things, but if there were name for
| this form or axiom, like Nemecek's axiom or something, I hope
| it sticks.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Do you know of a gentler introduction, for someone with less
| math background? Or does it only make sense after reaching a
| certain level of mathematical maturity?
| [deleted]
| DrJaws wrote:
| This reminds me a lot to FS mental models, they even have some
| books
|
| https://fs.blog/mental-models/
| rpmuller wrote:
| Does anyone know of _programming_ tools for better thinking? I
| used to be a very good programmer, and now I run a large research
| organization. One would think that there would be ample
| opportunity to use my programming skills to better manage the
| organization, but there 's little more than exploring business
| data using Excel. The closest I've come is the Thinking in
| Systems stuff that Donella Meadows and her colleagues have done.
|
| Are there other Thinking Tools for programmers who want an edge
| in managing large groups?
| austin362667 wrote:
| I'm using this one, https://heptabase.com/
| wanderingmind wrote:
| Looks nice, but may I ask how is it different from Freeplane
| which is also a mindmap but FOSS.
| cal85 wrote:
| I haven't tried either yet, I've just taken a look... But I'd
| say 'looks nice' downplays a pretty major difference.
| Heptabase appears to be in a completely different league of
| UI quality. UI quality is pretty central to the functionality
| of visual knowledge management. It's not a software category
| in which you can reasonably separate form and function into
| separate concerns.
| thegabriele wrote:
| Too bad they don't offer a free trial (with a lot of
| limitations, of course).
| yboris wrote:
| _Daniel Dennett_ has an excellent book _Intuition Pumps And Other
| Tools for Thinking_ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393348784
|
| Here's a short article about it: https://fs.blog/dan-dannetts-
| thinking-tools/
|
| One lovely idea I liked from the book is a recommendation,
| whenever in an argument / discussion, is to understand the other
| person's point of view and articulate it so well, that they say
| "I couldn't have said it better myself". Because it is starting
| from that point that can you can know you're not strawmanning or
| misunderstanding each other.
| craigkerstiens wrote:
| Big fan of some of Barbara Minto's stuff. There is a great talk
| on executive communication and applying the Minto method from
| Michael Dearing in the Heavybit library -
| https://www.heavybit.com/library/video/executive-communicati...
| personjerry wrote:
| Isn't the "Minto Pyramid" just this?
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism...
| agumonkey wrote:
| "hedge against unreliability"
|
| funny how this is often the source of inventions
|
| - separation of concerns in document/web creation
|
| - layers/composable/virtual concepts in programming
| nine_k wrote:
| Also, layered security.
| tmaly wrote:
| her book is great, I have the 97 version.
| itsmemattchung wrote:
| Agreed. Amazon is notorious for their written culture. While
| working there, this book was listed as a recommended read for
| anyone interested writing clear, concise prose and I'm so
| glad to have picked up the (97) version of this book
| HellsMaddy wrote:
| I'm seeing a lot of good systems thinking recommendations here,
| and I would add "Thinking in Systems" by Donella H. Meadows.
|
| At the moment, I am particularly interested in finding good books
| and resources on communication. Especially verbal, critical,
| collaborative communication, and receptiveness/openness. Team and
| interpersonal focused stuff. There are so many resources out
| there, but I'd like to hear about what other HN users have found
| useful.
| Pamar wrote:
| Has anyone mentioned TRIZ yet?
|
| --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ
| monroewalker wrote:
| Similar to https://fs.blog/mental-models/
| motohagiography wrote:
| Highly recommend the newsletter as well. What's smart about FS
| and this Untools site is these models are compact ideas you can
| iterate the logic of into some really sophisticated views.
|
| Things like the Ishikawa diagram on Untools are really new
| worldviews. I bought Edward Tufte's data visualization books
| back at the turn of the century, and his objection to
| powerpoint reduced to how the form of a visualization conveys
| an underlying logic of ideas by virtue of the dimensions it
| displays and the number of them that were strictly meaningful
| ("ink to data ratio"). Viz that only displayed one data
| variable but added a bunch of "chartjunk," like effects and
| weird shapes, was not informative but essentially just bizarre
| totalitarian propaganda.
|
| Some of these mental models and decision support tools are
| multi-variate systems for evaluating pretty much anything,
| which makes them almost the basis for alternate ideologies
| about how to evaluate a dynamic or criticize an idea. Sometimes
| I suspect what we think of as genius is really just a privately
| developed ideology based on a few evaluation principles like
| the ones linked on this thread.
| monroewalker wrote:
| Hm, how is the Ishikawa diagram more useful than an outline?
| They seem to capture and structure information very similarly
| kqr wrote:
| It implies a different direction, I suppose. One of
| constructing a whole from parts, rather than decomposing
| the whole into parts.
|
| This can be meaningful in cases where the whole changes as
| part of the construction process. If I wanted to
| deconstruct the things in soap, I would probably not have a
| branch for "lye", because all lye has (thankfully) reacted
| away from the end product. But if I constructed a fishbone
| chart for the same soap, then lye is one of the first
| ingredients I would list.
|
| Sometimes looking at the same thing from a different angle
| helps you realise things you otherwise wouldn't. If you
| find it does not, then an outline is good enough for you!
| darkerside wrote:
| It would be neat to make this a little more interactive. Let
| people post comments about how they've used them successfully,
| and allow star ratings.
| ramoz wrote:
| Wow, such an effective & relevant overview. I'm 30yo, and this is
| first time I've ever subscribed to a website newsletter.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-07 23:03 UTC)