# 6 - Digesting information by putting it in your own words
Based on FP's video on YouTube. If you like this content, support the original creators by watching, liking and subscribing to their content.
Digesting information means transforming others’ ideas into usable knowledge by restating them in your own words.
Briefing
Digesting information means transforming what others say into something usable—by putting it into your own words. Like food that changes as it’s chewed and digested, ideas become more valuable when they’re reworked rather than copied. The core claim is that “your own” in note-taking often refers less to inventing brand-new thoughts and more to building your own connections and perspective from material you’ve encountered.
Several note-taking approaches are offered as examples—answering a standard set of questions for each source, building argument maps, or creating sketch notes that combine images with text. Despite their differences, they share one priority: restating what you’ve learned in your own language. The emphasis isn’t on excluding original ideas; it’s on recognizing that many “original” insights are actually remixes of earlier perspectives. The video pushes back on the idea that truly original thinking can happen in isolation, arguing that claims of ideas created entirely from scratch usually reflect ignorance of prior work.
Putting information into your own words is presented as a practical method for improving understanding. Rewriting forces a test: people often believe they understand a passage until they try to paraphrase it. That struggle reveals gaps in comprehension and improves both clarity and concision—skills that matter when notes are meant to support future thinking. Writing is also framed as a mode of thinking; if an idea never gets expressed in one’s own words, the chance to deepen understanding is lost.
The transcript acknowledges the emotional cost. Rephrasing can feel uncomfortable because it exposes what’s missing. Still, the choice is framed as between “feeling smarter” and “becoming smarter”: avoiding the hard work of paraphrase may preserve comfort, but it blocks learning.
At the same time, verbatim copying isn’t condemned. Quotations can have a place, but the transcript treats them as “undigested information.” A card that contains only a quote is likened to pizza that hasn’t been transformed by digestion—usable in limited ways, but not the main goal. The recommendation is to use quotations sparingly and let most notes be paraphrases that you can revisit and use.
Finally, the discussion ties the principle to the zettelkasten workflow. The next step hinted at is a shift from years of digital note-taking toward handwritten notes on index cards, described as a valuable part of the digestion process. The throughline remains consistent: the more notes are reworked into personal language and connections, the more they serve future thinking and become genuinely yours in practice.
Cornell Notes
Digesting information in a note system means transforming what others wrote into your own words. The transcript argues that paraphrasing is the simplest test of understanding: people often think they get a text until they try to rewrite it, at which point gaps become visible. This struggle may feel unpleasant, but it’s framed as the path to real learning—choosing to become smarter rather than merely feel smarter. Quotations can be used, but they count as undigested material; notes that are mostly verbatim are less useful later than notes rephrased into personal connections. The same principle applies whether the notes are zettelkasten cards, argument maps, or sketch notes.
Why does paraphrasing function as a “test” of understanding rather than just a writing habit?
What does “your own ideas” mean in the context of note-taking?
How do argument maps, sketch notes, and question-based notes relate to the same underlying principle?
Why is copying verbatim information treated as “undigested,” and when might it still be appropriate?
What tradeoff does the transcript highlight about paraphrasing—comfort versus learning?
How does this principle connect to the zettelkasten workflow and a shift toward handwritten notes?
Review Questions
- When does paraphrasing most reliably reveal gaps in understanding, and what should you do once those gaps appear?
- How would you decide whether a note should be a paraphrase or a quotation in a zettelkasten card?
- What does it mean to create “your own” thinking if most ideas are remixes of earlier perspectives?
Key Points
- 1
Digesting information means transforming others’ ideas into usable knowledge by restating them in your own words.
- 2
Paraphrasing is a direct check on comprehension; understanding often becomes clear only when someone tries to rewrite it.
- 3
“Your own ideas” in note-taking often refers to the connections and perspective you build, not to inventing thoughts from scratch.
- 4
Quotations can be useful, but notes that are mostly verbatim are treated as undigested and less valuable for future thinking.
- 5
Rephrasing can feel unpleasant because it exposes gaps; that discomfort is framed as the mechanism for learning.
- 6
Writing is treated as thinking, so expressing ideas in your own language increases the chance to deepen understanding.
- 7
The zettelkasten workflow is positioned as a system where digestion happens through how notes are created and revisited, including a move toward handwritten index cards.