Probably an ad hominem, but why would someone who has over 7000 tweets and who appears to be tweeting every 3 hours need to carry an additional pen + paper.
Wouldn't he have his phone anyway? I wonder why are so many "digital natives" still preaching the advantages of pen an paper over digital texts today.
I'm that guy and I always have my phone. But, I'd be willing to bet that from a standstill with nothing in our hands, I could write down a task to my Corbinizer faster than you can find the app, launch it, type it in and save.
I was excited about Siri as a final replacement for the Corbinizer, but even now I'd rather not scream my tasks at my phone during a meeting.
The Affordances of paper are quite significant. We're still years, maybe decades, away from digital technology as easy to use, as intuitive, and adaptable as paper.
I mean, that's answered directly in the article: phones run out of battery, Twitter isn't as each to reach for as a notebook.
I don't use this guy's specific method, but I've spent the past few months using pen-and-paper as well, and it just works very well for me (using the Bullet Journal technique: bulletjournal.com). I suspect this kind of thing varies wildly from person to person, though.
The other aspect for me is that I can write better on a book with bound paper pages, than I can on a smartphone. I can type much better than either of those input methods, on a proper keyboard. But if I don't have a proper keyboard, I'm more skilled with a pen than with a simulation of a QWERTY keyboard on a 4.5" touchscreen.
But if you go to a meeting somewhere and you would have to choose between pen/paper or a smartphone which would you choose?
Typing speed may not be an advantage of phones [1] but your colleges will not see what you have planned.
I could write these thoughts I'm writing right now on paper for myself but I'm "thinking" with you.
Maybe it's hard to argue about it because these two things seem superficially similar. But like paperless offices, paperless note taking/planning will win in the end.
[1]: to be fair, you have been writing with a pen since you're 5 or 6. Most people never wrote anything on touchscreens bevor 2007.
If I was at a meeting, I'd certainly write on paper; that's one of the easiest cases! For one, it's more socially acceptable to be writing on a piece of paper than to be looking at a smartphone. When you pull out a smartphone, everyone assumes you're just doing something else (checking email, chatting on IM, whatever).
I wonder why are so many "digital natives" still preaching the advantages of pen an paper over digital texts today.
Different technologies have different qualities, I still find a small notebook and an A4 zipping folder indispensible. Paper is fast. For idea development, scribbling on lots of paper is still one of the best tools available.
I read (in a random book, while standing in a bookstore) that handwriting is an integrative activity, where tapping a screen or typing on a keyboard is far less integrative.
The book said that people have input (reading, viewing, touching, etc.), processing, and output. When the outut has a focused kinesthetic element (like handwriting does), it integrates the conclusions of the processing into memories and neural connections much more deeply.
Can someone who knows about this stuff confirm or deny?
Personally, I find writing notes by hand to be satisfying and flexible. Yes, I have a gadget in my pocket and I use it where I know I don't need anything but text or photos. But my first choice for write-once memory is my blank book and a pen.
Comments
Probably an ad hominem, but why would someone who has over 7000 tweets and who appears to be tweeting every 3 hours need to carry an additional pen + paper.
Wouldn't he have his phone anyway? I wonder why are so many "digital natives" still preaching the advantages of pen an paper over digital texts today.
I'm that guy and I always have my phone. But, I'd be willing to bet that from a standstill with nothing in our hands, I could write down a task to my Corbinizer faster than you can find the app, launch it, type it in and save.
I was excited about Siri as a final replacement for the Corbinizer, but even now I'd rather not scream my tasks at my phone during a meeting.
The Affordances of paper are quite significant. We're still years, maybe decades, away from digital technology as easy to use, as intuitive, and adaptable as paper.
I mean, that's answered directly in the article: phones run out of battery, Twitter isn't as each to reach for as a notebook.
I don't use this guy's specific method, but I've spent the past few months using pen-and-paper as well, and it just works very well for me (using the Bullet Journal technique: bulletjournal.com). I suspect this kind of thing varies wildly from person to person, though.
The other aspect for me is that I can write better on a book with bound paper pages, than I can on a smartphone. I can type much better than either of those input methods, on a proper keyboard. But if I don't have a proper keyboard, I'm more skilled with a pen than with a simulation of a QWERTY keyboard on a 4.5" touchscreen.
But if you go to a meeting somewhere and you would have to choose between pen/paper or a smartphone which would you choose?
Typing speed may not be an advantage of phones [1] but your colleges will not see what you have planned. I could write these thoughts I'm writing right now on paper for myself but I'm "thinking" with you.
Maybe it's hard to argue about it because these two things seem superficially similar. But like paperless offices, paperless note taking/planning will win in the end.
[1]: to be fair, you have been writing with a pen since you're 5 or 6. Most people never wrote anything on touchscreens bevor 2007.
If I was at a meeting, I'd certainly write on paper; that's one of the easiest cases! For one, it's more socially acceptable to be writing on a piece of paper than to be looking at a smartphone. When you pull out a smartphone, everyone assumes you're just doing something else (checking email, chatting on IM, whatever).
I use a mix: write the "bullet journal" with OneNote, print it, and continue with a pencil.
I wonder why are so many "digital natives" still preaching the advantages of pen an paper over digital texts today.
Different technologies have different qualities, I still find a small notebook and an A4 zipping folder indispensible. Paper is fast. For idea development, scribbling on lots of paper is still one of the best tools available.
I read (in a random book, while standing in a bookstore) that handwriting is an integrative activity, where tapping a screen or typing on a keyboard is far less integrative.
The book said that people have input (reading, viewing, touching, etc.), processing, and output. When the outut has a focused kinesthetic element (like handwriting does), it integrates the conclusions of the processing into memories and neural connections much more deeply.
Can someone who knows about this stuff confirm or deny?
Personally, I find writing notes by hand to be satisfying and flexible. Yes, I have a gadget in my pocket and I use it where I know I don't need anything but text or photos. But my first choice for write-once memory is my blank book and a pen.
Pen + paper is freeform - i can include sketches easily.
Pen + paper allows me to rip out a sheet and just give someone a note without having to worry about connecting phones or exchanging email addresses.
It's just nice to use a different medium sometimes.