Buzan One Word per Topic?

[Howard]

I am summarizing GRASP, the new book by ThinkBuzan's Chris Griffiths.  My mind map tool is, of course, Novamind 5 for Mac, which is undoubtedly sacrilegious to the iMindmap folks.  I did try doing one chapter with iMindmap 5.  Hey folks, we are really fortunate.  Novamind 5 is a MUCH better mindmapping tool.  I will not even try to do a comparison.  But, there, IMHO, is no comparison.  Fortunately, I was able to import my one IMM crafted chapter into Novamind.  The import has a couple of minor bugs, but I'll report that to support.

However, I wanted to find out how you other folks handle words per line.  GRASP provides a summary with its own mind map at the end of each chapter.  The standard Buzan approach is to use one word per topic/subtopic.  I do find when I discipline myself to use one, at most two, words per line, my maps are much cleaner and easier to interpret quickly.  How many of you restrict yourself to one/two words per line, ala, Buzan.  As I discipline myself to do this I find I use notes more to elaborate, but the maps look better.  What do you think?

[WindyCity]

Excellent post, Howard.

Yes, I try to limit myself to 1-2 words per topic, but don't always succeed. Sometimes it takes considerable thought to hit upon keywords that will memorably call back a complex idea. It forces one to think carefully, and that can take time. The guideline of using a single word per topic is not always easy for me to follow, especially when I'm brainstorming rapidly. I think that it's a worthwhile goal, but reaching it requires deliberate thought.
 
Perhaps the ideal is most likely to be achieved in the final drafts of maps. First efforts will often break the rule.

I agree that the notes ('⌘+' shortcut, and then back to topic focus using the ⌘+⇧+') are the best place to record detailed information.

Good to hear you say that NM5 is the best available mind mapping software. I think its graphical functionality and layout engine stand head and shoulders above the others. From what I've heard from the development team, it's going to become even more powerful in the months and years ahead.

[Howard]

BTW, GRASP is a good book if you are interested in thinking process.  I am enjoying it. 

Also, I am constantly trying to improve my ability to develop mind maps that summarize and manage information effectively.   I mind map a summary of most nonfiction books that I read.  Obviously, this is time-consuming compared to just reading the book.  I am always looking for ways to use this time effectively.  One word topics/subtopics do save time in a way.  However, like Windy, at first I spend some time trying to figure out the word that best does the job.  When I return to a map, I want to be able to quickly understand the content by looking at the map.  Using one word topics is an art that takes time to master.  Comparing my one word maps with the experts shows me how far I still have to go. 

Mind mapping GRASP is a good exercise.  I say this because Griffiths provides a mind map summary at the end of each chapter.  I mind map the chapter and then compare my work with his.  Usually I conclude that his way of mind mapping the content is better than mine. Sometimes I conclude mine is better.  Mind mapping is a very individual thing.  Words that I would use to capture, and then recall, a topic would be different than others.  I also use lots of pictures, which are, for me, even more effective at triggering recall than words.  Using too many pictures, however, clutters the map.

Unfortunately, when I use one word and a picture for a topic, creating that topic becomes even more time- consuming.  Finding just the right image for a topic takes time plus the time to capture and imbed.  If I want to store and reuse the image..even more time.  To me, the very best mind mapping software will provide a very fast and efficient way to find and embed images in a map.  Novamind handles the process well, but there needs to be a way to have quick access to tens(hundreds?) of thousands of icons and images to make this process ideal.  I know storing lots and lots of images/icons within the program is very hard to do, as Gideon explained in another thread.  I hope that this capability is available at some point.  When images/icons can be quickly accessed and added to a map, without time consuming searches, my ideal mind mapping program will have been achieved.    One word, and just the right image for some of the topics, is what I am shooting for. 

Maybe a relationship between Novamind and one of the icon websites like iClipart.com, which stores millions of images, could help make this many images quickly available from within the program.

I have noticed that, even in maps developed by experts, the images are not always quite right.  I guess this is a testimonial to how difficult the imaging problem is to master.

[WindyCity]

I heard from a representative of the development team that they're contemplating adding a feature sometime down the road that would allow users to draw images directly onto maps. You'd use a drawing program or a pen tablet. Your hand-drawn images would appear directly in the graphic space of a topic. Another possibility would be the inclusion of drawing tools in NM that would enable users to draw images onto the map canvas. Once a drawing was completed, the user could frame it and convert it into a topic to be attached at the appropriate place on the map.

I would LOVE a feature like this, because I think that images we create ourselves would work more effectively in stimulating recall, creativity, and idea generation.

I wonder if a feature like this might be a suitable candidate for a plug-in.

[Patrick]

Summarizing GRASP with NovaMind 5 - I like your style  . I have tried to work with iMindMap 5 before and find it has severe usability issues.

