straightforward
ambiguous
contributory
negligence
supplement
implement
implemented
jurisdiction
exercise
exercised
[Illusory Democracy]
Israel eludes itself as a democratic state whilst refusing to admit nor acknowledge the ongoing occupation and oppression of Palestinians as a form of settler colonialism.
We refer to the Declaration of Independence in May 14, 1948 where the signatories were all signed by a single community without any representation from other existing communities ie the Muslims and Christian population at that time.
None of the existing communities had a say in the matter nor were they consulted despite having established in the region for centuries. This form of settler colonialism is deeply rooted in the doctrine of ‘terra nulius’ where the whole existence of existing communities were deliberately ignored.
With the illusory belief that the region was not inhabited, Israel establishes itself as a settler colonialism by replacing an existing community with another.
We recognise Israel for what it is, an occupier championing settler colonialism.
[DISPROPORTIONATE SENTENCES ON PALESTINIANS]
We compare the case of Ahmad Manasra who was 13 at the time of the alleged offence with another minor aged 17 who was a direct accomplice in the Duma attack that killed 3 persons, leaving a 4 year old an orphan with serious injuries.
According to The Jerusalem Post dated 18th May 2020 in an article entitled ‘Jewish terrorist gets three life sentences for Duma attack’, the 17 year old was not directly involved in the murder and as a minor, his maximum sentence could be five and a half years in prison, but it could also be as little as community service.
Apart from that this minor received a plea deal where his past crimes were dropped by prosecution. This minor confessed to burning a warehouse in Aqraba, vandalising property, setting a car in Jubb Yusuf on fire, deflating tires in Best Safari other than having his charges removed on setting fire to the Abbey of the Formation in Occupied Jerusalem.
In contrast with Ahmad Manasra where the court does not find any direct link to the stabbings, he was not given any plea deal nor the five years and a half maximum sentence but was imposed a massive 12 years including solitary confinement.
The minor although admitted to participating in planning the Duma attacks was not convicted of conspiracy as there was insufficient evidence to prove a connection to a specific murder conspiracy. There was also insufficient evidence to prove Ahmad Mansara’s direct involvement in the offence of stabbing but he was ultimately convicted of that offence.
This blatant act of selective prosecution shows Israel’s deliberate move in further oppressing Palestinians.
We will not be silent, Ahmad Manasra has his childhood robbed of him on a biased prosecution and legal system. We demand that Ahmad Mansara to be freed as
1) his confession was coerced,
2) as a minor, he is entitled to have the maximum 5 years and a half imposed,
3) there was no direct link that he had committed the act of stabbing
4) the sentence was disproportionate to the alleged offence of stabbing as it does not cause immediate death as the act of arson
[Why not having a Constitution Benefits Israeli Occupation]
Although it has been past 75 years since the Israel’s own Declaration of Indepence stipulates a compulsory action on having a constitution within the same year of establishment 1948, Israel has continuously delayed a most essential document to even guarantee the functioning & continuity of their own government.
This is most beneficial to continue occupation of territories in the West Bank and Gaza as having no constitution means that the territories and borders are not properly annexed and leaves room for oppression by forcibly invading and occupying territories. If Israel were to have a proper and formal constitution, they would have to formally annex territories and borders with certainty. This would be in contrast to their expansion plans of “Greater Israel” and the wider “Heavenly Jerusalem” on whose existence thrives on grey lines.
We compare Constitution of other countries such as India, Canada and South Africa showing annexed territories which provides certainty on territorial jurisdiction, border and sovereignty.
Israel’s continuous stance of not adopting a constitution shows their further interest in continuing their occupation of Palestinian Territories.
[FORCED CONFESSIONS ACCEPTED WITH PALESTINIANS ONLY]
A general rule in law is a forced confession is invalid as it does not amount to the truth. Nonetheless, Israel’s brutal policy of oppression accepts and allows forced confessions unlike their Jewish settler counterparts.
We compare the case of Ahmad Mansara who was 13 at the time of the offence occur where he was sentenced to 12 years of prison including solitary confinement on a forced confession with a 17 year old Jewish terrorist who received a gag order sentenced to 42 months of prison despite causing 3 people burned to death or succumbed to death due to the arson attack he participated in.
This one sided application of law is a blatant violation of the sanctity of law itself in which Israel purports that they are in compliance with. In truth, Israel imposes law arbitrarily with an aim to benefit a single community.
This is already against their own goal to be a ‘democratic state’.
