Friday's MLB game of choice has my Texas Rangers playing the Seattle Mariners in the first game of a four-game series. This is the game and series I originally thought would start yesterday. Duh! Tonight”s game is scheduled to start at 7:05 PM CDT. As I usually do, I'll follow the game's score and stats in real time via MLB's Gameday Service where we can also find links to the radio-call of the game provided by announcers of either team we choose.

And the adventure continues.

Image: “Mightier Than the Keyboard?” handwritten on a piece of paper with a fountain pen. Photo by: Unattributed, License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

When I started using Fountain Pens last year, I noted that there was something different about the quality of my writing. It seemed to have a different quality to it. At first, I couldn't figure out the reason for it. But as I kept writing I meditated on the subject. As I turned the idea around in my mind for a while, I came up with a few thoughts seemed to explain what I was both feeling and experiencing.

My Personal Reasoning

The first thought that came to my mind was that I had approached fountain pens from a different perspective than I had other writing instruments. I had started using them as a hobby, as a way to improve my penmanship. The point wasn't to write down the thoughts in my mind, but instead of work on better controlling the muscles in my arm and wrist.

I wanted to produce text that looked beautiful, no matter what the contents were. I was working from a workbook: The Lost Art of Handwriting by Brenna Jordan, to be exact. In the book she covers a lot of letter forms, variations, and suggests lots of practice sentences. I loved it. It required a fair amount of concentration to get some of the letter forms right, but the practice was exactly what I wanted.

However, after a while, my mind started telling me I needed to do something else. I needed to write something of substance. Something that had meaning, if only for me personally. That's when I started a journal.

Now I had tried to keep journals before, on my computer, in a note-taking application. I had taken to the idea of having a “second brain”, but not because I was sold on PKM or anything like that. My second brain experience came from a coworker from many years ago. He used to keep a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) with a ton of notes on it. Those notes were chock-full of obscure, and unusual things that we encountered working on computer systems. He carried it everywhere. We referred to it whenever we ran into a problem that seemed like something he might have seen, but couldn't recall how to resolve the issue.

I can't even being to count the number of times he found either the exact information we needed, or information that assisted us in further diagnosing an issue in his PDA. We started referring to that device as his second brain.

Anyway, while PDA's had gone by the wayside, I had taken to the idea of creating a “second brain” for myself. Saving information that I thought might be useful in the future. And, it had seemed to me, that adding a journal full of notes and ideas made sense for my second brain. Only, it had never worked. I would add my journal entries to it for weeks or even a few months, and eventually stop.

And, to make things worse, the journal entries were (mostly) superficial. The entries really only related to other things I had been obsessing over, generally about things that I had already saved in the app. There wasn't the quality of ingenuity, uniqueness, or personal observation that I had wanted to capture.

However, when I started writing a journal on paper, in a notebook, all the unique, personal observations started coming out. All the things that I had wanted to accomplish in digital form were there, in analog, on sheets of paper in ink.

Why? In my mind I found three reasons:

1. I was cut off from the rest of the information in my second brain. Sure, I could have picked up my phone, or gone to my PC to access it, but I didn't.
2. Handwriting is a slower process. It isn't like typing in that in a few swishes of your fingers and twenty or thirty words appear on the screen in a matter of a few seconds. Writing twenty or thirty words required more focus, more attention, more effort.
3. Intentionality: I had more intent in the words that I put on the page. There wasn't the easy edits to correct the words on the page the way there was with a computer. Sure, I could always cross words out, and I did that at times, but the more you have to cross out and change on the page, the more the page starts looking messier and more difficult to read. And I had initially started writing with fountain pens to produce cleaner, nicer lettering and therefore pages.

Over time, I wondered if there was anything to back up my hypothesis about why handwriting was different from typing on the computer.

Testing My Theory

So, after seeing a video from Sbrebrown: The Benefits of Taking Handwritten Notes vs Digital Notes I decided to pose the question on the Fediverse: [ Question] Study of note-taking with Pens vs. Laptops. The subject is interesting, and has been attracting a lot of attention over the last decade or so. The question that has been examined is: do students that take handwritten notes do better than students who type notes on a laptop.

In a meta analysis Typed Versus Handwritten Lecture Notes and College Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis, researchers examined twenty-four studies that had been conducted over the last hundred years. They concluded that the studies indicated that there is a correlation between handwritten versus typed notes. Note, the interesting part here is that the study includes several papers that were not conducted in an academic setting as there wouldn't have been typewriters in a classroom.

