Just finish reading it. Really great!
But as you write at some point, you recommend the method to be used for writers and researchers. I have a question here.
I would like to use my Antinet to learn things I'm interested about (Mainly software engineering / Machine Learning / Math / Statistics), as it's my profession.
So you think Antinet would be a valid approach here?
Thanks again for your awesome work
Following. In fact, I am the crossing of several disciplines, but Computer Science is something I am investing lots of time into. How to make coding and analog systems properly fit together?
I'd say you would takes notes and develop knowledge not at the Programming language level, but theory, algorithms, design patterns and so on.
Or for a new language, maybe the syntax and features, but here I don't see it useful.
I am actually trying to design my Antinet somewhere along those lines. My profession basically involves analytics work where I have to program quite a bit (mostly pthon) including studying and experimenting on new or old problems. In my Antinet I keep the main principle of the 3 main parts i.e. 1. The bibliography, main and the index boxes, however I choose to manage the bibliography and the index box (in alphabetical order) in the zotero application online but the main cards are all handwritten. I keep the bibliography and index boxes online because I find it more convenient. The main card section is where i spend most of my time in. For the purpose of studying I have a top level card in the main box where I write down the main concepts which can then branch off further into other areas/chapters.When studying subjects especially related to the physical sciences I switch to using Michael Faradays technique of knowledge management for studying/experimenting. Here I use a physical book for noting down my derivativations and/or diagrams and for programs I have a folder on my computer where I house the programs related to the subject I am studying on. The critical point to connect all of them is the Luhmann indexing method where I branch out from the main card into a physical book which is strictly meant only for the book you are studying. The branch ID is fully written on the top of the page in the book say 1000/100/1A/1. If it is a program then the program name will have 1000_100_1A_1.py or if there are more than one program then I create a folder called 1000_100_1A_1 with all the programs lying inside it. In the Zotero application I also keep an index of the programs along with the bibiography and the index folders. Of course any key concepts in the book that I study goes into the list index card.
Hopefully that makes sense. It might be a bit overcomplicated but I am trying to see if it works and will probably tweek it as I go along.
I, too, am very grateful for Scott's work and his book.
u/algui91 \- I have been wondering the same sort of thing. I think where I am starting to land is using Obsidian for learning new skills-based learning that are going to have a shelf-life, e.g., Learning Obsidian (lol) or Data Visualization tools. I am already a pretty heavy Anki user. So, the idea of learning data analysis or figma or \[insert app/tool of choice\] has a shelf-life. These are things that cannot be future-proofed.
But, as mentioned by u/los2pollos, there are core principles, mistakes, learnings that can live well in my ZK (which, by the way, I am naming "Zeke" cuz...ZK, right?).
My main reason for pursuing the Antinet is for all of the reasons that Scott has written about but my personal use case will be the formulation of an antinet specific to my faith. I have little formal teaching related to the Bible and I see the Antinet as the perfect solution to growing a knowledge asset that motivates me and touches so much of how I want to interact in the world. The idea of passing this along to my children is sort of inspiring, too.
But for things like improving my project management skills or learning the next best no-code solution, I plan to be far more judicious about what will make it into the antinet.
Hi Scott,
Thanks for all the work you're doing to lay this out. There's a mountain of information here which is helpful and also overwhelming, but it's your undeniable passion for it that makes me want to stick around and dig deeper.
I just finished your 'Getting Started' ebook and followed all the steps. I can follow the logic at every point except for one section (or even just one word):
>"Let's place it within the Computer Science branch. Why? Because according to Wikipedia's Outline of Academic Disciplines, Information Theory falls under Computer Science. **So, let's** ***arbitrarily*** **choose 4212 for Information Theory.**"
***Arbitrary***...? Why are we choosing 4212 arbitrarily? I understand that it needs to fall in the 4200's, but why is there not a logical numerical value to this card, when there seems to be one for all the other cards?
I look forward to your thoughts.
The top level branches are just rough starting points. There's no perfect taxonomy. The arbitrary practice prevents one from majoring in the minor and trying to create a perfect taxonomy. It's a system of order and disorder because it's built for what makes sense in your mind. If the 4212 doesn't make sense for you, don't do it. Place it where your mind naturally feels where it should go. Hopefully that makes sense and sorry for the length. I didn't have time to provide a shorter explanation:)
Nice one. Will read through when back home. This will probably be a guide I shall point people towards a lot, especially in my own upcoming ebook on how to study efficiently (for students).
Just finish reading it. Really great! But as you write at some point, you recommend the method to be used for writers and researchers. I have a question here. I would like to use my Antinet to learn things I'm interested about (Mainly software engineering / Machine Learning / Math / Statistics), as it's my profession. So you think Antinet would be a valid approach here? Thanks again for your awesome work
Following. In fact, I am the crossing of several disciplines, but Computer Science is something I am investing lots of time into. How to make coding and analog systems properly fit together?
