Which to use: Mind mapping or concept mapping

And now you can create TOC Trees and Clouds (http://eclecticbill.blogspot.com/2007/10/software-to-create-toc-diagrams.html).

Nice analysis - clear and useful. Bookmarked!! Thanks, Jack

Thanks, Bill. And I just heard on the Rule the Web in Sixty Seconds podcast (http://www.ruletheweb.net/) about http://www.gliffy.com/ which lets you create and share any kind of diagrams online.

Jack, that's a very good way to look at the differences between mind maps and concept maps. Putting it into a context like that is very helpful. Great job. Thanks.

Jack,

Reminds me of a conversation you and I had some months back in which you gave me pretty much the same advice. I had been using, and continue to use, MindManager, but since our chat I've come to depend on The Brain. I work on large systems integration projects and the concept maps of Personal Brain are invaluable in keeping track of all the connections within, and external to, the programs.

Jack,

Excellent article that both differentiates between concept and mind maps and also gives a useful example of how one might determine which to use.

It's always been a bit on an enigma to me that people who are aware of concept maps are very aware of mind mapping as well, yet those who promite mind mapping are not always so savvy about concept mapping.

Bit of concept mapping to MindManager 8, anyone?

And God knows I tried in the VSS templates: http://mcfarlin.typepad.com/the_underlying_blog/2007/05/the_mind_map_li.html

PersonalBrain is amazing. But when it comes time to actually write, it seems better to move to something else. I recommend Story Weaver and Dramatica Pro, both by Melanie Anne Phillips:

http://www.writersstore.com/product.php?products_id=2042

http://www.writersstore.com/product.php?products_id=47

Free demos for both programs are available.

Story Weaver, at $30, is quite straightforward and, I think, would be extremely useful to your reader. She already has the basic background work and many ideas. Story Weaver could help her pull out the essentials needed to craft them into a good story.

Dramatica Pro is as much a theory of story as it is story planning software. It's considerably more complex and considerably more expensive ($230), but well-worth it for the dedicated writer who wants to master the story crafting process and keep control of complex relationships while at the same time allowing for spontaneity. The learning curve is a bit steep, but many professional writers swear by it.

Dear Jack,

Thank you for the article on Mindmapping or Conceptmapping.

I was reading your article and thought: why not use both mapping techniques in the same map? I created a technique called SumMapping (short for Summary Mapping). This technique helps people in visualising information in a wide
variety of styles. You can use a central mindmap, next to that you use some linear text, an image, a concept map, a table, etc.

The goal of the SumMap is to give an overview, or the proverbial big picture, on a topic and closely related topics.

Perhaps this is something you can share with your client/friend as well. While writing a book, you may want to use mindmaps for characters, plots in concept maps, etc. Still, creating 2 or more separate maps can give you not
the big picture of the book. That is why the technique advices people to put them together. At a later time, you can zoom in on for example main characters and develop them more.

The great thing is that MindManager (and MindMapper for instance) can create concept maps as well, next to the mindmaps.

I hope to hear your thoughts on this.

Again, many thanks for the information!

Best regards,

Arjen

One warning:

Stan mentioned Dramatica Pro as an alternative, and noted it has a free Demo version.

However, the Demo version is NOT upgradeable (despite what it says on their website)! Any work you do in the Demo version is lost. When you buy the full retail version ($269 if you want a CD), you are directed to download an entirely different piece of software and start from scratch.

Their Tech Support people told me they really intend for you to just LOOK at the screens in the Demo version, not to actually do any work on them (despite the fact that it is promoted as a "Fully Functioning" demo).

Ask me how I know this. :-(

I use Tinderbox to map out my novels, and I find it infinitely versatile.

A colleague from Northwestern just referred me to the "Cmap Tools" from the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition in Florida (http://cmap.ihmc.us/). Presumably, you can do both concept and mind mapping with the tool, though its focus seems to be concept mapping.

I have spent the whole afternoon trying to find a good concept mapping application. I have tried many. I tried every program I could find listed at www.mind-mapping.org

I am looking for:

1. an interface dedicated to making a concept map (i.e., not an interface primarily dedicated to mind mapping, i.e., the ability to quickly add nodes and labeled relationship lines betwen them)
2. an interface that allows for detailed notes to be added to a node in rich text (styles and bullets), with the notes preferrably in a separate pane so that they can easily be viewable.

cmap fits #1 but not #2. That is, cmap's notes are plain text and you have to click a little icon thing to be able to see the note.

