This blog’s real purpose is to start making small strides towards this ideal; figuring out what works and what doesn’t work for myself. And I guess, trying to replicate it broadly. I firmly believe that abstraction or the lens/frame of reference is the key to this, and not enough people notice that. (It’s one of those things that sit at the back of your mind until you think about it, then it colors everything.

So this is what will happen:

Sources from other people:

• Shallow: Hyperlinks / Delicious — bookmarks are key to creating annotalia. People are amazing, I just need to collect their knowledge.
• Deep: Librarything — books are a huge place where I get my knowledge from.

Sources from me:

• Step 1: Textpads, almost no organization. Shorthand. These keep overflowing. Nice to get stuff like project ideas online / into the cloud.
• Step 2: Inditing cycles, brewing ground for unorganized thoughts, translation from shorthand.
• Step 3: Annotalia, final (gamma) of posts. Polished enough for publication. Includes all my source material including my own fill-in-the-gaps.

Note: this division of areas of knowledge + iterative cycles match my own “when-I-have-time” style of writing.

In other words, delicious (lists of bookmarks) + indcyc (personal commentary) = annotalia. Annotalia derives from the concept that ALMOST everything that is worth knowing or being written about has already been written about. The best thing we can do is to help guide readers to it. I’m sure that’s been thought up thousands of times. So my unique take on it is how much thought I can put into any given subject and to expose myself personally, to give people something to connect to.

I think that’s the thing I can make that people will benefit from the most. And writing things in a formal manner for publication helps me get rid of clutter, learn more about material, categorize things in my mind, and have a one-stop shop instead of a giant number of them. Let’s see how it works.

I’ve given this problem a lot of thought throughout the years. If I might restate your problem, it might be: “how do I create a medium for storing knowledge that is optimized for quick and accurate retrieval by myself and others?” To put it bluntly (as a sort of flat joke), you might as well be asking how to write.

Before I go further into why a perfect, or even close-to-perfect solution is impossible, let me record the different solutions I personally use:

When I need to recall something I read somewhere:
* Delicious (index) – keep track of interesting links, tutorials/howtos
* Bookmarks (staging) – keep track of short-term bookmarks for current projects. Move into delicious after projects finish.

When I need to recall influential authors on academic subjects:
* LibraryThing (view) – keep track of what books I’ve read, reading speed, # books read, # books by type read.
* Indite/MindMap (model) – summaries of books, quotes I found memorable.

When I need to recall how I know someone, conversations with that person:
* Highrise (view) – contacts (names, addresses, etc.), favors, conversations.
* Gmail Contacts (model) – contacts and emails, hooks into Highrise.

When I need to recall my mindset at a given time: (I usually choose medium simply through whatever is convienient. I find I tend to put more personal thoughts on paper and more business stuff on computer.)
* Notepads (electronic) – todos, miscellaneous, happy moments, timelines, past projects, current projects.
* Notepads (paper) – I have 20+ notebooks on which I keep a running diary. I sort by month/year to correlate projects with mindframes at that time. (What were my blind spots Senior year of high school when I started that stupid project?)
* Subject leafs (paper) – I keep all my notes from subjects in a giant filefolder for easy lookup. Still use some notes (ie from statistics)
* Classwork (electronic) – Same as above.

Personal data:
* Spreadsheet – keeps password, clothing I like, websites I use (infrequently), health info…
* Handbooks – contain howtos I’ve collected on different tech areas.
* Backups via Dropbox – Music, documents, photos, work, websites, etc…

When I’m managing projects:
* Lighthouse – state of different projects I’m working on.
* Archive (model) – all my archived completed projects on my Linux server.
* Git (model) – backup of all my archived completed projects.
* Portfolio page (view) – archive of completed projects and their start and end date.

Reflections: (Sometimes I link this with mindset at given time.)
* Photologues (view) – blog keeping track of places I’ve seen, pictures.
* Flickr/Facebook (model) – powers the above and other views.
* Indcyc – collection of essays on views on different subjects; things I’ve found surprising.
* Annotalia – collection of surprsing links and essays sorted by different lifetimes and important decisions at every age.

Personal image (somewhat irrelevant):
* Personal page – link to above when I want them publicly sharable.
* Facebook
* Linkedin

Let me try to summarize how I selected the above:
1) Locate need; specifically isolate a TYPE of data that I feel I will need in the future.
2) Create ideal ABSTRACTION/lens around the type of data. What parts of the data do I need to remember? For example, I need to remember very different things about my contacts than my books. One can relate this to creating a database schema. Make a list of database columns sorted by priority.
3) Find service providers that will store STRUCTURED data. Evaluate based on:
a) Security/backup. (SECOND MOST IMPORTANT)
b) Cost.
c) Alignment of abstraction to implementation. (MOST IMPORTANT)
d) Bundled with view?
4) Evaluate the view that is bundled or find a view: (For example, Flickr as my model for images is decoupled from all the views that use it.)
a) Ease of data entry. (MOST IMPORTANT)
b) Ease of data recovery.
c) Speed.
d) Cost.
e) Security/likelihood to go bankrupt.