The maps illustrate an island before and after the building of tourist amenities. Overall the island transforms from having no man-made construction to an island that is covered with structures, except on the right-hand side of the island.
The first map shows the island has only one beach on the left-hand side and it is barren except for a few trees scattered around it. The island is about 250 metres long and about 75 metres wide.
The second map illustrates the building of tourist infrastructure on the island. The left of the maps shows a path was constructed to allow tourists to go swimming on the beach. This path is connected to a ring of bungalows. To the right of this path, a road was built with a reception building beside it. The road leads to a restaurant above the reception and a jetty below it that allows boats to dock. On the right side of the island, another ring of huts was constructed connected by a path. The far right remains free from man-made construction.
What Israel has created is a system designed to oppress Palestinians with an aim to pressure the Palestinian community to leave.
Until today, Israel cannot reconcile their state principle as being a “Jewish and democratic” state. Being a democratic state requires equality of rights for all human beings and freedom of speech. How can Israel achieve such when the system is designed for the Jewish settlers to be “supreme” or have priority over democratic principles.
On top having numerous grey lines in law due to not having a formal constitution, there are numerous laws and policies that are systematically created to oppress Palestinians. For example, Palestinians that converted to Judaism are denied their right to citizenship due to their racial origins. Does this not clash with Israel’s principle of Law of Return or their own policy where Israel is a safe haven for all Jews regardless of their race or origin?
It is a clear and systematic oppression against Palestinians in sum.
Since the Declaration of Independence in May 1948, Israel has yet to have an essential formal document, a constitution.
Although the Declaration states that a constitution shall be adopted by October 1948, Israel has failed to enact so for more than 7 decades. This premise has caused numerous ambiguity and grey lines in law which acts as an essential ingredient to enact control on Occupied Territories such as the West Bank.
Not only does this result in a constitutional crisis for Israelis, it is most detrimental for Palestinians as there is no certainty at law of their rights. Israel maintains that they do not have jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories thus civil law is inapplicable. This legal vacuum becomes a gateway for discriminatory policies and laws to be in continuity for the Palestinians.
Israel refers to the Balfour declaration as an essential piece in the creation of the State. Nonetheless, there is a clear stipulation that the existing communities ie Palestinians (Muslim, Christians or others) should not be deprived of their right to livelihood - both their civil and religious rights ie economic, education, construction , etc. This is a clear breach of the declaration which allows the creation of state with a precondition that the existing communities must not be prejudiced. Therefore, there was no justification nor right to displace Palestinians from their homes nor a deliberate monopoly on their livelihood.
The figure illustrates the different steps used to manufacture beer. Overall, there are eleven stages in the process, beginning with the milling of malted barley and ending with packaging the beer.
Looking at the pre-fermentation stages of the process, we can see that in order to get liquid from malted barley, it has to be milled, mashed with water and lautered in special tanks. In order to get a pure liquid, the spent grain is taken out and used for the feeding of animals. Then, the liquid has to be boiled with sugar and hops and mixed in a whirlpool before cooling.
In the next stages, the cooled liquid is fermented by adding yeast and during the process carbon dioxide is extracted. Then, it goes to storage tanks, in order to be matured. In the second to last stage, the matured beer is transferred to a filter for filtering. Finally, the beer is packed in bottles or barrels or put on trucks for delivery.
Home demolishment is a disgusting type of punishment which Israel authorities claims to act as a ‘deterrent’ and is not a form of collective punishment.
Nonetheless, this punishment is only enforced on Palestinians' homes regardless of whether the sentenced is a child, arguing that it is imposed on ‘terrorists’.
When the family of Abu Khdeir applied to the Court to have the killer’s house demolished, it was rejected with the reasoning that the occurrence of ‘Jewish terror’ is a rarity than of Palestinian terrorist. We strongly disagree as there are numerous crimes done by settlers such as the hideous act of settler violence are not recognised as Jewish terror or ‘terrorism’.
It is alarming to see the speedy attachment of labels on one group based on race while the other does not face the same treatment. This is in contrast with the numerous claims of Israel being a democratic state that provides equality for all humans - citizens and non citizens alike.