In another paper, The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking researchers concluded from four studies that students did worse on conceptual questions because they were not processing information as deeply. Instead, they were mostly transcribing the lecture without thinking about it deeply.

However, there have been some publications that take the opposite position: Don’t Ditch the Laptop Just Yet: Replication Finds No Immediate Advantage to Writing Notes by Hand. While the most deeply analytical article is one that I just barely grasp at the surface level: The Neuroscience Behind Writing: Handwriting vs. Typing—Who Wins the Battle?, which goes so far as to have conducted neuroimaging studies of the brain while writing and typing:

Recent neuroimaging studies including functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and positron emission tomography (PET) have provided insights into the neural mechanisms that underlie these two forms of written expression.

And the results were quite interesting (quoting the abstract):

Results: Handwriting activates a broader network of brain regions involved in motor, sensory, and cognitive processing. Typing engages fewer neural circuits, resulting in more passive cognitive engagement. Despite the advantages of typing in terms of speed and convenience, handwriting remains an important tool for learning and memory retention, particularly in educational contexts.

My Takeaway

To me, the neuroscience study reinforces the second and third thoughts that I had:

1. Handwriting is a slower process. It isn't like typing in that in a few swishes of your fingers and twenty or thirty words appear on the screen in a matter of a few seconds. Writing twenty or thirty words required more focus, more attention, more effort.
2. Intentionality: I had more intent in the words that I put on the page. […]

The idea that “Handwriting activates a broader network of brain regions involved in motor, sensory, and cognitive processing.” would seem to be in alignment with those thoughts. There is a whole different level of thought that is going into writing in a notebook – be it with a ballpoint or a fountain pen.

But, that doesn't mean that this is settled science. In fact, science is rarely settled on finding a single conclusion. Instead, the thoughts and understanding that emerge from science tend to track with the more predominant studies of the time, however there is always room for those findings to be challenged. This can be seen in the Don't Ditch the Laptop Just Yet article referenced above.

The thing that I would note about most of these studies is they are focused on taking notes in an academic setting: listening to a lecture and trying to capture the essence of what is being said. That, I think, is the bounding point to keep in mind. Scientists could find there are different considerations in different settings, and when the objective is different. For example: writing a letter, a poem, or a novel could well be sufficiently different from taking notes to warrant further study.

As for the first item on my list? I don't think this is something that really relates to the topic scientifically. It's a matter of how I have shaped myself, the habits that I have developed over the years since I decided to start building my “second brain.” It took conscious effort on my behalf to put myself in a position where I wouldn't access all the information that I had compiled. I decided that it would be easy to get too distracted from the act of writing itself.

And that's where I think I'll conclude this: I lean towards the idea that writing with a fountain pen is fundamentally different from typing based on the neuroscience, until proven otherwise.

---

Categories: #Editorials Tags: #FountainPens, #typing, #notes, #science, #neuroscience, License: Copyright Unattributed. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Around eight years ago I thought it would be funny to become a licensed ham-radio operator. For those who don’t know, ham radio is a hobby that revolves around radio communications. I was always fascinated by radio and I was a romantic about the idea of talking to people over the radio. The process wasn’t too hard. I learned some basic electronics and regulations around radio communications. I took a test and submitted it to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a few weeks later I was a federally-recognized radio-operator with a callsign and was permitted to transmit on a small corner of the radio spectrum. The technology was fun to learn and operate but frankly I found the company among other US hams problematic. The majority of conversations in ham radio are totally benign—just ham radio operators talking about ham radio on their radios. But if you listen long enough, the airwaves can be home to the type of talk common among conservative and libertarian voices. There were vocal opinions about the liberal forces of society encroaching upon the conservative way of life, antagonistic rhetoric toward big government, and the “liberal agenda” it was imposing on Americans.

I was scandalized by the culture when I first started dabbling in ham radio, partly because I’d never actually interacted with people outside my east-coast liberal bubble. In those days, I was a pretty mainstream liberal progressive type. I felt uncomfortable taking part in a hobby that was home to so many people I disagreed with culturally and politically. On one occasion, I heard two guys casually talking about how they felt threatened by the presence of a young black man at a fast food establishment and how they would have “defended themselves” if he had tried anything. There was open talk about gun rights at a time when anti-gun sentiment in my corner of America was riding high. I liked the hobby fine and I didn’t want to leave it because of these people so I tried to be the change I wanted to see in ham radio. I attended radio club meetings and tried to make ham radio visible to a younger, more like-minded segment of the population. I posted on local reddit forums to try to spread the word about ham radio in an effort to bring in a younger, possibly more progressive crowd. Unfortunately I found that among my peers, there was very little interest in radio communications let alone any desire to expose themselves to a culture they found distasteful. The only young people I could find that were interested in the hobby were preppers, off-roaders, and gun-people—exactly the people I was trying to get away from.

