Hacker News Reader

Comment by KPGv2 | Hacker News Reader

It does feel very cultish, with a lot of hand-waving and very little that seems useful. No one has ever answered your question when I've asked it.

View on HN

I remember doing some research on this topic, and, when I looked for usage patterns for my type of job specifically, I realized that most people were just posting about their workflows learning about... taking notes.

I asked it since I wasn't sure if I was just my brain being the odd one out here.

I tend to just remember topics and search for them when needed. For example, I rely completely on Outlook's search to find the email from 5 years ago that I remember X person sending (and I mention Outlook specifically because surprisingly Gmail is terrible at this)

They point to Luhmann and his hundreds of academic papers. But I’ve asked two sociology professors about Luhmann and they had never heard of him.

Luhmann left behind 70,000 index cards, published over 70 books and ~400 papers, and his systems theory is still actively applied in sociology, legal theory, and organizational studies. He's required reading at German universities. Your sample size of n=2 is methodologically a little thin – which Luhmann himself would have appreciated, given that he had a particular fondness for pointing out systemic blind spots.

"Two professors hadn't heard of him" is a fascinating epistemological standard. Like me stating: I've also met two cardiologists who didn't know who Rudolf Virchow was. Guess he wasn't that productive either.

Fair enough, I missed the mark that I was intending. Possibly he remains better recognized in Germany than in North America; and it’s admittedly not my field. At the same time, more than once when I’ve posed the question about the utility of ZK, I’ve been pointed only to Luhmann. His academic productivity isn’t in dispute. And seemingly, for him, it was aided by the methodology that is promoted by ZK followers now. But it’s also an n=1 data point. I wonder if the ZK community has identified other productive and impactful academics who are devotees.

As for the last comment: having gone to medical school some decades ago and trained in cardiology, I’m familiar with Virchow. I would be surprised to encounter any physician who hadn’t any familiarity with him. But who knows?!

Yeah, I admit, Virchow was a low hanging fruit as a cynical comparison. I stumbled upon Luhmann in school. I always wished, I had a ZK. I never got around to being disciplined enough to build one.

I also was more of an Foucault guy at university. So I never really got into Luhmann. Albeit I originally studied literature and my uni was quite cultural studies heavy - this is why I read quite a lot from other disciplines back in the days.

I feel Luhmann might be a great poster child for deferred gratification. But that might just be the cynic speaking.

[Luhmann, back from the dead]: how has my work been received?

Sociology prof: "uhhhh. Well, the good news is that there are a ton of YouTube videos about you."

the zettelkasten of niklas luhmann is currently being digitized. you can browse it online. zettelkasten II is the more interesting one.

https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/inhalt...

Most scientists are not very well known, even in their own discipline. Their fame is usually locally and temporary, limited to which ever bubble they were roaming. Luhmann was well known in Parts of Europe and South-american, and died ~30 years ago. Not unusual for someone today to never heard of him if they are living in other regions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com