Basically, a nice, smooth, rich-featured UI but for concept maps, not for mind maps. A Mindmanager for concept maps, if you will.

Nathan,

I think Cayra matches your search request. It's a free mind/concept mapping software.

Hope that was helpful,
Regards,
Julia.

Hi, good article. I will add that with mindmapping in a broad perspective is a tool for representing your knowledge. You may have an overall objetive for the map placed in the center but that is not a limit. You can add and expand as much as you want, create all the relationships that make sense to you, and may after mapping for sometime you may find that the objective of the map has changed. You can have maps in all directions and with MindManager that is very easy. ie. Process maps, thinking maps, dialectic maps, timelines, organizational charts, project maps, cause and effect maps, etc. Concept maps do not use images, and do name the relationships in a more linear manner between the nodes. In my opinion mindmapping is broader, ample and use both sides of your brain. But you need more tips and ideas than the basic rules defined by tony buzan. www.FlexusGroup.com

I have written 2.5 :-) books using NovaMind and totally agree with Carolina's comments. Mind Mapping is far superior as a visual storyboard.

But I would go further than that and say that there are a wide range of disadvantages to concept mapping, leading to the representation of chaotic thinking rather than organizing the thinking into the specific thinking that is how you end up thinking about topics anyway, in what Tony Buzan calls "radiant thinking".

I have seen better results with Mind Mapping than concept mapping, and many concept maps are just plain confusing.

When I write my books, the title is the center, then the first level branches are the chapters, then for each chapter I break it down into the topics I wish to cover etc. Usually the maximum would be 4 levels, and I include images an color to make it visually meaningful and presentable. As I write the book, I put the overall mind map in the introduction, and then for each chapter I include the Mind Map. I've received very positive comments from many people about the books, and especially the inclusion of the Mind Maps. Obviously this works well for a logically organized and well structured topic like technical books and informational tomes, but I imagine you could do much the same sort of thing for creative writing with the plot development etc.

Hi Jack,

Let me give you my take on concept mapping compared with mindmapping.

CMAP is fine for concept mapping. But I've tried mind mapping with it and it's painful: The relationship phrases stay still when you move a concept attached to them even when you don't fill them in. Between two concepts, you can easily end up with association lines made of two angled lines with a gap between them (where CMAP expects you to put words).

The fact that a concept map can be (usually is) a web rather than a tree hierarchy is something that mind mappers often say they want, from my observations in forums and groups. Of course, Buzan wouldn't then like you to call it a mind map, but what the hey!

The other thing that makes concept maps different - the relationship descriptions between the concepts - doesn't seem to interest mind mappers much. It's invaluable when you're mapping out an area of knowledge in a KM environment because it allows precise statements to be made that can be read from the map as a sentence, and therefore can be validated. I's useful in education, because a student's understanding can be seen from their concept maps - their maps can also be validated.

But to talk about 'validating' a mind map would not be very meaningful IMO. That's not intended as a criticism of mind maps, but to highlight different goals that the two types of map seem to have.

Mindmaps perform a very useful function for the person making them, by helping them get their thoughts together and sparking ideas. In some cases they help in conveying ideas to other people.

In relation to gathering information for a book taht you wrote about above, [disclosure: here, I'm referring to my own software product] 3D Topicscape Pro supports concept map structures and association descriptions, allows users to see much more of their map at one time than the Brain but allows very similar connections to be made. It is designed to support gathering very large amounts of information and computer files. It has export capabilities that would be useful to an author: Export the whole structure to text; export the whole structure to HTML with hyperlinks to the files stored in the Topicscape; export the whole structure to OPML and view it in a browser (with collapsable branches) also with hyperlinks to the files.

Argey

Anton- Nice perspective on the topic. My only question about mapping out a book has to do with fiction where the story lines are purposefully intertwined. I suspect, the chapters wouldn't be represented the way you suggest. It would be the major themes or characters on the branches with sub-nodes being events. Then one could use color or some other coding to suggest which items get woven into the story at what point.