Let me note right now that your Wiki does not meet the following requirements:
* Alignment of abstraction to implementation.
* Ease of data entry.
The most egregious error is that for any subject, you are limited to entering data in the same way (that is, freetext.) This is also slow. It is also not in a structured format, and thus, cannot be ported to different views.

So I’m leading up to the fundamental problems with having a one-size-fits-all solution:
Everything we have to remember has a class; for any class of objects, we ONLY need to remember specific parts of information. Your needs, in terms of abstractions, will be different from mine. Furthermore, the classes of objects that are important for you will be different from mine. All of this leads to the conclusion that what people are looking for is not completeness but SPEED.

The real question you need to be answering is: what system creates the FASTEST insert and retrieval times for a wide audience. If your system is slower/more cumbersome to use, they’ll simply use something else (like YOU.) The only people who will use your system is the ones for which for EVERY class of object you support, it is the FASTEST. That is an incredibly small subset.

And this is why I expect that people’s time is more productively spent searching/evaluating existing systems than building a new one.

That said, I still think it’s possible to do a better job in several areas, if you’re interested.
- Edwin

>> Excerpt from TODO post:

There are so many different ways of keeping track of tasks:

• Living in text files — emacs also has a todo mode.
• Using a wiki — also a simple 1-file approach.
• Enterprise software — Outlook.
• Project management software — Basecamp, Backpackit, Lighthouse.
• Notepad, organize by cross-section between importance and deadlines. (rpausch)
• Google Calendar, daily tasks.
• Google Mail, todo list OR gtd module.

My personal system has been revised many times and consists of:

• Notepad (todo.ini) — Dashboard view of tasks sorted by priority.
  • The paradox is that one also needs to keep track of due dates. Tasks have specified or vague deadlines if they’re externally motivated or no deadlines if internally motivated.

Then tend to go like this:

• alpha (surrealism) — pin at least the majority of the idea down so I don’t forget it later.
• beta (impressionism) — start playing around with form, complete sentences.
• gamma (modernism) — revise into something presentable; slap on an interesting title and premise.

There are many parallels one can draw between writing and painting. They are, like all art, both concerned with conveying and sharing remarkable (memorable?) emotions and thoughts. But history as it is emphasizes the role of the brush in Western civilization. So if I am to borrow vocabulary to describe my own form, it will be from the elder arts. That, and I have a great sense of appreciation for masterfully placed color.

My best writing tends to be sporadic, like an Modernist painter: broad strokes of color, creation over form, things scattered everywhere. I have gotten quite good at Realism (yes, there is some objective truth to be communicated. yes, I do recognize that is already within a framework. and no, I don’t think the framework [of business and commerce] is unimportant). I can also imitate Modernism’s close cousin, Impressionism — that shows through in my more highly polished journal entires. (Although, most of the time, my notes tend to look like the mad scribbles of a surrealistic painting.

To go further, formalism, conversationalism, intimate strokes — all not for me. It is really the bang-bang-bang and craziness and barely-below-the-surface that I’m comfortable with.

N.b: I’ve been tagging each post with its stage. Hopefully I’ll be able to get at least five to gamma by Spring break.
P.s: Things for me grind through an amazing number of frameworks before being deposited onto paper. Unlike many other Ts, I recognize the value in feeling the output and verifying its charisma. That’s the hard part to get on paper.

I created my ranking system early on, borrowing parts from the Imperial examination, Judo, the Air Force, and Go. Two main themes emerged, summarized here. In Chinese culture, Wushu, there are three main ranks. The first is for students with some years of experience. The second is for teachers with roughly ten years of experience. The last is for masters with a reputations in the Wushu community. In Japanese culture, there tends to be a dualistic separation between student and master. One is classified within the kyu-ranking system until one can make sizable contributions to the community, either as a teacher or as a researcher. There are obvious parallels to the American higher education system.

So, without further ado, the ranking system. I did it out of ten points purely out of simplicity.

