It’s so much more efficient and intuitive to see the thread and jump straight where I need to go.
#Best 2nd brain app series#
That map critically reduces friction for people like me who are building a long-term easily navigable resource, in a way that traditional links that can only be observed linearly from within a note (even if it’s an efficient series of MOCs) can’t quite do. There are so many nuanced interpretations of words and concepts in my research field. I work with psychological concepts as a researcher. The graph and ease of linking is precisely what drew me to it. Later some people take that concept and say, "well, Allen idea is nice, but is al little messy to have info scattered in multiple places, what happen if we use the new technology to put ALL info in one place?" (Evernote, Obsidian, whatever) And that's is what was called the "2d Brain", cuz contains ALL your info in one place, and if your not backup it regularly your f***d, lmao. Allen propose the idea that the human brain is not for "remember things" but for "create" (concepts, ideas, etc,), so he say: "jot down EVERYTHING, don't use your brain to remember things that you can delegate to a calendar or a simple list". I first come by the term on David Allen's GTD. You can say "well, a simple contact list is a 2d brain?" Well, kinda, but is mostly refered to a place when you have ALL your information, I mean ALL. So, is just an analogy, in the same way on what we say "the human brain is like a computer" (is not, but is a good analogy)Įdit 2: I'm dumb, also: the 2d Brain term is mostly refered to a specific place when you can have information stored so you not need to remember it. This more " horizontal" and ATOMIC (!) framework of organization was analog for some people to a " neural" relationship.
#Best 2nd brain app software#
There are plenty of software where you can do this but Obsidian (IMO) excels on it.Įdit: cr4p, I forgot about the 2d brain thing. So you have a more linked "horizontal" and relational approach to the information rather than a structural cascade. But Obsidian (not the only one that allows it, and not a new idea per se) focus on making relationship between documents by keywords, Ids or content snippets (you still can have also a tree structure but is not his forte (pun intended). The "normal" or "common" way to do it is on a tree structure: this doc is archived on the X category inside on the Y subcategory. I think is related to the way on what you can organize the different files/docs. Oh, and the "second brain" is the first thing you are greeted with when you visit the Obsidian website.
And some unique features such as the link preview as well as the graph view also help organize thoughts. I gather that other markdown editors do have the same basic features, it's just that with Obsidian the note linking is more ingrained and intuitive. Is it because of the network graph? This is surely quite unique but it can't be the only reason people use Obsidian. Is it because of the references to other files and headings and table of contents? Many if not most editors support such references, it's essentially part of markdown. And I still don't understand how is it better at organizing notes than other (markdown) editors. Over the years I have used Vim, Emacs (org-mode), Zim, Typora and other markdown editors. I have come across notions that Obsidian is not a text or document editor but rather a "second brain", "knowledge management system" and has better organizational features than other editors.
0 kommentar(er)
