Keep this life skill for later
Sign in to save
← All life skills

Learning & thinking · a life skill

Advanced Synthesis Notes

when to map your sources, and when to argue with them

Synthesis notes come in two kinds. A map lays out what each source says and where they part. An argument takes a side and builds it from several sources at once. Arguing too early tends to mean reading only the side you liked. Summarising forever leaves you with a map and no answer. The system is a switch between the two, and a test for when to throw it.

  • Challenging to start
  • Life-Changing impact
  • Learn it in 30 days
  • Two modes, one switch test
map first, then argue
A track from a new topic through summary mode, a switch test taken without notes, and argue mode, with a shortcut that skips the map and a way back when a source fits no position The question: should our team move to a four-day week? Five sources are filed under three positions: Yes, outright, S1 and S4, for more focus; Trial it first, S2 and S3, for less risk; No, not now, S5, for client hours. The switch test, four questions answered without notes: week 1, 2 of 4, stay in summary; week 2, 4 of 4, switch. Argue mode: the claim is to trial it for a quarter, then decide, for S2, S3 and S1, against S5 on client hours, and the reader would change their mind if client calls go unanswered. Skipping the map leads straight to arguing, where you read only the side you liked. A sixth source that fits no position sends the reader back to the map. A new topic Should our team move to a four-day week? S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 × argue before the map, and you read the side you liked Summary mode: map the positions Yes, outright S1 S4 more focus Trial it first S2 S3 less risk No, not now S5 client hours The switch test, without notes week 1 ✓ ✓ – – stay in summary week 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ switch 1 the positions · 2 where they part 3 which sources are stronger · 4 what a new one says Argue mode: one claim, built across CLAIM Trial it for a quarter, then decide. FOR S2 S3 S1 AGAINST S5 client hours still need covering MIND CHANGER if client calls go unanswered S6 fits no position: back to the map before you argue on 1 2 3 4 5

Week 1's test failed on the last two questions, so the reader stayed in summary mode and read more. The shortcut on the right is the one to avoid.

The system

Try it now.

  1. Start every new topic in summary mode

    Your first sittings map the ground. No side yet, even if you have a hunch; write the hunch down and park it.

  2. File sources under positions

    Name the three or four positions people hold. Put each source under the one it supports, with its best reason in a few words. One source can sit under two.

  3. Take the switch test without notes

    Can you name the positions, say where they part, say which sources are stronger and why, and guess what a new source would say? A "no" on the first two keeps you mapping.

    The test is a rule of thumb, not a measure from the study.

  4. Argue across, not along

    One claim, support from at least two sources, the strongest counter you found, and what would change your mind. If you can't fill the counter, you skipped the map.

  5. Go back when a source fits nowhere

    A source that fits no position means the map is out of date. Re-map before you argue on, even if it costs a sitting.

When to break the rule: a decision that can't wait. Argue on day one, but write the positions first, even in ten rough minutes, and mark the claim as provisional. And if you already know a field well, skip straight to arguing; in the study below, that's who gained from it.

Which mode now

Take the switch test.

Close your notes first. Answer the four questions honestly; "partly" is a fine answer. You get the mode to work in next and the note to write in it.

    Answer the four questions.

    Without notes. If you have to look, the answer is no.

    Nothing you type is saved or sent anywhere. Copy the note into wherever you keep yours.

    Why a switch

    Arguing from sources helped readers who knew the topic, and seemed to hinder those who didn't.

    Laura Gil, Ivar Bråten, Eduardo Vidal-Abarca and Helge Strømsø ran two experiments in which undergraduates read five documents on a scientific topic, then answered comprehension questions and wrote either a summary or an argument essay.

    In the first, students told to work with the documents in order to summarise them showed better comprehension, and better integration of the documents, than students told to build arguments from them. The second asked whether that depended on what readers already knew. It did: only students with high prior knowledge could take advantage of being asked to argue, while low-knowledge readers seemed more hindered than helped.

    So "argue, it's deeper" isn't a rule for everyone at every stage. This page turns the finding into a switch you throw yourself. The four-question test is ours, a practical stand-in for "prior knowledge", not something the researchers measured.

    Experiment 1 · all readers

    Read to summarisebetter thanRead to argue

    Better comprehension and integration of the five documents.

    Experiment 2 · asked to argue

    • Knew the topic wellGained from being asked to argue.
    • Knew little about itSeemed more hindered than helped by it.
    Gil, Bråten, Vidal-Abarca & Strømsø (2010), Contemporary Educational Psychology 35(3). Undergraduates, one scientific topic, five documents.

    The idea

    Why it works.

    Arguing asks you to weigh sources against a claim. If you don't yet know what the positions are, there's nothing steady to weigh them against, and the first plausible side does the choosing. Summarising across sources first builds the ground an argument stands on.

    Once you have that ground, staying in summary mode wastes it. The argument is where you find out which links hold. The switch test makes the moment to change visible, and going back on a misfit source keeps the map honest after you've picked a side.

    Where it breaks

    Habits that help.

    • Positions, not sources. A map listing source after source is a reading log. Group by what they claim.
    • Date every switch test. Two failed tests a week apart tell you to change sources, not to keep reading the same kind.
    • Keep the counter honest. The strongest counter should be one its supporters would recognise, not the weakest version you could find.
    • Treat surprise as a signal. A source that startles you is often the one that fits no position. That's step 5, not noise.

    Go deeper

    Keep going.

    Practise this in HourLife.

    In Learning: Send a capture on. Track the books, courses, podcasts, videos and articles you are working through, log where you are, and keep what you take from them.

    Download on the App Store Download on the Mac App Store How Learning works in HourLife