The words, ‘humans in Israel’ shows that this right extends to both citizens and non-citizens regardless of their race or background. We strongly condemn the inhumane and humiliating checkpoints in which Palestinians and the Arab minority have to face daily, this is strongly in contrast with the Israeli Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter of equal rights especially on racial segregation
The monumental landmark decision by the Israeli Supreme Court in Ka’dan v Land Administration of Israel echoes on equality of rights on all - including the Arab minority. Nonetheless, what we are seeing are otherwise ie armed settler violence, segregation, displacement to name a few. This account seeks to highlight the legal issues regarding Palestine and Arab minority rights that is deeply affected by settler colonialism and racial discrimination
how old are you
what weight are you
what hight are you
I don’t realize it
sorry to say
wish you all the best
It's not what it is look like
what does it feel like
back to it's native
it's easier than done
let's end it today
what is this for?
who are you with ?
that's how it is
for no reason
what a shame
I'm getting ready for
what's wrong with you people
I would think that
can you help me ?
can you do me a favor ?
can you give me a hand ?
a man power
what's he like ?
down the road
at the end of the road
I'm getting ready for
I've got bad feeling
fill me in
at a moment, for a while
I have a confession to make
I would like to have you over for dinner
drive sale
be assure
I didn't know that
any word
I slip my mind
what I look like
out loud
what it means
the time is just not right
how long does it take
why don't you
Suppose that
such a mess
take out the trash
on my way home
we need to get done
turn out
I'll be right there/down/up
am I audible
I go with Adenle
from 2000 onwards
like I used to (be)
you name it
how can i get to know them
put it off
as busy as before
I'll work on that
for no reason
your tendency
an endless loop
what are you after ?
not the other way
cross out
put on, put down
put your cloth on
what you spend money on
why wouldn't I be?
what did you do after ?
that's all I know
don’t be hard to yourself.
Muteki no egao de arasu media
Shiritai sono himitsu misuteriasu
Nuketeru toko sae kanojo no eria
Kanpeki de usotsuki na kimi wa
Tensai teki na aidoru sama
(You're my savior, you're my saving grace)
Kyou nani tabeta?
Suki na hon wa?
Asobi ni iku nara doko ni iku no?
Nanimo tabetenai
Sore wa naisho
Nani wo kikaretemo
Norari kurari
Sou tantan to
Dakedo sansan to
Miesou de mienai himitsu wa mitsu no aji
Are mo nai nai nai
Kore mo nai nai nai
Suki na taipu wa?
Aite wa?
Saa kotaete
"Dareka wo suki ni naru koto nante
Watashi wakaranakute sa"
Uso ka hontou ka shirienai
Sonna kotoba ni mata hitori ochiru
Mata suki ni saseru
Daremo ga me wo ubawareteku
Kimi wa kanpeki de kyuukyoku no aidoru
Konrinzai arawarenai
Ichibanboshi no umarekawari
Sono egao de aishiteru de
Daremo kare mo toriko ni shite iku
Sono hitomi ga sono kotoba ga uso demo
Sore wa kanzen na ai
[Full Version Continues]
[thanks for visiting animesonglyrics.com]
Hai hai ano ko wa tokubetsu desu
Wareware wa hana kara omakedesu
Ohoshi sama no hikitateyaku B desu
Subete ga ano ko no okagena wakenai
Sharakusai
Netami shitto nante nai wake ga nai
Kore wa netta janai
Karakoso yurusenai
Kanpeki janai kimi ja yurusenai
Jibun wo yurusenai
Dare yori mo tsuyoi kimi igai wa mitomenai
Daremo ga shinji agameteru
Masani saikyou de muteki no aidoru
Jakuten nante miataranai
Ichibanboshi wo yadoshiteru
Yowai to konna tte misecha dame dame
Shiritakunai toko wa misezu ni
Yuiitsumu ni janakucha iya iya
Sorekoso honmono no ai
Tokui no egao de wakasu media
Kakushikiru kono himitsu dake wa
Aishiteru tte uso de tsumukyaria
Korekoso watashi nari no aida
Nagareru ase mo kirei na akua
Rubii wo kakushita kono mabuta
Utai odori mau watashi wa Maria
Sou uso wa tobikiri no ai da
Dareka ni aisareta koto mo
Dareka no koto aishita koto mo nai
Sonna watashi no uso ga itsuka hontou ni naru koto
Shinjiteru
Itsuka kitto zenbu te ni ireru
Watashi wa sou yokubarina aidoru
Toushindai de minna no koto
Chanto aishitai kara
Kyou mo uso wo tsuku no
Kono kotoba ga itsuka hontou ni naru hi wo negatte
Sore demo mada
Kimi to kimi ni dake wa iezu ni itakedo
Ah, Yatto ieta
Kore wa zettai uso janai
Aishiteru
(You're my savior, my true savior, my saving grace)
interchangeableness
pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism
hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia
excommunication
ultrasonography
ethylenediaminetetraacetic
ape /ape/ v. imitate or mimic. He was suspended for a week because he had aped the principal in front of the whole school.