Ranking

1. Freshman (complete novice) — can at least state why they’re personally interested; commitment to learn more.
2. Sophomore (surveyor) — able to enumerate and describe all sub-areas within the given subject; explain major unsolved problems and importance.
3. Junior (exploration) — complete mastery of vocabulary: ability to converse fluently; huge itch to explore unsolved areas of interest and contribute.
4. Senior (conquering) — equivalent to bachelor’s degree: chosen and completed at least one capstone project or thesis; 10,000 hours of practice.
5. Masters (limbo) — understanding the community, find own place, name starts to become known; contributing back via research or teaching; viability of career in subject.
6. PhD (commitment) — this is the rank of commitment; targeted interest and contribution.
7. Associate professor — one sizable contribution to field; considered a “lifer,” invested unrecoverable amount of time .
8. Tenured professor — put in their time and recognized for excellence; set for life as a master in the field.
9. Distinguished professor — seen as a giant in the field, moves and shakes it; cited all the time.
10. Nobel peace prize winner — seen as a giant even outside the field; dedicating your life to reach this level is still difficult.

The ranks from 1 to 5 are analogous to kyu ranking. One can advance purely based off breadth of knowledge. From 6 to 10, advancement in the field is largely determined by your peers and mentors. As people recognize you, you will be granted advancement. You notice a huge jump in difficulty between 4 and 6. This is intended. This is the hazy time when one knows enough to make a contribution and may improve by either learning more or networking and working. Either way, 6 is the crucial level to reach, where you have definitely committed to the subject area.

Current Skills

• (5) Web Design — already pretty committed to it as a career in some aspect; started at 11; tons of projects listed at friedneko.com; capstone on working at Google and Yahoo!.
• Design/CSS
• Javascript
• MVC, Ruby on Rails
• (5) Computer Science — bachelor’s degree from CMU; aged ten years in one semester while creating my operating system.
• Systems Programming — Operating Systems
• Functional Programming
• Software Engineering — Project Management
• (4) International Development — many books (End of Poverty, Bottom Billion,…), course on ICT4D; capstone on DSO, huge learning experience.
• (3) African History — read Fate of Africa and other books, publications from independent study with Dr. Fields-Black; capstone on informatiques & maps in progress.
• (3) Psychology — can state basic vocabulary; focus on MBTI, research in statistics; comfort area.
• (3) Writing — can explain differences in writing style, ability to emulate; passion to find own voice; capstone on poetry, meditation, blog.
• (2) Literature — still exploring, need to read the Great Books, classics.
• (2) Business Strategy — bachelor’s degree (in BA) from CMU; read BCG’s On Strategy, HBR; can explain major themes and frameworks, interest.
• (2) Leadership — still exploring, some initial experience from DSO.
• (2) Networking — started to formalize a system using Highrise; understand the art, give and take; personal theory on roles.
• (2) Photography — fluent vocabulary, technical expertise; needs creative touch; capstone on photologu.es.
• (2) Entrepreneurship — definitely have the spirit, just needs direction and additional implementation skills. Getting good at business sense as well.
• (1) Journalism — have always been interested because of friends, never had time.
• (1) International Relations — started reading Foreign Affairs, really need to read The Clash of Civilizations: could be one of those mind-altering experiences.
• (1) Philosophy — can cough up major ideas; need to codify beliefs somehow.
• (1) Design — basic skills in Photoshop, InDesign; needs more formalism.
• (1) Chinese (Mandarin, Shanghainese) — basic listening and speaking. Not much else.
• (1) Music, Classical — Just like going to live bands increases sentiment, I’d love to learn the history of classical music and some of the theory. Maybe write some music-based work.

Completely Clueless (but want to learn)

• Human Anatomy
• Music, Instruments

TODO(eshao): Put this into tree format. Maybe post a MM.

One example: spending 10 ounces of effort worrying about your homework due tomorrow.
Note: most of the problems we need to solve stem from some sort of “worry” from a concrete thing that needs to be done.

examples of horizontal scaling:
- scope: grade on paper due tomorrow. do your homework well.
- scope: grade on other things due tomorrow. run a quick multiple variable regression in your head with the assignment grades as variables to spend appropriate amounts of time per homework.
- scope: grade on class this semester.
- scope: gpa this semester. think about your grade in the class

there is a relation between looking long term and short term. it is summed up by this famous phrase: “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

