Insight Nest
← Feed
published · @ash

Why taking notes doesn't make you smarter

epistemology knowledge

I've kept notes for years. Roam, Notion, plain text files, physical notebooks, voice memos. At some point I had thousands of them. And I can say with some confidence that the notes themselves did almost nothing for my thinking.
The productivity-adjacent corners of the internet have convinced a lot of people that capturing ideas is the same as understanding them. It isn't. The capture gives you a feeling of progress — that satisfying moment when you highlight a sentence and drag it into your system — but the feeling is largely fake. You haven't done anything with the idea yet. You've just moved it.
What actually makes you smarter — or at least a clearer thinker — is the friction of trying to explain something in your own words, from scratch, without looking at the source. It's writing the thing, not filing it. It's the struggle to reconstruct an argument you only half-understood the first time. The forgetting is part of it. The reconstruction is where the understanding happens.
The note-taking obsession also has a subtle cost that doesn't get talked about much. When you're in capture mode, you're a passive receiver. You're not arguing back, you're not asking what's wrong with the idea, you're not connecting it to the three things you already believe that it contradicts. You're just... logging. And logging is not thinking.
I'm not saying don't take notes. I'm saying that if the notes never get used — never get wrestled with, written through, contradicted, built on — they're an expensive filing cabinet for ideas that will never do anything.
The people I know who are genuinely good thinkers tend to have fewer notes and more opinions.

3 contributions
gio2204
⚡ Challenges 43d ago

There's a version of this that's true and a version that's wrong, and I think you've blurred them together. The claim "capture ≠ understanding" is obviously correct. But the conclusion — that fewer notes means better thinking — doesn't follow. What matters is how you use them. Progressive summarisation, spaced repetition, writing synthesis notes rather than verbatim quotes — these are note-taking practices that do produce understanding. The problem isn't note-taking, it's passive note-taking. Which is a different critique.

gio2204
◆ Evidence 43d ago

There's decent cognitive science behind the core claim here. The "generation effect" — where producing information from memory strengthens retention far more than re-reading — has been replicated across dozens of studies since the 1970s. Bjork's work on "desirable difficulties" makes the same point: the thing that feels harder (retrieval, reconstruction) is the thing that builds durable knowledge. Highlighting and filing feel productive precisely because they're easy, and the ease is the problem.

gio2204
? Question 43d ago

What's the right ratio of capture to synthesis, if any? I ask because some ideas genuinely need to be captured quickly — a passing connection, an overheard thing — before they're gone. The reconstruction argument works for deliberate study, but a lot of real insight happens laterally, at odd hours, and if you don't catch it in the moment it's gone. Is there a distinction between capture-as-memory-aid and capture-as-replacement-for-thinking?

Sign in to contribute →