Eventually, l learned to “spin the dial”—a ham radio term for moving to a different frequency if you don’t like what you hear. I moved away from talking to people on the radio to the more fun aspect of building and tinkering with radios and antennas and contesting. I retreated from trying to singlehandedly change the culture of ham radio and instead focused on what I liked about ham radio. During this time I decided to challenge myself by getting into what’s called SOTA (Summits on the Air.) Summits on the air is a form of radio contesting where radio operators set up a station in remote places (usually summits of mountains) and try to establish as many contacts as they can from these places. It involves building a portable station that can operate completely off-grid. It’s a fun and rewarding experience to reach a designated spot on a map and transmit from that spot. After a few of these “activations” as they’re called I realized that I wasn’t just making contacts for fun. I was learning to be a fully self-sustaining unit of my own. Everything needed to send a signal from a remote area needed to fit inside a backpack that I could carry. If I forgot a critical component, the activation would fail. I was proud of my ability to be able to make a fully operational radio station in the wilderness free from the grid.

Early in my radio career I remember driving around my hometown and looking at all the antenna towers that need to be built in order for us to communicate over the phone. I realized early on that we were all using radio, but we were all relying on existing infrastructure to do so and we pay a premium to do so. Not to say that the money we pay for this infrastructure isn’t worth it. Cellphone technology is a marvel of modern communications and has enabled so much of our modern way of life. Still, I hated the idea of being totally and utterly dependent on it. I hated the idea that in the (unlikely) scenario that if all this infrastructure were to fail, our modern methods of communications would be completely lost. Over time I came to see the ability to communicate using radio as a form of self-reliance. I was taking back my ability to use wireless communication back from the government and corporate power. This in turn led me to understand why ham radio was popular with a segment of the population that values self reliance over government reliance. A lot of work goes into making a contact over the radio. Individuals in ham radio go to great lengths and build extraordinary things to simply establish a contact with someone new. Beneath the contesting, long-winded conversations known as “rag-chews”, the banal weather reports, and daily “nets” is the heart of ham radio: The ability to communicate wirelessly when everything else fails.

Societal cooperation has obviously allowed us to do a great many things, and we are all better off working together. So what if we use cell phone networks and never question our reliance on the network? So long as everyone is paying their bills, and relying on the government and the cellphone companies for the network, then everything is fine. Until it’s not. It doesn’t happen often these days, but every so often it’s ad hoc networks of amateur radio operators that are best able to respond when telecom networks fail.

My involvement in amateur radio didn’t make me into a commando, but it did open my eyes to the many ways I’d been utterly dependent on systems that had the potential to fail. Everywhere I looked I saw a system of dependencies. I had seen all the ways I and many people around me had taken for granted these systems—food systems, communication systems, healthcare systems, etc. The worst part was that many of these systems didn’t always have my interests in mind. Their interest was in revenue generation or political power. We take so very much for granted in this country to the point where we’ve lost the ability to fathom what it would be like to live without these dependencies. We assume that nothing so bad could ever happen to us where we would need to learn to navigate with map and compass because we just assume that Google Maps and all the satellites and software that make it happen will always work. We assume that we’ll never have to defend ourselves because we believe a cop will always be there to help us when we’re in danger.

Even as I evolved spiritually, I came to see dependency and community in new ways. To be a person of faith is to be dependent on a power greater than yourself. But that dependency does not mean passivity. The work of any faith begins with the individual—the prayers and meditations one performs alone, the discipline and the willingness to try something new and the accountability no one else can carry for you. The same rule applies: you have to help yourself so that you can help others. A broken vessel cannot hold water.

I honestly don’t know what I am now politically. All I can say is that I’m not what I was when I first started my journey into ham radio. To understand ham radio is to understand my political journey over the last ten years.