apex /ay-peks/ n. summit; climax. He was at the apex of his career: he had climbed to the top of the heap.
aphorism /a-fr-i-zm/ n. a concise statement of a scientific principle. An aphorism differs from an adage in that it is more philosophical or scientific. "The proper study of mankind is man" is an aphorism. "There's no smoke without a fire" is an adage.
aplomb /uh-plaam/ n. poise; assurance. Gwen's aplomb in handling potentially embarrassing moments was legendary around the office; when one of her clients broke a piece of her best crystal, she coolly picked up her own golet and hurled it into the fireplace.
apocryphal /uh-paa-kruh-ful/ adj. untrue; made up. To impress his friends, Tom invented apocryphal tales of his adventures in the big city.
apolitical /ay-puh-li-ti-kl/ adj. having an aversion or lack of concern for political affairs. It was hard to remain apolitical during the Vietnam War; even people who generally ignored public issues felt they had to take political stands.
apostate /uh-paa-stayt/ n. one who abandons his religious faith or political beliefs. Because he switched from one part to another, his former friends shunned him as an apostate.
appall /uh-paal/ v. dismay; shock. We were appalled by the horrifying conditions of the city's jails.
apparition /a-puh-ri-shn/ n. ghost; phantom. On the castle battlements, an apparition materialized and spoke to Hamlet, warning him of his uncle's treachery.
appellation /a-puh-lay-shn/ n. name; title. Macbeth was startled when the witches greeted him with an incorrect appellation.
Principle #1: Writing is not the outcome of thinking; it is the medium in which thinking takes place
Writing doesn’t begin when we sit down to put one paragraph after another on the screen or page. It begins much, much earlier, as we take notes on the articles or books we read, the podcasts or audiobooks we listen to, and the interesting conversations and life experiences we have.
These notes build up as a byproduct of the reading we’re already doing anyway. Even if you don’t aim to develop a grand theory, you need a way to organize your thoughts and keep track of the information you consume.
If you want to learn and remember something long-term, you have to write it down. If you want to understand an idea, you have to translate it into your own words. If we have to do this writing anyway, why not use it to build up resources for future publications?
Writing is not only for proclaiming fully formed opinions, but for developing opinions worth sharing in the first place.
Writing works well in improving one’s thinking because it forces you to engage with what you’re reading on a deeper level. Just because you read more doesn’t automatically mean you have more or better ideas. It’s Iike learning to swim – you have to learn by doing it, not by merely reading about it.
The challenge of writing as well as learning is therefore not so much to learn, but to understand, as you will already have learned what you understand. When you truly understand something, it is anchored to a latticework of related ideas and meanings, which makes it far easier to remember.
For example, you could memorize the fact that arteries are red and veins are blue. But it is only when you understand why – that arteries carry oxygen-rich blood from the heart to the rest of the body, while veins carry blood low in oxygen back to the heart – that that fact has any value. And once we make this meaningful connection between ideas, it’s hard not to remember it.
The problem is that the meaning of something is not always obvious. It requires elaboration – we need to copy, translate, re-write, compare, contrast, and describe a new idea in our own terms. We have to view the idea from multiple perspectives and answer questions such as “How does this fact fit with others I already know?” and “How can this phenomenon be explained by that theory?” or “How does this argument compare to that one?”
Completing these tasks is exceedingly difficult inside the confines of our heads. We need an external medium in which to perform this elaboration, and writing is the most effective and convenient one ever invented.
Principle #2: Do your work as if writing is the only thing that matters
The second principle extends the previous one even further: Do you work as if writing is the only thing that matters.
In academia and science, virtually all research is aimed at eventual publication Ahrens notes that “there is no such thing as private knowledge in academia. An idea kept private is as good as one you never had.”
The purpose of research is to produce public knowledge that can be scrutinized and tested. For that to happen, it has to be written down. And once it is, what the author meant doesn’t matter – only the actual words written on the page matter.