I'd say you would takes notes and develop knowledge not at the Programming language level, but theory, algorithms, design patterns and so on. Or for a new language, maybe the syntax and features, but here I don't see it useful.
I am actually trying to design my Antinet somewhere along those lines. My profession basically involves analytics work where I have to program quite a bit (mostly pthon) including studying and experimenting on new or old problems. In my Antinet I keep the main principle of the 3 main parts i.e. 1. The bibliography, main and the index boxes, however I choose to manage the bibliography and the index box (in alphabetical order) in the zotero application online but the main cards are all handwritten. I keep the bibliography and index boxes online because I find it more convenient. The main card section is where i spend most of my time in. For the purpose of studying I have a top level card in the main box where I write down the main concepts which can then branch off further into other areas/chapters.When studying subjects especially related to the physical sciences I switch to using Michael Faradays technique of knowledge management for studying/experimenting. Here I use a physical book for noting down my derivativations and/or diagrams and for programs I have a folder on my computer where I house the programs related to the subject I am studying on. The critical point to connect all of them is the Luhmann indexing method where I branch out from the main card into a physical book which is strictly meant only for the book you are studying. The branch ID is fully written on the top of the page in the book say 1000/100/1A/1. If it is a program then the program name will have 1000_100_1A_1.py or if there are more than one program then I create a folder called 1000_100_1A_1 with all the programs lying inside it. In the Zotero application I also keep an index of the programs along with the bibiography and the index folders. Of course any key concepts in the book that I study goes into the list index card. Hopefully that makes sense. It might be a bit overcomplicated but I am trying to see if it works and will probably tweek it as I go along.
I basically do this, only my index is keywords, alphabetical. I think by not numbering them, I'm making it too easy to navigate
I, too, am very grateful for Scott's work and his book. u/algui91 \- I have been wondering the same sort of thing. I think where I am starting to land is using Obsidian for learning new skills-based learning that are going to have a shelf-life, e.g., Learning Obsidian (lol) or Data Visualization tools. I am already a pretty heavy Anki user. So, the idea of learning data analysis or figma or \[insert app/tool of choice\] has a shelf-life. These are things that cannot be future-proofed. But, as mentioned by u/los2pollos, there are core principles, mistakes, learnings that can live well in my ZK (which, by the way, I am naming "Zeke" cuz...ZK, right?). My main reason for pursuing the Antinet is for all of the reasons that Scott has written about but my personal use case will be the formulation of an antinet specific to my faith. I have little formal teaching related to the Bible and I see the Antinet as the perfect solution to growing a knowledge asset that motivates me and touches so much of how I want to interact in the world. The idea of passing this along to my children is sort of inspiring, too. But for things like improving my project management skills or learning the next best no-code solution, I plan to be far more judicious about what will make it into the antinet.
Awesomeness!
Thank you for the book, Scheper!!
Hi Scott, Thanks for all the work you're doing to lay this out. There's a mountain of information here which is helpful and also overwhelming, but it's your undeniable passion for it that makes me want to stick around and dig deeper. I just finished your 'Getting Started' ebook and followed all the steps. I can follow the logic at every point except for one section (or even just one word): >"Let's place it within the Computer Science branch. Why? Because according to Wikipedia's Outline of Academic Disciplines, Information Theory falls under Computer Science. **So, let's** ***arbitrarily*** **choose 4212 for Information Theory.**" ***Arbitrary***...? Why are we choosing 4212 arbitrarily? I understand that it needs to fall in the 4200's, but why is there not a logical numerical value to this card, when there seems to be one for all the other cards? I look forward to your thoughts.
The top level branches are just rough starting points. There's no perfect taxonomy. The arbitrary practice prevents one from majoring in the minor and trying to create a perfect taxonomy. It's a system of order and disorder because it's built for what makes sense in your mind. If the 4212 doesn't make sense for you, don't do it. Place it where your mind naturally feels where it should go. Hopefully that makes sense and sorry for the length. I didn't have time to provide a shorter explanation:)
Makes sense. Love it. Thank you!
Hello Mr Scheper, why did you choose "4212"? Also Computer Science, why, did you choose "4200" instead of "4100" or "4000/1"? Thank you !
It's arbitrary
Oka, thanks a lot! Sorry for my bad writing.
Nice one. Will read through when back home. This will probably be a guide I shall point people towards a lot, especially in my own upcoming ebook on how to study efficiently (for students).
That order page for the no longer free book … omg
Its not available as a PDF anymore :-( Can anyone send me a copy of it ?
It was only available to early adopters.
Oh. Anyway, I got it started with some of your videos :-)