![]() ![]() And the space inside which thinking is done shapes the possibility of the thinking that is done in that space.īecause the surface of a sphere has no centre, and no “right-way up”, any point on a sphere can be moved to the centre. It is not just the map itself that has a centre (mind maps typically have one centre from which the hierarchy spreads out, with concept-maps its not so straight-forwards) but the point is that the space inside which these maps exist has a centre, even if the maps themselves do not. Work done on a “page” inevitably has a middle. (1) The surface of a sphere doesn’t have a centre. How does thortspace enable viewing a subject from different points of view? The structures that we find when we look may include hierarchies, inclusion, collection, association, imbued meaningfulness, connection, relationship, logical consequences, logical argument and so on. So as well as imposing structures on thinking, we are aiming to make it possible to express the structures that we already find in our thinking when we come to look at it. (1) as simple as possible while still being (2) sufficiently nuanced that it can express a large collection of the thinking structures we do in fact find in our thinking when we come to look at it. I think what we’re trying to do with thortspace is provide a visual language that is: That’s why we say about thortspace that it is “ everything from the perspective of everything else”. When we think seriously about a matter, we are looking for perspectives that encompass (include and transcend) all the other perspectives. But are these tools oriented towards causing transformational breakthroughs? There’s no question that such tools are useful. (1) Endpoint-oriented (and mostly single-endpoint at that) (2) Tools for organising information rather than playing with it The mind-mapping and concept-mapping tools that I have seen are: process-oriented - is the journey made to be as important as the destination? (5) Does it support synthesis or analysis or both - building things up, or breaking things down, or both at the same time (1) The degree to which the tool supports looking at a project or problem or study topic from lots of different points of view (2) The degree to which the tool supports experimental reflection and play (contrast with being solely oriented around organising information) (3) The degree to which the tool supports the creation of building blocks of structure that can subsequently be used to build with (4) Static endpoint-oriented vs. Some such dimensions that are important to insightful thinking-in-the-world are: There are a number dimensions on which we can place tools that are designed to help with thinking. Electronic Visualisation and Arts Conference 2018 using Thortspace Mindmap Mistakes relational lines for part-whole structure (i.e.Phil Shepherd presents “Thinking visually” at the British Computer Society Learning and Development Ltd.Misses part whole in a big way (no nesting).Does a good job of escaping mind map lock-in by adding other templates that get you out of the standard mindmap structure (i.e., a centralized-hierarchy-in-multiple-directions-structure).Looks like it has support so will continue to develop.The overall grade would improve if these features rose to the top and obscured the mindmap functionaility. You can do a surprising number of systems mapping functions in Miro, but in order to do so you have to drill down into their templates. It would be far better software if they simply exposed some of this rich functionality. That said, Miro Maps actually "hides" a lot of its non-mindmappy features beneath the sickening mindmap frosting. In short, mindmap architecture is bad for your brain. For more on why mindmaps are the Devil's spawn of systems mapping architectures, see here. ![]() Miro Mind didn't invent mindmaps (that was Tony Buzan) but they do build off of the. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |