Over the past weekend, I noticed a problem while reviewing my notes.
There were clusters of clever literary references and obscure terms in my notes. The notes looked smart, but I couldn't recall the meaning of them. They meant nothing to me.
That was a common PKM problem.
I want note connections to help, but I often use niche references to sound deep, to feel good about "learning."
The truth is, real connection does not require showing off how much information you have collected. When you break down complex systems, technical data, or abstract mental models, it is easy to fall into the trap of using dense jargon, hyper-niche academic references, or trendy buzzwords to look smart. That approach does not help understanding. It creates noise.
Writer John McPhee has a simple approach. He doesn't try to show off. He uses clear, simple examples. If a reference makes the main point confusing instead of helping people understand it, he deletes it.
Here's what I do to audit the connections in my notes:
Name the reference. Whenever I bridge two domains, I write down the exact thing I am pointing to.
Test the mechanism. Ask if the reference explains the pattern on its own, or if it needs a separate explanation just to make sense.
Cut anything that needs a manual. If a reader has to look something up to follow you, it does not belong.
Keep the bridge plain and simple. Use a reference simple enough that a reader gets it in one read.
With this practice, every note is doing its job. I don't need to stop to decode a name before the idea lands.
I am exploring John McPhee's essay mechanics in Draft No. 4. I find his focus on clarity over cleverness is something worth studying.
Just another coffee thought from Gav.
