Colored pens/pencils for hand-drawn mindmaps

[moises]

I've been noodling around with mindmaps for a couple of years now.

Back when I started I followed someone else's advice and bought gel pens and drawing paper. I love the look of the gel pens but half of them stick and jam and don't write clearly on the drawing paper. So I figured the paper was the problem and started using 11"x17" (279x432mm) copy paper. I love using this size paper. The larger size makes a big difference. And I can fold it in half to get a standard US 8.5x11" size for storage in my file folders.

But even with the copy paper half of my gel pens skip.

DA mentions that is is a lot better to mindmap in color. I like to do it if I can. Anyone else mindmap by hand regularly in color? What do you use?

And even if you don't regularly mindmap by hand in color. Do you have any suggestions on color writing instruments or how I can unjam my gel pens?

[Scott_L_Lewis]

Moises:

I do a lot of things in multiple colors. After trying a lot of marker and gel pens, I went back to ball points. My favorite at the moment is the Pentel RSVP pen. It comes in five color multipacks: black, blue, red, green, and purple. These are adequate for my needs. The pens come in fine point and medium point. They are also very inexpensive.

Another pen I like is the Bic Atlantis. They are dirt cheap, have comfortable grips, and write very smoothly. In terms of colors, I've only seen them in four-color sets: black, blue, red, and green. However, if you looked around, you might find them in more colors.

Another idea to think about for mind mapping would be to make all of the lines and words in black, and then use highlighters to add color.

I also like the 11 X 17 paper for mind mapping. Although, if you really want to go nuts, use a flip chart!

[Anonymous]

One thing you might consider, which is easy to get and works very well is a set of Crayola colored pencils. They draw easily, come in a variety of colors and can easily be sharpened.

I wouldn't use them in a company report, but for personal use, they're very good! 8)

[Mark]

Hi Moises,

By far the best pens I have come across are the Uni-ball Eye UB157 range by the Mitsubishi Pencil Co. Ltd (www.uni-ball.com).

These are roller-balls rather than gel pens, and come in 10 colours.

Best regards,

mark.

[Tspall]

I'll also agree with the Uni-Ball pens. I use them for everyday work all the time. Great quality.

I also had another idea. I was at the store and found a pack of colored Sharpie markers. Shapie makes good markers, so if you're leaning towards something bolder in color, you could also try those.

[jmarkey]

I like the idea of using 11x17 paper. I think I will try that.

[moises]

Hey, thanks for all the great responses. I'm going to give them a try.

I saw a big improvement in the utility of my mindmaps when I went to 11x17. I teach once a week for 2 1/2 hours and like to mindmap the topics I am going to cover. Often I wish to get a large amount of material on the mindmap so 11x17 makes it possible.

11x17 is also great if there is an important book that you want to mindmap. Invariably, if a book is good enough for me to want to mindmap it, there is a lot of material I want to put in my mindmap. It is always possible to make 2 or 3 mindmaps for one book but that defeats one of the great advantages of seeing everything together so that their interrelationships become apparent.

[arthur]

Maybe a Fisher Space Pen would help. Although, I have never used one of the Fisher pens. I do mind maps although usually on regular paper. I have a wide assortment of Pilot G-2 07 pens. Once I tried one of these pens I never went back to any others. And it?s quite amazing they are very popular, I see them everywhere now. A little expensive but the refills are not bad. And they have very good grip and writing feel. I bought a few of the pens and use different color refills.

Moises, if you are using thick construction paper you may get some drag, not exactly sure about your paper and the G-2 07. But they are rocking pens.

Mind Maps are great, I use them as checklists at times.

http://www.pilotpen.us/detail.asp?PenID=7

[Bellaisa]

11x17 is also great if there is an important book that you want to mindmap. Invariably, if a book is good enough for me to want to mindmap it, there is a lot of material I want to put in my mindmap. It is always possible to make 2 or 3 mindmaps for one book but that defeats one of the great advantages of seeing everything together so that their interrelationships become apparent.

Moises, mind-mapping a book is an interesting idea. Could you describe that a little more - how you use it, what you get out of it. I'm trying to squeeze more out of my reading and have never thought about mind-mapping a book when I'm done.

[Tspall]

It's probably very similar to mind mapping notes during a class.

I teach sixth grade science and this past year, I started giving my notes in a mind map format. I had many students who were not dedicated note takers start taking notes because it was less essay and more like drawing. It fit their personality better. Other students were better able to study and see the relationships between ideas since there was a line from "point A" to "point B" to show them. I saw definite improvement in note taking skills.

To mindmap a book would probably follow similar ideas and be easier to work with than standard outline style.

[moises]

11x17 is also great if there is an important book that you want to mindmap. Invariably, if a book is good enough for me to want to mindmap it, there is a lot of material I want to put in my mindmap. It is always possible to make 2 or 3 mindmaps for one book but that defeats one of the great advantages of seeing everything together so that their interrelationships become apparent.

Moises, mind-mapping a book is an interesting idea. Could you describe that a little more - how you use it, what you get out of it. I'm trying to squeeze more out of my reading and have never thought about mind-mapping a book when I'm done.

I do not mindmap every book I read. But I do mindmap some of them when there is enough important stuff in them that I want to see it all laid out in front of me.

Tony Buzan and others have written endlessly about mindmaps. Do a search on this site and there are lots of links to websites showing how to mindmap. There is an example of one in DA's GTD book. DA also mentions them in his GTD Fast audio tracks.

Most recently I mind mapped a book I learned about from the GTD forum, David D. Burns's The Feeling Good Handbook.

I put my 11"x17" copy paper on my desk in landscape orientation and wrote the name of the author and title in the center of the page and drew a circle around it. Out of the circle I drew spokes with the following on them: distortions, tools, procrastination, applications, communication.

Then out of these main spokes I drew lines with more words. The tools spoke had: log, stick-figure, cost-benefit, double-standard, evidence, vertical-arrow, feared-fantasy, pleasure-predicting, etc.

The keys are to use key words to prompt ideas rather than a lot of sentences.

[Bellaisa]

Interesting - thank you.

[Vilmosz]

I found a brand of colored pens at my local art store -- I think it's called TOMI, but Googling doesn't yield the proper results so I may have the name wrong. White barrels with thin color strips on the clips. I found these pens, with their fine points and array of colors -- to be ideal for mindmapping. In any case, go to a specialty art store frequented by artists -- you'll find a good selection, well-arranged, and I'm sure you'll find a brand and style you'll be able to claim as yours.

I wanted to add something interesting Buzan says about mindmaps in one of his books -- the physical layout -- free-form with curved lines and images emenating from a central idea -- are conceptually meant to represent actual ideas bouncing arond the brain via neurons, synapses and neural pathways. They are not mere diagrams or decision trees. In other words, a mindmap is a representation of the brain's physiological thought structure. I thought that was interesting. I believe he mentions his in "The Mindmap Book." Also, I read an article by Michel Gondry who directed ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, in which he published the mindmaps he used in creating the story.

[eowyn]

I have been summarizing lectures in a mind-map format - on A3 paper (which is approx 11 x 17"), using standard pens for the words and colour pencils to highlight and draw lines.

I certainly feel that I have more of a grip on what the lecturer was talking about after doing the mind-map.

Occasionally, i have put a (small) mind-map into a powerpoint slide.

[andersons]

I like the colored Sharpies with a fine point at one end and medium point at the other. They throw out a lot of ink, which makes for easy reading, but you have to be careful not to let it bleed through the paper to stain anything beneath. When they say "permanent" they mean "permanent"!

Another cool tool for visualizing is this dry-erase sheet that clings to a wall. They are maybe 30" X 40." Obviously you can't file away the result, but often most of the value is in the thinking process itself. These sheets are a nice size to fit a lot of stuff on.

[Day Owl]

Pencils: Sanford Prismacolor Col-Erase Pencils - come in a 12-pack of assorted colors, ~$5/dozen. They're erasable, so you can change your mind and make adjustments without making a mess.

Pens: Zebra Sarasa Retractable Gel Ink Pens - come in a 10-pack of assorted colors, ~$13-16/dozen. They write very smoothly and the ink is of good quality.

