2 months ago
- The author critiques Brennan Kenneth Brown's article on personal knowledge management (PKM), arguing it presents inconsistent arguments and shifts questions mid-article.
- Brennan's claim that Obsidian has not increased public-facing knowledge is challenged; the author argues tools enable contributions but are not themselves contributors.
- Brennan misrepresents Obsidian's values, attributing 'higher-brow purpose' and 'epistemological value' when Obsidian's team emphasizes flexibility and user choice.
- The four questions Brennan poses about PKM are deemed inconsistent and poorly scoped, with the second question changing entirely between statements.
- Brennan's point about Niklas Luhmann's Zettelkasten being a 'myth' is disputed; the system was idiosyncratic but not invalid.
- The author highlights that incubation and insight are supported by PKM systems like PARA, contrary to Brennan's claim that they involve only browsing links.
- Brennan's third question about successful writers' processes is seen as irrelevant; personal methods vary and don't disprove PKM.
- Brennan's own writing process—rapid drafting with placeholders—is criticized for leading to poor research, as evidenced by his article's misleading citations.
- The irony is noted: Brennan criticizes PKM enthusiasts for lack of output while himself producing daily posts and self-published novels without rigorous research.
- The author concludes Brennan's intentions were good but his article suffered from overambition and insufficient research, agreeing with Brennan on AI's limitations.