Minding out for mind maps

A mind map is a particular kind of concept chart that usually (but as I say, people use the term pretty fluidly) has one term or concept as its focus. The aim is to literally map out your thoughts, using associations, connections and triggers to stimulate further ideas.

But how do schematics like these ones work? Most of the time, whether speaking or writing, people present information in a linear sequence. They have to because people can't read or listen to two things at once — the competing information becomes a jumble. But in diagrams, the rules change. Suddenly information can be presented in ways that are much more in tune with the way the brain functions — by making multiple connections and comparisons simultaneously.

In a mind map, for example, information is structured in a radiant rather than linear manner, as Figure 7-1 shows. The core idea ‘transport’ generates four sub-divisions, which in turn prompt a whole range of specific examples.

Researchers have long known that the brain likes to work on the basis of association and it connects every idea, memory or piece of information to tens, hundreds and even thousands of other ideas and concepts. Mind maps are said to reflect the way the brain is ‘wired’ to automatically associate words and concepts with one another, or a new experience with a recent experience.

Counting on concept charts

Concept charts (sometimes also called concept maps) have a slightly different aim to mind maps. As you may guess from the name, these diagrams depict suggested relationships between concepts. As such, they prove useful in the ‘soft’ social sciences, for marketing experts’ presentations, for hard-nosed designers, engineers and technical writers, and for countless other tasks, to present, organise and structure factual information. And that's not even to get into the notion of the way information flows around the charts (see the next section). Don't let the seemingly obscure distinctions that the different names imply intimidate you into not using the tools as you like (and check out the nearby sidebar ‘When is a concept not a concept?’).

Following links and going with the flow

By convention. Mind maps and other kinds of concept chart usually represent ideas and information in little boxes or circles (or even little ‘thought clouds’), which are connected by lines indicating the links. Sometimes these linking lines can be represented as arrows, reflecting the supposed direction of causation, the ‘flow’ of the process being represented.

To see what I mean, look at my ‘Roads are Evil’ concept chart (in Figure 7-2), of the kind green activists may create at protest camps. Here the arrows tell a causal story: building the road led to the pollution and to the car accidents, which led to cyclists deciding to drive to work instead.

Notice how the arrows in the figure serve to make an ‘argument’, but also that a chart maker could choose to direct them very differently. In fact, a more accurate flow chart would be one showing all the feedback effects of certain decisions in transport policy — for example, how more cars being used also means more roads are built. This aspect could be shown with a bi-directional arrow, or by not using an arrow at all, just a line.

On the other hand (to the extent that fewer buses would be wheezing round the streets and so on) less public transport could mean ‘less pollution’ and more walking! But arrows for this possibility aren't included. Diagrams soon get hard to follow if too many factors are included.

In practice, a flow chart requires a lot of careful selection of which elements to represent. In this sense, the charts aren't seeking to show the whole truth, just to argue a point or theory.

Yet, curiously, people tend to believe charts more readily than mere words! Therefore, Critical Thinkers need to be as sceptical of charts and diagrams as of any other form of communication.

Take a look at the concept chart for water in Figure 7-3.

Since water is in all living things Figure 7-3 shows a nice solid line connecting the two. However, no plant cells grow in animals, and so there is no line between these two nodes (animal cells and plant cells). Simple but effective!

Choosing the right chart arrangement

You can select from three main kinds of concept maps, but remember, don't get too hung up on the distinctions, let alone the names:

• Spider: This chart is the easiest one to draw. It starts with the core concept at the centre with other ideas and connections radiating out (see Figure 7-1). Mind maps are essentially spider charts.
• Hierarchical diagrams: These often also branch out, but with a lot of categories at the bottom and just the one at the top (see Figure 7-3 on water).
• Various kinds of flow charts:, The key characteristic of these is that information ‘flows’ around the chart, with the focus often more on this flow than on the concepts in the nodes (check out the later section ‘Drawing flow charts’). Some flow charts specify where things start — inputs into the system — and where they can end — the outputs. Others may have no start or end points but describe the flow in terms of self-contained cycles (see Figure 7-2 on roads for an example).

You can rough out concept maps using those sticky yellow notes. Then you can easily reorder the material as your ideas about its proper arrangement develop.

Some people think that labelling the links — the lines — between the concepts is very important. But I'm not so sure, and it's certainly not universally agreed. Some maps use labels such as ‘includes’ or ‘with’. For example, in a map looking at geology, you may be told ‘metal’ includes ‘gold’ and includes ‘silver’, which seems to distract from the way the map is supposed to reflect the brain's architecture, and to have lost the good, original principle that instead of thinking only in words, people should try to visualise multiple relationships and connections. Add to which, labelling the lines requires people to go back to thinking ‘linearly’.

If, however, your chart is pretty formal, perhaps representing a process, with only one correct way possible to read it, the labels are useful; indeed they're an essential part of the chart's information.

A similar ‘you win some, you lose some’ consideration comes with the notion of organising concept charts so as to have the more general, abstract concepts at the top of the page (or whiteboard), and more specific, less inclusive concepts at the bottom — like the hierarchical charts I introduced at the start of this section. Joe Novak, who popularised the technique originally, thought this arrangement was very important (see the earlier sidebar ‘How it all got started’).

Developing simple concept charts

Basically, all concept charts represent statements, just like a written description does. In particular two nodes plus a connecting line represent a proposition, a statement that's supposed to be true. For example, the concept chart in Figure 7-4 is one way to represent the sentence ‘grass is green’.

But a more complex and more useful example is to try to represent a sentence such as: ‘Red berries are yummy’. This process of adding new factors is well represented here (see Figure 7-5).

Now red berries — like strawberries — are yummy. Raspberries are yummy. Hawthorn berries can be used in jams and wines. But other kinds of red berries, such as yew and holly, aren't yummy.

These maps help both teachers and students to focus on the key ideas (concepts) needed in any given area of enquiry. Like how not to get poisoned when out on nature rambles!

Using maps and charts in the real world

Concept maps have their roots in the sciences, and are widely used today in fields such as software design or engineering, but they're also used in many business and (of course) educational contexts. Some charts are really too personal and idiosyncratic to say very much to anyone except the person who designed them — but others are precise and unambiguous blueprints. Such a wide spectrum of charts and maps exist that finding any features that they all share is difficult.

One useful distinction, certainly one that's often claimed, is that a well-made concept chart grows within a context frame, typically an implied argument or question, whereas a mind map often has only branches radiating out from a central word, or picture (your chance to use some clip-art!), representing an idea or concept.

Because concept charts are constructed to reflect organisation of the declarative memory system, a technical term used to describe things such as facts and knowledge that can be actively recalled and, well, ‘declared’ (such as ‘Paris is the capital of France!’). they're often claimed to facilitate analysis and evaluation of information people already have. The other kind of memory is called non-declarative or procedural memory, and refers to unconscious memories. Things such as skills like, for example, riding a bicycle, or how to construct sentences correctly.

Appreciating the different styles of concept charts and mind maps

When you're producing mind maps and concept charts, you need to be aware of how different graphical techniques suit the different issues, questions or problems.

Concept maps and topic maps (to add another term for something very similar) both allow people to connect concepts or topics via a graphical representation, and both can be contrasted with the particular idea of mind mapping, which is often restricted to radial hierarchies (those spider diagrams) and tree structures. Topic maps are intended to be easily navigated and quickly indicate information — like a well-designed index at the back of a book. But out of all the various schema and techniques for visualising ideas, processes, organisations, concept mapping is unique in its philosophical basis. Which, according to its inventor, Joe Novak, ‘makes concepts, and propositions composed of concepts, the central elements in the structure of knowledge and construction of meaning’.

Another contrast between the more formal kinds of concept mapping and mind mapping is the speed and spontaneity possible when creating the latter. A mind map typically reflects what people think about a single topic, which can focus group brainstorming (something I discuss further in the later section ‘Conjuring up ideas with brainstorming’). The more formal kind of concept chart is rather harder to create, but when done, it can provide more insights. It's a true map, in the sense of something that tells you how things relate and how one thing connects to another. It provides a system view, of a real or an abstract concept.

Graphically, concept charts can become complicated and cease to follow any obvious spatial logic as multiple hubs and clusters are created. For example, one part may be unimportant but take up a lot of space, and another important element may be represented by just a single word or image. In this sense, Mind maps, which fix on a single conceptual centre and then radiate out, have a nice kind of visual logic built in.

Concept mapping can be a first step in constructing a framework for organising knowledge — a process sometimes given the fancy name ontology-building — or used to represent formal (as in ‘formally expressed’) arguments in logic. As such, you'll find concept charts particularly useful in education and business contexts. You might also consider creating formalised concept charts using special software.

Adding movement to your diagrams by drawing flow charts

A common type of technical diagram is a flow chart — which in the broad sense is a concept map. However, the term usually means a pretty precise kind of schematic representation of a sequence of operations, as in a manufacturing process or computer program.

You can see the similarities between these kinds of technical diagrams and rather more free-spirited efforts in the social sciences when you consider the ways that technical flow charts are used. These usually include:

• Defining and analysing a process.
• Providing a step-by-step picture of a process for later analysis, discussion or communication.
• Defining or standardising a process.
• Looking for ways to improve processes.

Most flow charts are made up of three main types of symbol:

• Elongated circles: Signify the start or end of a process.
• Rectangles: Show instructions or actions.
• Diamonds: Show decisions that must be made.

Within each symbol, you write down what the symbol represents: the start or finish of the process, the action to be taken or the decision to be made. Finally, symbols are connected one to the other by arrows, showing the flow of the process:

Why not practice with a simple chart on, say, ‘Reading a book’?

1. Start the flow chart by drawing a circle shape and labelling it ‘Start’.
2. Move to the first action or question, and draw a rectangle or diamond depending on whether a decision is required at this stage or not.
3. Write the action or question inside it, and draw an arrow from the start symbol to this shape.

4. Work through your whole process, showing actions and decisions appropriately in the order they occur, and linking these together using arrows to show the flow of the process.

   Where a decision needs to be made, draw arrows allowing for every possible outcome from the decision diamond. These arrows are usually labelled with the outcome. At the end of the process is a circle labeled ‘Finish’.

5. Test-run your flow chart, working from step to step asking yourself if you have correctly represented the sequence of actions and decisions involved in the process. And then (if you're looking to improve the process) think about whether work is duplicated, or whether other stages should be added.

Flow charts can quickly become so complicated that you can't show them on one piece of paper. Instead, you can use connectors (shown as numbered circles) where the flow moves off one page, and where it moves onto another. By using the same number for the off-page connector and the on-page connector, you show that the flow is moving from one page to the next.

The process of physically splitting up your diagram can also imply a way to mentally split up a complex issue or process, enabling you (or the people you are sharing the idea with) to concentrate on particular parts of it better.

Emptying your head with a dump list

The truth is that coming up with material is much easier than analysing and selecting the key ideas within it.

Dump lists are a powerful but neglected tool in thinking. Basically, you just empty on to a page everything swirling around your head (on a particular topic or issue).

Say that you're wondering about a practical problem that presumably has a practical solution, such as why all the plants in your house always die, but you've not yet been able to find the answer. Try a bit of Critical Thinking.

Start by dumping all the thoughts in your head that seem like they might be relevant even if, at the moment, you're not sure how or why. In my houseplants scenario, the dump might look like this:

• Lots of my house plants dry out.
• Nothing seems to grow.
• The leaves of my plants go brown and then drop off.
• Even the cactus has a kind of white fungus.
• Maybe I should water my plants more.
• Maybe my plants need plant food.
• Maybe the rooms are too draughty.
• Maybe the plants aren't getting enough sun.

