The sequential text in the 21st century is extremely outdated

Sequential text in the 21st century is extremely outdated

• In summary, this idea raises a challenging question: what will happen to conventional books if structured and linked books become more popular?
  • By this, I mean that the text we are accustomed to doesn’t provide ample tools for analyzing and working with complex material.
  • Readers often find themselves continually interpreting and reinterpreting what they have read.
    • This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In the process, the idea is explored at a deeper level, allowing the reader to approach it from various perspectives.
    • However, sequential text isn’t ideal for deep analysis and processing.
    • Analyzing reasoning from linear text is a challenging and time-consuming endeavor. Not everyone possesses or has developed the necessary inference skills.
  • Argumentative articles should include a special section that introduces readers to the structure of the argument, allowing them to grasp it more quickly and comprehensively.
    • Yet, we often encounter vagueness and ambiguity.
      • I can’t understand why this is the case. Perhaps the authors themselves don’t grasp the topic they are discussing, or they are being deliberately unclear.
    • I think the authors don’t know how to map the book or the article.
    • Willingham unintentionally elaborated a little on the topic.
      • He suggested that we can build a hierarchy of ideas, and I can only assume it might be in the form of an argumentative map.
      • We have to be specific about why and how we are connecting statements.
        • Provides evidence.
        • Example.
        • Elaboration.
        • Cause.
        • Logical implication, (presupposition).
      • I propose that we can also add an effect to the list.
      • Why he didn’t include it, might be that he is looking in reversed order on the argument.
• A major drawback of prose is that the reader must discern the relationships between claims, relying on the clues provided.
  • This often leads to varied interpretations of a single, and quite frequently, straightforward idea.
• Another challenge with linear prose is its limited representational tools.
  • We’re limited to black and white paper with letters, even though our brain has evolved a much broader set of tools to process events in the world.
  • Text is a monochromatic stream of letters, typically not making use of color, structure, shape, lines, and often poorly utilizing space.
  • Minor adjustments could enhance clarity and offer a better structure to articulate the main argument.
• A further complication with prose is its sequential nature, whereas arguments are not inherently linear.
  • This is why I prefer to keep my notes in mind maps or use outlines.
  • Structured notes aid in developing the argument and maintaining clear thought processes.
  • Arguments are like trees with various branches but a singular trunk. Branches can explore different topics, but the central theme remains consistent.
    • They resemble grammatical structures, rather than a mere sequence of ideas.
• The final challenge with prose and linear text is that they don’t aid in understanding metaphors in the way we naturally comprehend arguments.
  • I’m unclear about this point; I need to revisit the original: (Page 120)

---

BIO

theBrain mapping

Source:: Visualizing Argumentation - Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making, Outsmart Your Brain - Why Learning is Hard and How You Can Make It Easy Friend:: Child:: План урока - Аналитическое чтение TeamLeadConf. What is procrastination and how to overcome it? 2000 words. Linear text is not the most efficient medium of idea organisation Next:: Ideas about argument visualization course

Keywords:

Related:

Reference: