Is a “Second Brain” Superior to No-Brainer Writing?

The question posed in the title is not a new one. A long-standing debate exists between proponents of streamlining intellectual labor and those who argue that doing so would not only reduce labor but also intelligence.

The prevailing belief is that having a Zettelkasten system in place makes writing a less burdensome and quicker endeavor.

Sönke Ahrens asks: “So why is not everybody using a slip-box and working effortlessly towards success? Is it because it is too complicated? Certainly not. It is rather surprisingly simple.” — A little further on, he adds — “I wonder how long it will take until the advantages of Luhmann’s slip-box and work routines become equally obvious to everyone.” (How to Take Smart Notes)

Isn’t it the real Gospel?

But there is always some Doubting Thomas.

Robert Minto has written a clever and vibrant essay about his unsuccessful attempt at note-taking– “Rank and File. What if my note-taking system could think for me?”

Cal Newport shared his skepticism about the potential of Zettelkasten in one of his YouTube videos.

Century ago Russian logician and philosopher Sergey Povarnin (1870–1952) expressed same doubts.

In his concise work “How to Read Books for Self-Education,” penned in 1924, he lampoons playfully the prevalent fascination with index cards method. Even then, Povarnin teased the obsession for collecting notes and the mirage of a “second brain.”

Regrettably, Povarnin’s contributions are relatively unknown in the West. To enrich the English-language discourse, I will provide an excerpt from the aforementioned book.

“It is worth emphasizing here that excerpts on cards and in notebooks are only an auxiliary means of reading, not the goal in itself. Some individuals tend to turn this into a form of collecting, a kind of ‘sport’ — proud of their ‘card index’ of excerpts and quotes, constantly expanding it — they do not apply it to the case at all. Of course, this form of collecting is no worse than any other. However, it provides precisely nothing useful for the mind. It’s simply an unnecessary waste of time and effort.

Much more dangerous is another type of fascination with cards. There are readers who think that with such ‘card indexes’ they can replace their mind. This is already quite bad. I once talked to such a young man. Overflowing with enthusiasm, describing his ‘card index,’ he explained how well organized it was and added: ‘For example, if I need to give a report. I — at once go to the cards. I have them on every topic. I’ll choose the ones I need, arrange them in order — and the report is ready! All the thoughts are there, I just need to connect them. Easy and good!’ In short, a new ‘improvement’ in our culture. No need to work with the mind. Ready-to-wear boots, ready-to-wear pants, ‘ready-to-wear’ thoughts.
This is the fascination that the reader seeking self-education should be warned against by all means. Let him first think about the topic of the report himself and sketch out its plan, and then review the cards and supplement or modify what is necessary. This is the right way.”

It is easy to use an index card system as a “second brain” to store second-hand ideas. This stage used to have a much less pretentious name, which is “gathering materials.”

Nonetheless, there is still a need to engage in writing. Combining discrete information into a coherent text is the most demanding aspect of this process. It signifies the progression from analysis to synthesis.

Let’s be real here — the countless combinations available don’t actually facilitate writing; in fact, they complicate it further.

The human brain uses approximately 20% of the body’s energy. If you want to create a “Second brain” you need to think twice.

Luhmann in his interview with Rainer Erd and Andrea Maihofer Luhman admited: “The slip box is more time-consuming for me than writing books.” (Niklas Luhmann. Archimedes und wir Interviews, 1987)

Speaking of Luhmann, it’s worth mentioning that he used a similar approach as Sergey Povarnin.

“At first, I make a plan for what I want to write, and then I retrieve from the slip box what I can use.” (Archimedes und wir Interviews, 1987)

In his famous article on Zettelkasten, Luhmann remarks: “Scientific publications are not created, at least in my experience, by copying what has already been recorded in the slip box for this purpose.” (Kommunikation mit Zettelkästen, 1981)

This doesn’t appear to be the most straightforward way of writing. It is just the right way.