The next step is to do some sifting, sorting and maybe simplifying of the list. Could some of the points usefully be grouped together as concerning the same sort of thing? Is there any one step that would solve the problem. Perhaps you can get rid of things that are easy to solve: for example, the problem ‘the soil has dried out’ implies the solution ‘I should water the plants’. On the other hand the problem ‘Even the cactus has a kind of white fungus’ seems to indicate that maybe too little water is not the problem. So beware crossing out things too soon on your list, as oversimplification of an issue can lead to errors later.

A safer approach with a dump list is to add priority numbers — a simple way to arrange your jumble of thoughts into a hierarchy with the most urgent steps (say), or the most practical ones, given a higher priority.

Sifting for gold: Summarising

Summarising is such a useful skill! It involves separating the wheat from the chaff, the golden nuggets from the heaps of spoil, the key words and phrases from the blah, blah blah. Put more simply, summarising is a key life tool that enables you to organise and make sense of the world around you. Here's some simple techniques that can help you do it effectively. Plus, it's a great chance to use those highlighter pens that come in so many more shades than fluorescent yellow.

All you do is use your favourite highlighter to mark up the key points in a piece of text. If you find you've marked up several paragraphs, maybe you aren't being quite critical enough — not summarising but, well, highlighting. So be strict with yourself: only mark up the key idea in any paragraph, and only highlight elements from the most important paragraphs.

A simple exercise this one: summarise that last paragraph.

Summarising is about capturing the main ideas of a text or lecture in a greatly reduced space. Academic study is all about making use of the ideas of other people — not their words! Summaries help you to do the former and not the latter.

But when you do find a phrase in the original text that's particularly striking, and really can't be summed up without losing something, do use the author's exact words. Highlight them! If you make a note, make sure that you put quotation marks around the words and indicate the source — otherwise that fine phrase may turn up, rather disgracefully, unattributed in your work.

In theory, a well-structured essay or document already contains the key ideas in a summary, but don't believe that a passage is a summary just because someone writes the word in big letters above it. After all, alas, the skills of summary writing are by no means universal. Plus, what that person is interested in may not be what you're interested in. Summaries reflect his or her interests, not yours.

You can also organise your notes in new ways on little cards (or these days, as computer files, or even on computer sites such as ‘wikis’, that let you easily create and organise pages), perhaps providing an overview of a topic on one and sub-topics on others, maybe using colours to aid categorising.

Conjuring up ideas with brainstorming

Brainstorming is the name given to the fairly obvious technique of quickly jotting lots of ideas down in response to a question — or even simply a concept. You can brainstorm on your own, but the real advantages of the technique come when you're in a group, because that's where other people's ideas can spark new ones among other members of the group.

The claim of the method's supporters is that brainstorming allows a group to think collectively and build on each other's ideas. Conducting a group brainstorm can also create a buzz, something that can be absent when you work on your own. But brainstorming can be a bit of a ‘lowest common denominator’ exercise too — by which I mean that the idea that everyone likes is not the best one but only the one that everyone shares. Worse! The group may not recognize a good idea just because it is a bit different or novel. So how you brainstorm is important.

Groups use many different ways to capture the ideas of a brainstorming session, but here are two of the biggies, both of which are led by a co-ordinator:

• Scribe: Co-ordinators (the scribes) not so much write (which can be a cumbersome and inefficient process) but rather ‘capture’ on the board all the ideas that team members call out. They try to sum up the idea in an appropriate way, regardless of their own feelings about the merits or demerits of the idea.
• All-in: During these sessions, team members can write on the board their ideas just as they come, or perhaps instead verbally share them with the group. The ever-useful yellow sticky notes can be brought out, so that everyone can write their ideas down and then stick them on the board.

The attitude and abilities of the co-ordinators are vital to a successful brainstorm — and although not everyone automatically has the ‘right stuff’, some principles certainly can be adopted. The person leading the brainstorm needs to be enthusiastic and encouraging. Adding ‘fun’ constraints can help spark new ideas — for example, if a group is wondering about, say, how to revitalise inner cities (perhaps a bit of a downer for an early morning session), the co-ordinators can constrain the issue by asking instead: ‘If you had to improve life for people in inner-city Liverpool with just one big project — what would it be?’