[andersons]

I'm reading The Mind Map Book right now, and here's what I think is the most interesting so far. Buzan strongly condemns lists:




". . .lists directly oppose the workings of the mind. . .they stunt and cauterize the thinking process. Lists rein in the free-ranging movement of the brain, eventually reducing it to stasis and establishing narrow neural pathways of thought that increasingly reduce the probability of creativity and recall." (p 86) Other than the fact that these statements are complete nonsense with no scientific merit whatsoever, the really interesting thing is that the entire book is about 75% lists! Numbered lists and bulleted lists! List after list after list! In fact, I can hardly think of a book with more lists. And since "our short-term memory is on average only capable of storing seven items of information" (p 103), it's too bad that many of the lists in the book have 9 or 12 or 14 items.

[Brent]

And since "our short-term memory is on average only capable of storing seven items of information" (p 103), it's too bad that many of the lists in the book have 9 or 12 or 14 items.

Heh. Which is not true, anyway; the original study on which that is based (and which itself had a rather small sample size, as I recall) found that short-term memory is only capable of storing about seven [i]unrelated[i] items of information. How many of your lists contain completely unrelated items?

[Skiptomylue11]

andersons, I'm not 100% sure of the context that you took that. However considering the book is about mind-mapping, it probably was saying lists are not good for brainstorming. With a mind map you skim over your thoughts and have many topics to add ideas to, however when you are using a list there is only one place to add new ideas.

For example, you could have an idea about topic 1, then topic 2, then topic 3, then topic 1, then topic 5 and the list looks quite disorganized, because you have 5 relatively unrelated items on this vertical list. However with a mind map, you can branch off a point beside topic 1, or topic 2, or topic 3, no matter what order you get the thought. Lists however are best read when they are organized, ie the data is already gathered now being processed into relationships, or contexts, or whatever.

Lists are fine for simple brainstorming, however once it gets to larger scale brainstorming, mind-maps are flexible, and the ideas are organized as they are created.

Lists are excellent for conveying information once organized, which is how they often are used, ie. in a book, for NAs, names on a team's roster, databases, etc.

[kewms]

I've got the book in front of me. Buzan is quite emphatic about the horribleness of lists: not good for brainstorming, not good for notetaking, not good for organizing information. Lists are bad bad bad. And yes, the book is full of them.

*shrug* I find mindmapping useful for some things, a waste of time for others. Same for outlining. Buzan obviously has an agenda, but then we've talked before about how rigorous research doesn't sell as many books as exuberant promises.

Katherine

[Vilmosz]

I spent a solid 18 months creating mindmaps -- and they yielded no tangible (repeat TANGIBLE -- as opposed to creative/imaginative) results for me on any of the projects I worked on. I question, of course, whether I utilized the method properly, or whether I knew enough about them at all. But, regardless, here's what I feel, looking back on all the mindmaps I created (and I was actually pretty religious in following Buzan's advice) -- they are just that: maps. They can reveal thought processes, they can show you steps and ideas you hadn't considered or thought about. They can even show you how YOU think which is invaluable. But I do not believe they can help you get things done, anymore than a map can take you to a destination. You need some sort of locomotion modality to accomplish that.

(I'm going to take another look at the examples he uses in his books -- I'm curious to remind myself exactly what the mindmaps used for illustration had as objectives.)

As I take furtive steps in understanding the GTD approach, it seems (and I'm stating the obvious) very focused on tangible results. These two approaches -- one a method for enhancing creative thinking, the other a system for getting things done -- are perfectly complementary. We ought forgive someone like Buzan for the trespasses of hyperbole and not dismiss his whole agenda (which I don't think anyone here is suggesting anyway) simply because he clearly overstates things.

[andersons]

Good discussion. Yes, there really are some nuggets of truth in The Mind Map Book. But it annoys me because there are so many blatantly false assertions! It's just crazy how on one page Buzan will be spot on about, say, spreading activation; and then a few pages later he'll say something unbelievably ridiculous. I recognize the false only because this is my field of research. I guess I didn't recognize an agenda or exaggeration when I read it; I would have thought Tony Buzan really believes what he's saying; but maybe I'm just being naive.

I was prepared to shake some salt; I didn't necessarily expect to learn anything about the brain from Buzan; I've already seen the hype on his website. But I was curious about his technique because I have seen so much enthusiasm for it! I do scientific research in brain and cognitive sciences, with a focus on learning. Yes, the rigorous kind of research that doesn't sell <sigh>. I don't know if I can market what I have learned: your brain has unbelievable, unlimited potential to learn new knowledge and skills (so far in agreement with Buzan), BUT the main thing required for learning is to spend the time. There is no learning shortcut that eliminates the need to spend time to get results.

The main benefit I see of mind mapping is if it gets you to spend time 1) organizing ideas and 2) visualizing them. If you want to organize and visualize by following the Mind Map rules, fine; but there are many ways to organize and visualize information, and all will work about the same, given the same amount of time spent doing them. There is no need to have spokes radiate from a center. There is no hope of actually representing the structure of either brain systems or neurons in a mind map. But fortunately, you don't need to in order to use your brain. That's my grain of salt.

Another interesting topic in the book was Buzan's reference to Shereshevsky ('S') from Luria's The Mind of a Mnemonist. Buzan describes synaesthesia as if it's a good thing, but it's a sensory perception disorder. People with synaesthesia don't just associate, say, a color and a taste, as in a mind map; they actually taste the color. This sensory disorder confuses them and makes social interaction difficult. And exceptional memory is really not good either. 'S' had exceptional memory in that he remembered every detail of everything he ever saw or experienced. It was a terrible liability that interfered with his life. Forgetting is an important and valuable function of the human brain. The Mind of a Mnemonist is an interesting little book; I recommend it.

My favorite book about creativity is How To Get Ideas by Jack Foster.

[Skiptomylue11]

Wow, that book sounds really strange. Maybe its a big joke? :confused:, what does he recommend to convey information then? Just plain out weird!

[kewms]

The main benefit I see of mind mapping is if it gets you to spend time 1) organizing ideas and 2) visualizing them. If you want to organize and visualize by following the Mind Map rules, fine; but there are many ways to organize and visualize information, and all will work about the same, given the same amount of time spent doing them.

Hmmm.... That might explain why I find mind maps helpful. They are more engaging than lists -- more colorful, more visually complex, more opportunities to doodle and sketch, etc. -- and so I tend to spend more time with them. Listmaking feels like work, while mindmapping feels like play.

(Therein lies the pitfall, too, which is spending so much time drawing pretty maps that you never follow them anywhere. Eventually one must put the crayons down and get to work.)

Katherine

[Desultory]

I've tried mindmaps a couple times, but when I'm done filling the page I'm left wondering: okay, now what do I do? How does this help me plan what to do next?

I prefer freewriting to work out problems.

[Skiptomylue11]

I've tried mindmaps a couple times, but when I'm done filling the page I'm left wondering: okay, now what do I do? How does this help me plan what to do next?
It doesn't

A mind-map is not to tell you what to do next. It is to merely generate as many ideas possible about a certain subject. After you create the mind-map, then you must process the mind-map into lists or choose the most effective solution(s) from your ideas. You must decide what to do next given the information from the mind-map.

[Vilmosz]

Great post, Andersons. Yes, the work. The one thing so many of us seem so determined to try to find a way around that we spend an inordinate amount of time working at it. GTD offers no such refuge.

Your post, and some aspects of this discussion, recall for me another interesting "hobby" I took up around the same time I became enamored of mind maps. This was the matter of improving my self esteem, and I mention it in this forum because of how very interwoven self-esteem is said to be with vision, clarity, values and achievement -- in other words, simlilar ground we're here on GTD to address. Anyway, I had read books by a congnitive behavioralist named Nathaniel Branden. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=pd_sim_1/104-3697502-4587165?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Nathaniel%20Branden). A lot of what he says is important, particularly about the concept of learned helplessness (something which, IMHO, we saw played out to a degree in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina). Building on his "brand" Branden created a method of sentence completions which he claims has been therapeutic in helping people overcome low self-esteem. And, he says, improving self-esteem with his method will automatically segue into improved productivity, clarity, etc. I played around with Branden's sentence completions for a couple of months with absolutely no results whatsoever. Flah forward to a couple of months ago -- I was at the university library when I noticed a fascinating book called SELF-EFFICACY (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0716728508/ref=wl_it_dp/104-3697502-4587165?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=I3MKHLFIGYOVK3&v=glance&colid=2ZD5M2E4O4NXP) which I browsed. The book explains that self-esteem has nothing to do with productivity -- there are people with low self-esteem who are high achievers, and people with high-self esteem who are delusionally and grandiosely content. Interesting! Also, in retrospect, seems obvious -- think of all the accomplished people you may have read about who grappled with self-esteem and self-worth.

I'm looking forward to reading SELF-EFFICACY carefully; I'm sure that it will explain how HARD WORK, a high tolerance for frustration and the ability to endure obstacles and failures are key ingredients to achievement (all of which, by the way, I have yet to master to any degree). Like Buzan, Branden offers a concept that makes intuitive sense -- then he offers a system -- and then he makes a tremendous leap; that following his system will unlock something within us that will lead to a flow-like momentum in which achivement is inevitable. Of course, we can only wish this were so.

[kewms]

A mind-map is not to tell you what to do next. It is to merely generate as many ideas possible about a certain subject.

That depends on how you use the mindmap. Maps can be used for brainstorming, but can also be used to organize ideas, visualize a series of actions, see relationships between ideas, identify more or less likely lines of inquiry, and so forth. While many people prefer to work from more conventional lists, there is no reason why you can't work directly from a mind map if you choose.

All a mind map really is, is a graphical outline. (Some software tools make this explicit, by letting you convert from map to outline form and back.) Anything you can do with an outline, you can do with a map, and vice versa.

Katherine

[Day Owl]

HARD WORK, a high tolerance for frustration and the ability to endure obstacles and failures are key ingredients to achievement....

Well said, Vilmosz.

Here's a similar take on this subject from a more ancient source -- the Vedas:

Six qualities are needed for success in any venture:
1. Proper effort
2. Perseverance
3. Courage
4. Knowledge of the given pursuit
5. Skill and resources
6. Capacity to overcome obstacles

[andersons]

Wow, that book sounds really strange. Maybe its a big joke? :confused:, what does he recommend to convey information then? Just plain out weird!
Well, it's quite clear that he's a big fan of mind maps to convey information. That's it. He believes they are the magic to "maximize your brain's untapped potential" (front cover). There are a whole bunch of chapters on how to use mind maps for various applications -- 11 applications in all, actually.

But in practice, the information in the book is often presented in lists, so whether he's aware of it or not, he must not really believe what he says about lists. I'm just guessing, but I bet he made a mind map for each chapter, then took the stuff from different branch levels and turned them into lists in order to write his book. The irony is that the resulting book is not well written. There's not enough elaboration in the bulleted lists. The lists themselves need better organization: some ideas overlap, while others are not related to each other.

To be fair, the application chapters may be better. I haven't gotten to them yet.

[andersons]

Hmmm.... That might explain why I find mind maps helpful. They are more engaging than lists -- more colorful, more visually complex, more opportunities to doodle and sketch, etc. -- and so I tend to spend more time with them. Listmaking feels like work, while mindmapping feels like play.
Yes, I think they are more engaging. And engaging is definitely not a trivial thing; motivation is a huge factor in learning.

Mind maps are probably especially appealing to people with some artistic skills. Sadly, that's not me. Mine are, well, kinda ugly. Making them look nicer requires too much time and patience for me since I'm not good at it. Some of the example mind maps are beautiful, like the tree on p. 119.

I have used visual techniques to organize and remember information since elementary school. My techniques look nothing like a mind map, and not nearly as pretty as the sample mind maps, but I think they accomplish the same goal of visual organization. I use codes. I use lots of arrows and easy-to-draw symbols (like circles). I sometimes color code, not artistically but just to link related ideas. Hence my colored Sharpie recommendation earlier in the post. I like highlighters too.

[andersons]

The book explains that self-esteem has nothing to do with productivity -- there are people with low self-esteem who are high achievers, and people with high-self esteem who are delusionally and grandiosely content.
Yes, it appears that the self-esteem movement has fallen out of favor. Today's students have measurably much higher self-esteem than students did in the 70's, but this improved self-esteem has not led to educational utopia once envisioned. And yes, self-efficacy is a popular concept now. If I recall, Bandura is the key researcher there.

I had a friend who attended a $30,000/yr prep school (my friend was on full scholarship) while the school radically overhauled its curriculum to emphasize self-esteem. It was really something to see parents fork over that kind of money so that their kids could learn "you're a worthwhile, valuable person" instead of calculus.

[andersons]

All a mind map really is, is a graphical outline. . . Anything you can do with an outline, you can do with a map, and vice versa.
Except that when you say the word "outline," students' eyes glaze over. Outlines are hated!

This is like telling a child there's really no such thing as Santa Claus! Ruining the magic! ;-)