This principle requires us to expand our definition of “publication” beyond the usual narrow sense. Few people will ever publish their work in an academic journal or even on a blog. But everything that we write down and share with someone else counts: notes we share with a friend, homework we submit to a professor, emails we write to our colleagues, and presentations we deliver to clients all count as knowledge made public.
This might still seem like a radical principle. Should we publicize even the ideas we’ve only just encountered, or opinions half-formed, or wild theories we can’t substantiate? Do we really need even more people broadcasting half-baked opinions and theories online?
But the important part is the principle: Work as if writing is the only thing that matters. Having a clear, tangible purpose when you consume information completely changes the way you engage with it. You’ll be more focused, more curious, more rigorous, and more demanding. You won’t waste time writing down every detail, trying to make a perfect record of everything that was said. Instead, you’ll try to learn the basics as efficiently as possible so you can get to the point where open questions arise, as these are the only questions worth writing about.
Almost every aspect of your life will change when you live as if you are working toward publication. You’ll read differently, becoming more focused on the parts most relevant to the argument you’re building. You’ll ask sharper questions, no longer satisfied with vague explanations or leaps in logic. You’ll naturally seek venues to present your work, since the feedback you receive will propel your thinking forward like nothing else. You’ll begin to act more deliberately, thinking several steps beyond what you’re reading to consider its implications and potential.
Deliberate practice is the best way to get better at anything, and in this case, you are deliberately practicing the most fundamental skill of all: thinking. Even if you never actually publish one line of writing, you will vastly improve every aspect of your thinking when you do everything as if nothing counts except writing.
Principle #3: Nobody ever starts from scratch
One of the most damaging myths about creativity is that it starts from nothing. The blank page, the white canvas, the empty dance floor: Our most romantic and universal artistic motifs seem to suggest that “starting from scratch” is the essence of creativity.
This belief is reinforced by how writing is typically taught: We are told to “pick a topic” as a necessary first step, then to conduct research, discuss and analyze it, and finally come to a conclusion.
But how can you decide on an interesting topic before you’ve read about it? You have to immerse yourself in research before you even know how to formulate a good question. And the decision to read about one subject versus another also doesn’t appear out of thin air. It usually comes from an existing interest or understanding. The truth is every intellectual endeavor starts with a preceding conception.
This is the tension at the heart of the creative process: You have to research before you pick what you will write about. Ideally, you should start researching long before, so you have weeks and months and even years of rich material to work with as soon as you decide on a topic. This is why an external system to record your research is so critical. It doesn’t just enhance your writing process; it makes it possible.
And all this pre-research also involves writing. We build up an ever-growing pool of externalized thoughts as we read. When the time comes to produce, we aren’t following a blindly invented plan plucked from our unreliable brains. We look in our notes and follow our interests, curiosity, and intuition, which are informed by the actual work of reading, thinking, discussing, and taking notes. We never again have to face that blank screen with the impossible demand of “thinking of something to write about.”
No one ever really starts from scratch. Anything they come up with has to come from prior experience, research, or other understanding. But because they haven’t acted on this fact, they can’t track ideas back to their origins. They have neither supporting material nor accurate sources. Since they haven’t been taking notes from the start, they either have to start with something completely new (which is risky) or retrace their steps (which is boring).
It’s no wonder that nearly every guide to writing begins with “brainstorming.” If you don’t have notes, you have no other option. But this is a bit like a financial advisor telling a 65-year-old to start saving for retirement – too little, too late.
Taking notes allows you to break free from the traditional, linear path of writing. It allows you to systematically extract information from linear sources, mix and shake them up together until new patterns emerge, and then turn them back into linear texts for others to consume.
You’ll know you’ve succeeded in making this shift when the problem of not having enough to write about is replaced by the problem of having far too much to write about. When you finally arrive at the decision of what to write about, you’ll already have made that decision again and again at every single step along the way.
Principle #4: Our tools and techniques are only as valuable as the workflow
Just because writing is not a linear process doesn’t mean we should go about it haphazardly. We need a workflow – a repeatable process for collecting, organizing, and sharing ideas.
Writing is often taught as a collection of “tips and tricks” – brainstorm ideas, make an outline, use a three-paragraph structure, repeat the main points, use vivid examples, set a timer. Each one in isolation might make sense, but without the holistic perspective of how they fit together, they add more work than they save. Every additional technique becomes its own project without bringing the whole much further forward. Before long, the whole mess of techniques falls apart under its own weight.