In levels of order from specific to abstract (vertical scaling): // picture someone trying to do a 212 homework or something.
- how do I get my program to compile on the last problem? it’s broken.
- how do I get a good grade on this assignment? (is it necessary to solve the last problem in order to get a good grade on this paper?)
- how do I get a good grade in this class? (is it necessary to get a good grade on the assignment in order to get a good grade in this class?)
- how do I get a good GPA this semester? (is it necessary to get a good grade in this class to get …?)
- how do I get a good college GPA? (is it necessary to get a good GPA this semester…?)
* this point is the one most people want answered. the answer to the question might sound like:
* learn how to psycho-analyze people who are brilliant at my field, learn why they ENJOY what I’m doing and why they excel at it. (in almost all cases academically, this is the same thing.)
* optimize by taking easy classes that aren’t required. optimize projected effort function and value.
* join a fraternity and cheat.
* figure out how to use FCEs to pick easy courses. figure out how to tap their social network on the low-down of professors, how to get on their good sides (which ones have good sides?), what courses are easy (this is a big one in CS).
- how do I get a CS job that pays well? (is it necessary to get a good college GPA…?)
NOTE: At this point, I usually stop helping people. Most people don’t want to go into any more higher levels of abstraction. The answer at this point is to contribute to open-source projects, learn enough to make a breakthrough in the field, etc. If you’re good enough, the companies will come find YOU.
- how do I get a job that pays well?
- how do I get a job that I will enjoy?
- how do I live a life that I enjoy?
- how do I live a life?
- how do I live?
- how do I?
- how?
- why?

funny enough, the most compact representation of things usually unfolds to the most complicated problems.

more: what are the appropriate questions to ask to determine the higher level of abstraction? “why do I ask this question, or why do I need to know this?” high levels have multiple lower levels, do lower levels have multiple higher levels? why is it so hard to know why you want something but easy to tell that you want it?

Natural Skills are unlearnable, unchangable parts of ourselves that determine what learned skills we enjoy practicing and ultimately become proficient in.

• Metacognition
• Interpersonal intelligence
• Intrapersonal intelligence
• Verbal/linguistic intelligence, writing
• Determination, or yapping like a dog.

Natural Weaknesses:

• Business Strategy
• Analytical intelligence: mathematics, sciences.
• Networking
• International relations

- framework for thinking about problems?

You’ll note two things very quickly. The first is that these are unmeasurable and innate (as they’re meant to be). In a sense, these are closer to preferences than skills. Completely fine, as they’re meant to give you an idea of what skills you’ve picked up you genuinely enjoy and which you picked up out of practical necessity. The second is that you might not agree that the above are unlearnable. I would argue that they are unimprovable — we can improve the structure of our own knowledge and thus, the efficiency by which we process information and deal with concepts or objects, but we cannot actually improve our innate horsepower.

One interesting question that emerges is: can we truly enjoy something and yet be completely unskilled at it? Before you completely dismiss this question, remember how much one has to know to be able to even be unskilled at something and think about what “learning” means.

TODO(eshao): …what is the underlying psychological cause of this? something about desires and dissonance, I’m sure.

The Philosopher/Scientist –
The Gamer (INTP) – Truth hunter, philosopher. Disdain of mundane.
The Writer (ENFP) –
The Executive (ENTJ) –

No, we should decide who wins depending on which plastic car had the most fulfilling life.

Fast forward a decade or so and I still struggle with this question. I now realize that everybody plays games in life and that in the final tally, everyone marks their own scorecard. Even though the rules are still arbitrary, how do you play a game if you’re ultimately scoring yourself? In other words, we’re all betting our lives on something, on some rulebook and brightly flashing scoreboard. Every meaningful argument has related to the games we play: when you invest in a structure for your life over the span of decades, the cost of dismantling that structure is your ego.

Time forces us to choose our game early. The only way to not play is to become an object, catatonic in the extreme. Even the act of inactivity is a decisive choice. Some build their self-esteem or score by becoming the finest skydiver or best father. Others choose to invest in music or society. Even in religion, where ostensibly the reins are in other hands, one still keeps score of one’s spirit. Buddhism is keeping tally at how well one refuses to keep tally. In my case, I’ve chosen to pursue personal growth or self-discovery: treating the mind, the soul, and the psyche as works of art, points as masterfully placed experiences, gameplay as boundaries of thought.
This begs the question of Platonic idealism. Surely, we scream, there must be some ultimate; some final objective view; some way of judging:

What I want most in life is not to win but to know how I’m being scored.

This brings us to meaning. While everyone has games and ego, only the truly exceptional have meaning. Meaning, to me, is the existence and discovery (ultimately synonymous!) of a way to transcend the score, the spectators, the game. (No, for the record, I’m not satisfied with this definition.) Perhaps truly caring about others’ scores is Nirvana. I don’t know. Try asking your local priest or poet: they’ll give you something, at the very least.

What I’m ultimately hedging on is my game as the fastest one to find meaning. To me, if one must solely choose one object to foster, idealize, obsess over, shouldn’t it be the mind? The mind is ultimately where new discoveries are made. I may not know much, but I am at least certain that the old is not working. So I guess for now, meaningful means stick to the game faithfully and beautifully with higher hopes than what is practically necessary.
I do need to come clean at this point. In really looking back at my childhood games of LIFE, perhaps I am idealizing my experience. I do remember that, for some reason of fate (or my cousins cheating), I always ended up as the goddamn garbage collector. I hate losing.