When thinking about thinking, as we have been, you’d think mind-mapping would be the best way to go about it based on nothing more than its name alone.
And it can be. But …
Every time I research the topic I’m left with the indelible impression that its proponents don’t understand topology. There is, for example, this prescription, taken from Wrike’s website:
- Choose the topic of the mind map and place it in the middle of the drawing
- Come up with three to five+ main ideas, then evenly space them in a circular formation around the mind map topic
- Draw a line from the mind map topic to each main idea
- Brainstorm supporting details such as ideas, tasks, and questions for each main idea
- Draw lines connecting each main idea to its supporting details
To which I’ll add a suggestion: Consider using Post-it® notes rather than a marker to add ideas to the map, and use magnets and strings to connect related ideas rather than drawing lines. Post-its® magnets and strings let you rearrange your ideas if you need to.
Topologically speaking, mind maps and outlines are identical, just as donuts and soda straws are identical. The visualizations differ, but not the underlying associations. Both techniques (outlines and mind maps that is, not donuts and soda straws) result in sets defined by one-to-many relationships.
Outlines do differ from mind maps in that they imply a sequence, where mind maps do not. For outlines this is both a weakness and a strength. It’s a weakness because often, an outline’s sub-topics and sub-sub-topics have no logical sequence – they’re parallel to each other. It’s a strength because when the time comes to explain the subject, the presenter will have to sequence them because of the nature of Time as one of the four dimensions of Newtonian physics.
From a process perspective, mind maps differ from outlines in that they’re more useful for a group exploring a subject – in a word, brainstorming. Different participants can attack different subject areas at the same time without interfering with each other.
At least, mind maps were more useful for brainstorming when everyone could gather in the same room. Mind maps depend on having a large space to draw on. Virtual or hybrid meetings can’t provide this – they’re limited to what will fit on a computer screen, reducing mind-mapping’s brainstorming advantages.
Which gets us to a related but less-well-known approach called Concept Mapping, explained quite well here: https://www.xmind.net/blog/en/concept-map-vs-mind-map/. What concept mapping adds to the party is its ability to handle many-to-many relationships. This is useful because with almost no exceptions, the information needed to fully comprehend a subject includes many-to-many relationships. Many many-to-many relationships, in fact.
As a simple and familiar example, take Cooking. Whatever dish you plan to prepare will have ingredients. That’s a one-to-many relationship, with dish being the one and ingredient being the many. But each ingredient can be used for preparing more than one dish, making, ingredient the one and dish the many.
Put them together and the relationship between dish and ingredient is many-to-many, and neither outlining nor mind mapping gives you the tools you need to represent it.
Concept mapping does.
Which led me to this brilliant insight: Concept mapping and the Entity/Relationship Diagrams familiar to professional data designers are one and the same thing.
Sadly, the brilliant insight wasn’t mine: The credit apparently belongs to Ron McFadyen and dates back to at least 2008: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiOvfDK2_D2AhUPXc0KHfncC2IQFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fazslide.com%2Fconcept-maps-for-data-modeling-ron-mcfadyen_5a7963751723dd2cfaa4179e.html&usg=AOvVaw1R_5IAQj5BnXMHa9IVmCZ6
Oh, well.
Which tool should you use to think through whatever it is you’re thinking through? I figure it this way:
- Use mind maps when it isn’t just you thinking things through. They’re visually more interesting than outlines, and while they’re limited in depth, they’re the easiest of the three to grasp at a glance.
- Use outlines when it’s just you and you need to explore a subject in depth.
- Use concept maps when technically accurate and complete, in-depth representation matters more than at-a-glance interpretation.
Bob’s last word: Don’t limit yourself to just one of these techniques. As a general rule, start out with either an outline or a mind map. Use that as a starting point to create a concept map.
How to explain your thinking to someone else? That’s an entirely different rabbit hole – one that depends on who you’re going to explain it to, why, and in what circumstances.
Bob’s sales pitch: Ever need a sympathetic ear (just one) and an independent pair of eyes (two) to look at your situation? Not every consultation has to be a team working for weeks. If a one-hour Zoom conversation is all you need, I’ll be happy to help, too. Get in touch (Contact – IS Survivor Publishing ) and we’ll figure out what makes sense.
Mind mapping is another useful tool to organizing things so you can better see the big picture and the interactions of the parts as you do a full bore systems thinking approach to solve problems including create new solutions.
As to creating new things though TRIZ is one of the best methods as it takes EVERY solution from a patent system and organized them so they can easily be reused if your problem fits a previous pattern.
Thanks for the mention of “topology,” because it primed me to imagine a next step in relating mind maps to outlines:
Let’s say we have a completed mind map. It looks like a topic circle surrounded by smaller main idea circles surrounded by even smaller supporting detail circles. Lines connect each to the level “above” it, with perhaps other lines connecting details to other details at the same levels beneath other main ideas.
Now, invert the topology (with perhaps a bit of artistic license), add perspective projection and you have a large topic circle containing circles that point towards detail circles, connected by perspective lines. Arrange the ideas and rotate the arrangement to create a starting point at 12:00 (or not, depending on the criticality of sequencing).
Now, you only have to decide if you are looking at a rabbit hole or a portal. 😉
Then there Wardley maps that consider user visibility, value chains, sourcing, and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardley_map.
Dear Bob, I use a similar concept when I am teaching information literacy. Students frequently need to “do research” and write about a topic that they know little about. One of my suggestions to them is that they take a sheet of blank paper and put the main research topic in the center of the page. We then explore databases of articles dealing with the topic. As they read an article that they think explores their topic, the jot down any additional “keywords” that they see. These can be the basis for further explorations of the databases. It also helps them “narrow” the topic to a more useful range of areas to discuss in their paper, or might give them an idea for a new approach to their topic.
Just as a word processor document has more capacities and flexibility than does hand-written text, a mind map created with a software tool more easily collects, organizes, revises and re-organizes items than a written one, even one that uses post-it notes or cards.
My tool of choice is Freeplane.
Low-tech choices are easier to access because they don’t require technical resources, but it’s not a total win on that point. Frequently, when I’m talking of the phone, and need to make a quick note, I’ll tell them “Hold on. I need to find a pen that works.”
No argument about software’s flexibility. It’s just that a good mind map (or, for that matter, a bad mind map) takes a lot of real estate. In virtual meetings, remote / home-office participants don’t have enough of it to replicate in-person interaction.