It is only when all the work becomes part of an integrated process that it becomes more than the sum of its parts. Even the best techniques won’t make a difference if they are used in conflicting ways. This is why the slip-box isn’t yet another technique. It is the system in which all the techniques are linked together.
Good systems don’t add options and features; they strip away complexity and distractions from the main work, which is thinking. An undistracted brain and a reliable collection of notes is pretty much all we need. Everything else is just clutter.
Principle #5: Standardization enables creativity
Ahrens uses the excellent analogy of how the invention of shipping containers revolutionized international trade to demonstrate the role of note-taking in modern writing
Container shipping is a simple idea: ship products in standardized containers instead of loading them onto ships haphazardly as had always been done. But it took multiple failed attempts before it was successful, because it wasn’t actually about the container, which after all is just a box.
The potential of the shipping container was only unleashed when every other part of the shipping supply chain was changed to accommodate it. From manufacturing to packaging to final delivery, the design of ships, cranes, trucks, and harbors all had to align around moving containers as quickly and efficiently as possible. Once they did, international shipping exploded, setting the stage for Asia to become an economic power among many other historic changes.
Many people still take notes, if at all, in an ad-hoc, random way. If they see a nice sentence, they underline it. If they want to make a comment, they write it in the margins. If they have a good idea, they write it in whichever notebook is close at hand. And if an article seems important enough, they might make the effort to save an excerpt. This leaves them with many different kinds of notes in many different places and formats. This means when it comes time to write, they first have to undertake a massive project to collect and organize all these scattered notes.
Notes are like shipping containers for ideas. Instead of inventing a new way to take notes for every source you read, use a completely standardized and predictable format every time. It doesn’t matter what the notes contain, which topic they relate to, or what medium they arrived through – you treat each and every note exactly the same way.
It is this standardization of notes that enables a critical mass to build up in one place. Without a standard format, the larger the collection grows, the more time and energy have to be spent navigating the ever-growing inconsistencies between them. A common format removes unnecessary complexity and takes the second-guessing out of the process. Like LEGOs, standardized notes can easily be shuffled around and assembled into endless configurations without losing sight of what they contain.
The same principle applies to the steps of processing our notes. Consider that no single step in the process of turning raw ideas into finished pieces of writing is particularly difficult. It isn’t very hard to write down notes in the first place. Nor is turning a group of notes into an outline very demanding. It also isn’t much of a challenge to turn a working outline full of relevant arguments into a rough draft. And polishing a well-conceived rough draft into a final draft is trivial.
So if each individual step is so easy, why do we find the overall experience of writing so grueling? Because we try to do all the steps at once. Each of the activities that make up “writing” – reading, reflecting, having ideas, making connections, distinguishing terms, finding the right words, structuring, organizing, editing, correcting, and rewriting – require a very different kind of attention.
Proofreading requires very focused, detail-oriented attention, while choosing which words to put down in the first place might require a more open, free-floating attention. When looking for interesting connections between notes, we often need to be in a playful, curious state of mind, whereas when putting them in logical order, our state of mind probably needs to be more serious and precise.
The slip-box is the host of the process outlined above. It provides a place where distinct batches of work can be created, worked on, and saved permanently until the next time we are ready to deploy that particular kind of attention. It deliberately puts distance between ourselves and what we’ve written, which is essential for evaluating it objectively. It is far easier to switch between the role of creator and critic when there is a clear separation between them, and you don’t have to do both at the same time.
By standardizing and streamlining both the format of our notes and the steps by which we process them, the real work can come to the forefront: thinking, reflecting, writing, discussing, testing, and sharing. This is the work that adds value, and now we have the time to do it more effectively.
Principle #6: Our work only gets better when exposed to high-quality feedback
A workflow is similar to a chemical reaction: It can feed on itself, becoming a virtuous cycle where the positive experience of understanding a text motivates us to take on the next task, which helps us get better at what we’re doing, which in return makes it more likely for us to enjoy our work, and so on.
Nothing motivates us more than becoming better at what we do. And we can only become better when we intentionally expose our work to high-quality feedback.
There are many forms of feedback, both internal and external – from peers, from teachers, from social media, and from rereading our own writing. But notes are the only kind of feedback that is available anytime you need it. It is the only way to deliberately practice your thinking and communication skills multiple times per day.
It is easy to think we understand a concept until we try to put it in our own words. Each time we try, we practice the core skill of insight: distinguishing the bits that truly matter from those that don’t. The better we become at it, the more efficient and enjoyable our reading becomes.
Feedback also helps us adjust our expectations and predictions about how much we can get done in an hour or a day. Instead of sitting down to the amorphous task of “writing,” we dedicate each working session to concrete tasks that can be finished in a reasonable timeframe: Write three notes, review two paragraphs, check five sources for an essay, etc. At the end of the day, we know exactly how much we accomplished (or didn’t accomplish) and can adjust our future expectations accordingly.
Principle #7: Work on multiple, simultaneous projects
It is only when you have multiple, simultaneous projects and interests that the full potential of an external thinking system is realized.
Think of the last time you read a book. Perhaps you read it for a certain purpose – to gain some familiarity with a topic you’re interested in or find insights for a project you’re working on. What are the chances that the book contains only the precise insights you were looking for, and no others? Extremely low it would seem. We encounter a constant stream of new ideas, but only a tiny fraction of them will be useful and relevant to us at any given moment.
Since the only way to find out which insights a book contains is to read it, you might as well read and take notes productively. Spending a little extra time to record the best ideas you encounter – whether or not you know how they will ultimately be used – vastly increases the chances that you will “stumble upon” them in the future.
The ability to increase the chances of such future accidental encounters is a powerful one, because the best ideas are usually ones we haven’t anticipated. The most interesting topics are the ones we didn’t plan on learning about. But we can anticipate that fact and set our future selves up for a high probability of productive “accidents.”
Principle #8: Organize your notes by context, not by topic
Now that you’ve been collecting notes on your reading, how should you organize them?
The classic mistake is to organize them into ever more specific topics and subtopics. This makes it look less complex, but quickly becomes overwhelming. The more notes pile up, the smaller and narrower the subtopics become, limiting your ability to see meaningful connections between them. With this approach, the greater one’s collection of notes, the less accessible and useful they become.
Instead of organizing by topic and subtopic, it is much more effective to organize by context. Specifically, the context in which it will be used. The primary question when deciding where to put something becomes “In which context will I want to stumble upon this again?”
In other words, instead of filing things away according to where they came from, you file them according to where they’re going. This is the essential difference between organizing like a librarian and organizing like a writer.
A librarian asks “Where should I store this note?” Their goal is to maintain a taxonomy of knowledge that is accessible to everyone, which means they have to use only the most obvious categories. They might file notes on a psychology paper under “misjudgments,” “experimental psychology,” or “experiments.”
That works fine for a library, but not for a writer. No pile of notes filed uniformly under “psychology” will be easy to turn into a paper. There is no variation or disagreement from which an interesting argument could arise.
A writer asks “In which circumstances will I want to stumble upon this note?” They will file it under a paper they are writing, a conference they are speaking at, or an ongoing collaboration with a colleague. These are concrete, near-term deliverables and not abstract categories.
Organizing by context does take a little bit of thought. The answer isn’t always immediately obvious. A book about personal finance might interest me for completely different reasons if I am a politician working on a campaign speech, a financial advisor trying to help a client, or an economist developing monetary policy. If I encounter a novel engineering method, it may be useful for completely different reasons depending on whether I am working on an engineering textbook, a skyscraper, or a rocket booster.
Writers don’t think about a single, “correct” location for a piece of information. They deal in “scraps” which can often be repurposed and reused elsewhere. The discarded byproducts from one piece of writing may become the essential pillars of the next one. The slip-box is a thinking tool, not an encyclopedia, so completeness is not important. The only gaps we do need to be concerned about are the gaps in the final manuscript we are working toward.
By saving all the byproducts of our writing, we collect all the future material we might need in one place. This approach sets up your future self with everything they need to work as decisively and efficiently as possible. They won’t need to trawl through folder after folder looking for all the sources they need. You’ll already have done that work for them.
Want to dive deeper into Sönke’s ideas on notetaking?
Get access to my interview with him and discover what the author of How to Take Smart Notes thinks about…
• The importance of building an external brain
• Selecting the right notetaking app for you
• How to get started with a notetaking system and what pitfalls to avoid
• How to go from merely collecting notes to using them and making connections between your ideas
Your email address
Send Me the Interview
Principle #9: Always follow the most interesting path
Ahrens notes that in most cases, students fail not because of a lack of ability, but because they lose a personal connection to what they are learning:
“When even highly intelligent students fail in their studies, it’s most often because they cease to see the meaning in what they were supposed to learn (cf. Balduf 2009), are unable to make a connection to their personal goals (Glynn et al. 2009) or lack the ability to control their own studies autonomously and on their own terms (Reeve and Jan 2006; Reeve 2009).”