Some people call this paranoia. Some people outright believe it’s good to be entirely dependent on systems. They don’t see any issue with being entirely dependent on the government or on corporations for basic things. They actually believe that we should be more dependent on the government. They believe we should increase the size and scope of the government’s reach further into our lives. Instead of fostering an ability to live without these dependencies, some people look for ways to undermine those abilities. I’m not against being dependent on systems, I’m very much a creature of dependency (looking at you, Costco), but I am against not nurturing our individual abilities to help ourselves so that we can help others. We should all be trying to foster some sort of individual ability within ourselves so that we can help our immediate communities, our family, our towns, our schools, not politicians in a bureaucracy in Washington DC or some Silicon Valley corporation that only seeks to enrich themselves.

I don’t advocate for individualism. We have enough of that in the US and it has been poisonous to our sense of community. What I do advocate for is fostering and training our abilities to be able to live without these systems-level dependencies so that we can take care of our neighbors when these safety-nets fail. When the cell phone networks in North Carolina went down, following a hurricane in 2024, it was a loose community of Amateur radio operators who came together to help getting messages in and out of the immediate disaster zone. It wasn’t perfect, but it worked. Verizon and AT&T eventually came, but it was people who took the time to learn to communicate without the cellphone network that were able to help their community. It was an ad-hoc network of individuals who were best able to help. The federal government isn’t what makes America great. It’s the individuals and talents that form communities that make America great.

I’m close to needing to renew my radio license which means it will have been ten years since I first started transmitting. I still denounce extremist and inflammatory voices that are thankfully a minority on the airwaves. I am however, much more sympathetic to the larger philosophical view of self-reliance and resistance to big government. Ham radio taught me self reliance for the ultimate goal of being able to contribute to society instead of just taking for granted all that it gave me. It’s about empowering yourself and being accountable for the ultimate purpose of serving your community.

Today I worked out with J at the new gym And I talked to two new people, they were both gorgeous women, and the second one even called to us in the parking lot and we joked around for a bit before she asked for our Instagram. I just feel a big sense of revitalized hope of meeting people, this feels like the ideal third place. I also just got back home from playing Catan with friends, and also just talking for a while. I feel really good and I’m happy with this life.

Dagen etter 22. juli valgte Aftenposten å la høyreekstreme sette agendaen for kulturdebatten. De skriver om “kulturkrigere” som raser mot “Odysseen” fordi Helen av Troja spilles av en svart kvinne. Dette er nemlig “woke”. Unnskyld meg, men hva skjedde med det gode, gamle ordet rasisme?

Når folk som Elon Musk ikke tåler å se svarte folk på kinolerretet er det ikke fordi han er “kulturkriger” og “bekymret for woke”. Det er fordi han er en åpenlys rasist, som sprer høyreekstrem og rasistisk propaganda på X ukentlig. Alle som har stukket hodet inn i det høyreekstreme ormebolet X og fulgt debatten der inne kan se at det er primitiv rasisme som har drevet den mislykkede kampanjen mot “Odysseen”.

Ord som “kulturkrig” og “woke” misbrukes altså her av Aftenposten til å tilsløre reinspikka rasisme. Elon Musk omtales som “Tesla-gründer”, men kunne like gjerne vært omtalt som “verdens mektigste høyreradikale agitator”. Han promoterer idéer som “den store utskiftningen”, antisemittisme og rasisme. Det er i denne konteksten vi må forstå kampanjen mot Odysseen. Ved å utelate denne konteksten, bidrar Aftenposten til å gjøre leserne dummere.

Det blir verre: I saken velger Aftenposten like så greit også å promotere Document, Anders Behring Breiviks gamle favorittblogg. Deres Tiktok-video der de naturligvis kaster se på den rasistiske kampanjen, blir faktisk bakt inn i saken. Gratis reklame til en av Norges største høyreradikale nettsteder der altså.

Men burde ikke Aftenposten dekke “kontroversen”? Vel, hvis denne saken beviser noe, så er det at de trygt kan ignorere slike oppkonstruerte rasistiske kampanjer. Elon Musks forsøk på å kansellere “Odysseen” har vært fullstendig mislykket. Han opererer i et rasistisk ekkokammer som er frikoblet fra den virkelige verden. Det samme gjør dessverre altfor mange journalister.

Det er snart på tide for journalister og redaktører å forstå at dersom du henger på X, så blir du manipulert av verdens mektigste rasist. Du blir dummere, og du mister kontakt med den virkelige verden. Du hadde ikke drevet god research hvis du bare brukte tiden din med å prate med folk i en nazi-bar.