Now ‘harvest that brainstorm’! At a session act as the co-ordinator and focus on the ideas that the people seem most excited, amused or intrigued by. Don't judge things by thinking that they aren't practical. An impractical idea may still have within it something useable. And remember to involve groups, of course, in the weeding. One way of increasing participation in this stage is by voting. Hey! Sticky notes prove their usefulness yet again.

Ascending the heights: Meta-thinking

Concept charts require the higher skills in Bloom's famous taxonomy, from mere recall at level one to complex evaluation at level six (check out Chapter 8 for details). In fact, Joe Novak (see the earlier sidebar ‘How it all got started’) says it requires students to use all the levels at once!

But Meta means ‘above’ or ‘higher’, and so meta-thinking indicates taking an overview (view from above) and represents a higher (more critical) level of thinking skill. To be critical often requires a move from ground-level to meta-level thinking.

The meta-level understanding asks why such a particular strategy is the one to use. Without this, learning new strategies is useless, because you don't know when they're appropriate. The contemporary thinking skills guru, Edward de Bono, who invented the term ‘lateral thinking’ and wrote a book called Six Thinking Hats, calls meta-thinking ‘Blue Hat’ thinking — summing it up as ‘thinking about thinking’.

In his terms, Blue Hat thinking focuses on how to manage the thinking process, checking its focus, setting out the next steps, creating action plans. For instance, if a football team is discussing how to win the next game, the coach likely automatically adopts the Blue Hat style, reminding the players that:

• The focus is how to win the next game against the Brickworks Eleven.
• The agreed next steps the team has identified include practising penalties (because the Brickworks team commit a lot of fouls and maybe will give a penalty away).
• The longer-term aim is how to build on the expected victory over the Brickworks Eleven and get the team promotion to the Grimsby West League!

Trying out triangulation

Or ‘How to triangulate the data to stop the roof falling in’ (that's a metaphor, by the way, which seemed appropriate to me because most roofs contain wooden triangles, which literally stop them falling in).

Triangles are very strong structures and perhaps this is the best way to think of the activity that academics have in mind when they use the term triangulation to describe a methodological tool used when constructing essays and arguments across all areas of knowledge (instead of the mathematical sense, used for many purposes including surveying, navigation, metrology, astrometry and so on.

The use of triangles to estimate distances goes back a long time, certainly to the 6th century BC when the Greek philosopher Thales is said to have used ‘triangulation’ to calculate the height of the pyramids. In Critical Thinking, however, where triangulation is about running a check on your work and strengthening conclusions, the term was only introduced in academia in the 1960s.

An argument is much more convincing if three people have independently reached the same conclusion by different routes. The same reasoning applies when just one person — you — demonstrates a point using three different approaches. But despite what the song says, nothing is magic about the number three: Two arguments for a point (or different perspectives on an issue) are better than one, and four or five are good too.

Both qualitative and quantitative researchers use the triangulation method and get different things from it:

• Qualitative researchers: People whose research involves judgements more than mere measurements often use it as a kind of double check on their background assumptions. When triangulation throws up inconsistencies, these researchers (who are concerned with human perspectives) often see the differences as an opportunity to uncover deeper meaning in their data.
• Quantitative researchers: These more ‘scientific’ number-crunching researchers may be more interested in spotting flaws in their methodology and usually just want all their studies to arrive at the same figures. They're inclined to consider differences as very bad news, as ‘weakening the evidence’.

The Plant Problem

Here's my approach to addressing this problem:

• Problems: Plants dry out. Leaves go brown and then drop off.
• Solution: More water.
• The cactus: A special case! Separate it out.

Summarising the paragraph

The key idea here is: ‘use your favourite highlighter to mark up the key points in a piece of text’.