This is why we must spend as much time as possible working on things we find interesting. It is not an indulgence. It is an essential part of making our work sustainable and thus successful.
This advice runs counter to the typical approach to planning we are taught. We are told to “make a plan” upfront and in detail. Success is then measured by how closely we stick to this plan. Our changing interests and motivations are to be ignored or suppressed if they interfere with the plan.
The history of science is full of stories of accidental discoveries. Ahrens gives the example of the team that discovered the structure of DNA. It started with a grant, but not a grant to study DNA. They were awarded funds to find a treatment for cancer. As they worked, the team followed their intuition and interest, developing the actual research program along the way (Rheinberger 1997). If they had stuck religiously to their original plan, they probably wouldn’t have discovered a cure for cancer and certainly wouldn’t have discovered the structure of DNA.
Plans are meant to help us feel in control. But it is much more important to actually be in control, which means being able to steer our work towards what we consider interesting and relevant. According to a 2006 study by psychology professor Arlen Moller, “When people experienced a sense of autonomy with regard to the choice [of what to work on], their energy for subsequent tasks was not diminished” (Moller 2006, 1034). In other words, when we have a choice about what to work on and when, it doesn’t take as much willpower to do it.
Our sense of motivation depends on making consistent forward progress. But in creative work, questions change and new directions emerge. That is the nature of insight. So we don’t want to work according to a rigid workflow that is threatened by the unexpected. We need to be able to make small, constant adjustments to keep our interest, motivation, and work aligned.
By breaking down the work of writing into discrete steps, getting quick feedback on each one, and always following the path that promises the most insight, unexpected insights can become the driving force of our work.
Luhmann never forced himself to do anything and only did what came easily to him: “When I am stuck for one moment, I leave it and do something else.” As in martial arts, if you encounter resistance or an opposing force, you should not push against it but instead redirect it towards another productive goal.
Principle #10: Save contradictory ideas
Working with a slip-box naturally leads us to save ideas that are contradictory or paradoxical.
It’s much easier to develop an argument from a lively discussion of pros and cons rather than a litany of one-sided arguments and perfectly fitting quotes.
Our only criterion for what to save is whether it connects to existing ideas and adds to the discussion. When we focus on open connections, disconfirming or contradictory data suddenly becomes very valuable. It often raises new questions and opens new paths of inquiry. The experience of having one piece of data completely change your perspective can be exhilarating.
The real enemy of independent thinking is not any external authority, but our own inertia. We need to find ways to counteract confirmation bias – our tendency to take into account only information that confirms what we already believe. We need to regularly confront our errors, mistakes, and misunderstandings.
By taking notes on a wide variety of sources and in objective formats that exist outside our heads, we practice the skill of seeing what is really there and describing it plainfully and factually. By saving ideas that aren’t compatible with each other and don’t necessarily support what we already think, we train ourselves to develop subtle theories over time instead of immediately jumping to conclusions.
By playing with a concept, stretching and reconceiving and remixing it, we become less attached to how it was originally presented. We can extract certain aspects or details for our own uses. With so many ideas at our disposal, we are no longer threatened by the possibility that a new idea will undermine existing ones.
Don’t just feel smarter. Become smarter.
Working with a slip-box can be disheartening, because you are constantly faced with the gaps in your understanding. But at the same time, it increases the chances that you will actually move the work forward.
Our choice then is whether we want to feel smarter or become smarter.
Students in most educational institutions are not encouraged to independently build a network of connections between different kinds of information. They aren’t taught how to organize the very best and most relevant knowledge they encounter in a long-term way across many topics. Most tragically of all, they aren’t taught to follow their interests and take the most promising path in their research.
Ultimately, learning should not be about hoarding stockpiles of knowledge like gold coins. It is about becoming a different kind of person with a different way of thinking. The beauty of this approach is that we co-evolve with our slip-boxes: We build the same connections in our heads as we deliberately develop them in our slip-box. Writing then is best seen not only as a tool for thinking but as a tool for personal growth.
From a scientific point of view, T3 can provide the community with negative impacts that are related to the reality that the demerits of N6 are remarkable. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university described the role of N7. Hence, predicted outcomes of N8 are noticeable.
Recently, the phenomenon of T and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that matters of N are highly beneficial, such an issue is regarded as both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I highly believe that N can be a plus and I will investigate that in this essay.
