RSS Feeds
Organise Information By Developing a Scientific Mindset
Posted by Wendy Boswell at 1:00 AM on October 29, 2007
We all have to deal with an incredible amount of information, tasks, projects, etc. every single day. The Thinking Blog suggests an intriguing way to deal with all of this: develop a scientific mindset.
Scientists must shift through tonnes of data in very efficient ways. How do they do it? By first defining a hypothesis and then looking for information that either corroborates or refutes that hypothesis. For example, an untrained person could spend months in "boiling the ocean" and trying to read as much as possible, in a very unstructured way, about how stress affects our brain. A trained scientist would first define specific hypotheses or preliminary assumptions, such as "Stress reduces the brain's ability to generate new neurons" or "We can learn how to manage stress", and look specifically for data that corroborates or refutes those sentences. Which will probably happen faster, and enable him or her to refine the hypotheses further, based on accumulated knowledge, in a virtuous learning cycle.
This didn't seem like it would work really well at first, but the more I read it, the more it made sense—especially if you apply it to a GTD way of life. You're essentially throwing aside the superficial and focusing your energy on prioritised tasks using a series of hypotheses and corroborating data; i.e., "does this session of WoW contribute to my getting those budget projections done?". How do you process and organise your information? Thoughts in the comments.
Tags: mind hacks | productivity | task management
Comments (AU Comments · US Comments)
There are currently no AU comments for this post.
Capone
Posted 2:22 PM 28/10/07
I used to work at a national lab. We mostly fucked off.
Capone
danteGideon
Posted 10:22 AM 29/10/07
I strongly disagree with this characterisation of the scientific mindset. Focussing too strongly on 'core tasks' (which just makes me think of BPR) means you miss out on all the interesting stuff and connections round the sides. What seems superficial now may be life-and-death later, or at least, take you somewhere interesting.
danteGideon
rHughes
Posted 11:15 AM 29/10/07
It seems to me that mere act of stating a hypothesis prejudices the results.
If I state a hypotesis "Bigfoot is actually Jeff Goldblum having a bad hair day", I will focus on Jeff Goldblum, and not even see Harry Connick, Jr. step out with a bushy mane.
The more efficient way to process data is to take in as much data as possible, organize it into categories, and let the raw data determine your conclusions.
Instead of hypothesizing, ask questions. For example, "What is Bigfoot?" Then, when you see the pictures of Harry Connick, Jr. setting off for his power walk through the woods, you will have your answer.
rHughes
mgantner
Posted 11:59 AM 29/10/07
After reading some of the comments I can completely understand why people think this method is absurd. I think it makes sense when you consider each scientist is part of community that shares information. Each person gathering correct information about a tiny detail, added with others who have gathered information will finally, hopefully, reveal a picture. This process can take days, months, years and centuries. Each scientist, plugging away at a question, however small it might seem adds to the cumulative knowledge of humanity.
mgantner
jafac
Posted 2:33 PM 29/10/07
. . . as a means of slogging one's way through a "tough patch" in life, this is, indeed, good and meaningful advice. Nobody would want to live like this for a long period of time. (for reasons everyone upthread has stated). Periods of high activity, with intervals of rest and recovery - pushing boundaries, then healing and reconstructing, it's how athletes train. It's a good model for a whole life, as well. You do need to stop and smell the roses every so often. But you also need to take your nose out of the flower, and sniff for an antelope or moose to chase.
jafac