As for the one word per topic rule. Tony Buzan used to be extremely strict on that, making it an essential rule of Mind Mapping.

This is what he says about it:

One of the important points in structure in a Mind Map is to have one word to a branch. Why? Because if you have one word then that one word with all its associations is free. If you put them together then you make it more rigid. Very simply. For example: If you are Mind Mapping and you wanted to put Tony Buzan. If you put Tony Buzan on a branch then you stuck them together with glue but if you put Buzan and then Tony then you have the freedom to radiate out. [...] So, the single word per line gives you much more freedom. [...] Much more clarity.

Frankly, I think that this is only marginally applicable in some very open ideation tasks and in most cases this rule is completely counterproductive. The example he gives is silly. If I want to Mind Map about Tony Buzan I will put Tony Buzan on the topic as this is the topic I want to create a Mind Map for. While adding Buzan and then Tony might free me to add whatever other names of the Buzan family I might want, it certainly doesn't bring any more clarity to it. Quite on the contrary, it makes the Mind Map less focused and more confusing.

The rule to add only a single word on a topic is not very helpful. I think it is good to strive for few words and not a wall of text but add enough information to clearly state what the topic stands for.

Below is the link to the video that I took the quote from:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlabrWv25qQ#t=2m35s

[Navigator72]

Reminds me that "no generalization is worth a d...mn, including this one"  One word per line cannot be the right answer in every case. Better, as Patrick suggests, to consider what's right for the situation.

[Learning K]

Let me add, as an older person, that sometimes one word is not enough to stimulate the little gray cells about what the original meaning was.  Perhaps it works in a quick brainstorm, but I like enough words to recall the point I intended to convey. 

[Howard]

I have been experimenting with the one word per line approach, and generally like it.  To me, using one word per line provides more flexibility with the map, makes the map more concise and easy to understand.  The things that interest and appeal to a map are color, organic topic lines, images, boundaries etc.  I find with one word topics, I can use these features more creatively. 

For example, one of the nice things about Buzan-style maps are the organic wavy topic lines.  Patrick and Gideon have said those will be added in the future, but a similar effect can be achieved with one word per line, and then repositioning the words to give the effect of an uneven topic line.  See my mind map summary of the introduction to GRASP files.me.com/howardrv/ojlc01.  I have tried to use all the various approaches to making the map easy to understand and visually appealing. 

[WindyCity]

Howard,

Your example shows that using a single word per topic provides excellent opportunities for associative branching. As an example, the branch "People/Think/Better/With" could bifurcate at "Think" with, say, "Intuit"; or again at "Better" with "Worse" (or "Superlatively"); or again at "With" with "Without". Each single lexical element offers a chance to veer off into new territory, rather than relying on the more limiting range of options that a single complex phrase offers. To illustrate: if your branch had instead been "People/Think better with", it might give rise to only the following association: "People/Think less well with", or something like that, missing all the possibilities I listed above.

As I wrote in an earlier post, it can sometimes be difficult to condense a complex idea into a single keyword. However, what you've shown, in following Buzan's model, is that it can be fruitful to lay out a complex phrase in a word-to-word chain of connected topics. Thanks for sharing this with us!

[Howard]

WindyCity,

I have to admit when I first read Buzan's book I pooh-poohed the idea of one key word per topic.  It seemed strange and unnecessary.  However, the more I worked with it, the more I bought in to his notion that one key word opens up the possibility of lots of association possibilities, as you point out.  When you practice creating maps this way, it begins opening creative possibilities.

Buzan does say that some topics like names and quotes should be put together, although I see that Chris Griffith does split up names.  I don't see why that is necessary.  Another advantage of using one key word in Novamind is that topic lines can be more organic - crooked, wavy, etc. NM5s 'move' feature lets us reposition each key word as we see fit.  Key words can be kept in a straight line, or moved around.

Some of the maps on Novamind Connect are very heavy with words, look cluttered, and at least initially seem unintelligible.  I guess though we need ask the purpose of a map.  If it is simply a place to store information, links and attachments, that is one thing.  But, if the map is intended to communicate to others, then a different approach is required.

I am still working on this approach.  It clearly takes practice.  When I look back at some of my maps, some of the topics seem vague.  I end up spending lots of time on this.  The book GRASP provides excellent practice. 

It is ironic that the originator of modern mind mapping, and currently maybe the best mind map thinker, does not have the best mind mapping software.  When I try to use iMindMap (occasionally), I get very frustrated because I like Buzan's approach, but the software's features are lacking.

Buzan's Approach to Thinking About Thinking + Gideon's Genius and Software = Mind Mapping Nirvana

Maybe ThinkBuzan and Novamind should merge. 

[WindyCity]

[Howard]

You have it right. Brilliant!   

[Patrick]