Academic Mastery with Roam Research

Since you're already in the course, you can of course ignore the ending of the video ?

Since I recorded this video, Roam has been updated, and you can now also toggle the comment feature by holding Ctrl (Windows) / Cmd (Mac) and clicking on the + that appears to the right-hand side of the current block.

Alternatively, you can disable this by adding this to your [[roam/css]] page as a css code block:

.rm-block__comment-button {

display: none !important;

}

Don't worry about the Permanent Note template for now - we'll most definitely get to that!

Step-by-step instruction:

1. Go to [[roam/js]] page

2. Create [[ZoteroRoam]] block

3. Indent a block with the text {{[[roam/js]]}} under that (child block of the [[ZoteroRoam]] block)

4. Type ``` to indent a javascript code block under that (child block of the {{[[roam/js]]}} block)

5. Enter the following code in the code block:

var s = document.createElement("script");

s.src = "https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/@alixlahuec/zotero-roam@0.6";

s.id = "zotero-roam";

s.type = "text/javascript";

document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0].appendChild(s);

zoteroRoam_settings = {

dataRequests: {

apikey: "API KEY",

dataURI: "users/USER ID/items",

params: "limit=100"

},

autocomplete: {

trigger: '@', // Show autocomplete menu when typing @

format: 'citekey', // Insert the item as @citekey

display: 'zettlr' // Show autocomplete menu items as citekeys

},

autoload: true,

autoupdate: true

}

• Replace "API KEY" and "USER ID" with your API Key and USER ID

Here are the texts for the assignment:

From Rationality by Steven Pinker:

> Arguments for truth, objectivity, and reason may stick in the craw, because they seem dangerously arrogant: “Who the hell are you to claim to have the absolute truth?” But that’s not what the case for rationality is about. The psychologist [[David Myers]] has said that the essence of monotheistic belief is: (1) There is a God and (2) it’s not me (and it’s also not you). The secular equivalent is: (1) There is objective truth and (2) I don’t know it (and neither do you). The same epistemic humility applies to the rationality that leads to truth. Perfect rationality and objective truth are aspirations that no mortal can ever claim to have attained. But the conviction that they are out there licenses us to develop rules we can all abide by that allow us to approach the truth collectively in ways that are impossible for any of us individually.

From Start with Why by Simon Sinek:

> It's worth repeating: people don't buy WHAT you do, they buy WHY you do it.

Answer format:

1. Note title (atomic claim)

2. Reference note (> the highlight)

3. Literature notes (elaborate in your own words)

Comment below or in the community and I'll review your answer.

Your permanent notes (or evergreen notes, as they're also sometimes called) should be atomic: they should contain one idea per note. (Just like in physics, the word 'atomic' is used to describe a single irreducible component of a larger system.)

So the test for atomicity is whether you're indicating a relationship between only two things:

• 'Learning' [requires] 'testing'

• 'Official learning advice' [is] 'inaccurate'

• 'Fake news' + 'election influence' [unlikely]

• 'Text familiarity' [feels like] 'content mastery'

And then express that relationship in a claim in your own words. That sentence is your note title. If you've followed the principle of atomicity, you should be able the essence of this note with a good title that's descriptive of what the note is actually going to contain. Per the principle of atomicity, this should be a single thesis, and the note should then have writing that supports that thesis.

'Where to put the note' (answer: on a structure note), and the 'from reference notes to literature notes' workflow, and a lot of other things, will become clear soon!

Here are the texts for the assignment:

From Rationality by Steven Pinker:

> Arguments for truth, objectivity, and reason may stick in the craw, because they seem dangerously arrogant: “Who the hell are you to claim to have the absolute truth?” But that’s not what the case for rationality is about. The psychologist [[David Myers]] has said that the essence of monotheistic belief is: (1) There is a God and (2) it’s not me (and it’s also not you). The secular equivalent is: (1) There is objective truth and (2) I don’t know it (and neither do you). The same epistemic humility applies to the rationality that leads to truth. Perfect rationality and objective truth are aspirations that no mortal can ever claim to have attained. But the conviction that they are out there licenses us to develop rules we can all abide by that allow us to approach the truth collectively in ways that are impossible for any of us individually.

From Start with Why by Simon Sinek:

> It's worth repeating: people don't buy WHAT you do, they buy WHY you do it.

Answer format:

1. Note title (atomic claim)

2. Reference note (> the highlight)

3. Literature notes (elaborate in your own words)

Comment below or in the community and I'll review your answer.

Pages that I've imported in the video are attached below.

The extension was developed by Joel Chan and David Vargas, so give them some love!