Tools for Thought as Cultural Practices, not Computational Objects

There are meetups and research groups and thought leaders. But more than anything, people are using the term to describe a new class of software. Tools for thought is now a category tag in the databases of venture capital firms. The phrase appears on the landing page of every hot new note-taking app:

Even when it doesn't appear verbatim, we can see it in the subtext. These tools are here to help you “think better,” and achieve “networked thought”.

These software apps appear to have a clear vision of what a "tool for thought" is. It appears to involve writing notes, connecting them to one another, exploring dynamic views, and then experiencing a kind of emergent wisdom. An enchanting promise.

Yet there's something paradoxical here; the phrase itself and the way we're collectively using it feel misaligned. Taken at face value, the phrase tool for thought doesn't have the word 'computer' or 'digital' anywhere in it. It suggests nothing about software systems or interfaces. It's simply meant to refer to tools that help humans think thoughts; potentially new, different, and better kinds of thoughts than we currently think.

While this might seem like a dumb rhetorical question, what does any of this have to do with computers?

I think it's a question worth answering explicitly and comprehensively. If only to make clear to ourselves why we currently consider apps that allow you to link notes together the epitome of a tool for thought.

We're a bit too early in the establishment of this concept for anyone to have written a canonical definition yet. And like all significantly complex ideas, any proposed ones will be contested and controversial.

We can, however, get a rough estimation by looking at descriptions from some of the key texts we pass around the community:

Looking a these, it's easy to think of plenty of examples from human history of tools for thought that fit the bill. Here's a brief list:

1. Written language – 3200 BCE

2. Drawing – ~73,000 years ago

3. Maps – 700 BCE

4. Hindu-arabic numerals – 400 BCE

5. Epic poetry as oral history – ~2000 BCE

6. The socratic method – 500 BCE

7. The scientific method – 1000~1400 BCE

8. Cartesian coordinates – 1637

9. Zettelkastens – 1500s

10. Aboriginal songlines – ~60,000 years ago

11. Spreadsheets

12. Data visualisation – 1785

We can debate the degree to which each of these examples fits our understanding of a “tool for thought”. But I'd argue they each profoundly transform the kinds of thoughts humans are able to think. They expand our cognitive abilities and allow us to solve problems that would otherwise be unsolvable.

It might feel strange to call some of these things “tools”. The scientific and socratic methods seem more like techniques for problem-solving. While drawing and writing are surely mediums or representations of ideas rather than “tools”?

Part of this discomfort is a limitation of language. “Tool” is a tricky category that we most often associate with physical objects. But it can encompass everything from fire to a whittling knife to software development kits to democratic voting systems. We could spend time splitting hairs and trying to eliminate things from the category. Or we could choose to be generous in our definition and accept any object, cultural practice, technique, or medium that expands humans abilities as a tool.

Which gives us a mental model that looks something like this:

Of all the examples I listed above, I would put most of them in the “cultural practice and techniques” category. They certainly aren't objects. Some are certainly mediums; forms of representation such as writing and images. But mediums also require technique – you must be taught how to write before you can use the medium of written language.

They are primary ways of doing; what I would call cultural practices. They are specific ways of thinking and acting that result in greater cognitive abilities. Ones that people pass down to generation after generation through culture.

Every one of these also pre-dates digital computers by at least a few hundred years, if not thousands or tens of thousands. Given that framing, it's time to return to the question of how computation, software objects, and note-taking apps fit into this narrative.

My simple interpretation of “tools for thought” up to this point takes the phrase at face value – devoid of any historical context. Any sincere and holistic exporation of TFT has to consider who came up with the term, and what particular cultural and historical contexts they were part of.

Every person who has written about and extensively explored the term in their work is a computer programmer of some variety; Kenneth Iverson, JCR Licklider, Alan Kay, Douglas Englebart, Seymour Papert, Bret Victor, and Howard Rheingold, among others. I would be remiss not to point out they are also all male, white, from North America, and associated with various prestigious universities such as MIT, Caltech, Stanford, and UC Berkley. Which is relevant only to point out that they likely share a lot of the same cultural beliefs, values, and context.

“Tools for thought” as a concept and philosophical mission began in the heart of the personal computing and interface design scene of the 1960-1980's. TFT has always been used in relation to a dream that is deeply intertwined with digital machines.

The phrase was first used by Kenneth Iverson in his research work on programming notation throughout the 1950's and 60's. His first public paper mentioning it is published by the ACM in 1979.

While Iverson was the first to give this idea a distinct name, others were exploring many of the same themes using different language. The most significant body of work along these same lines is Douglas Engelbart's , published in 1962. He used terms like "intelligence augmentation" and "intelligence amplification" rather than "tools for thought," but is clearly on the same wavelength.

Howard Rheingold picked it as the title of his 1985 book – a history of the major innovations that led to the personal computer, and some speculative on how computing would unfold throughout the 1990's.

Alan Kay explored the topic in his 1989 essay A Personal View. (more here)

// alan essay image //

Alan Kay's User interface essay

Bret Victor's 2013-2015 Talks

The end of 2019 and 's 2019 essay on helped kick off the new popularity wave, as well as Andy's and writing advocating for TFT as a field.

All of these computer scientists exclusively focus on computers as essential to enabling new ways of thinking. They aren't exploring how architecture, or physical product design, or music composition might enable new kinds of thoughts. The computer is essential.

It would be more accurate to rename tools for thought to computational mediums for thought. Or CMFT for short.

CMFT would actually be a subset of the larger field of tools for thought, since as we established earlier, the vast majority of historical tools for thought are not in the least bit computational.

/* image of CMFT as a subset of TFT */

Which should make us pause to ask: Are CMFT's significantly different to other TFTs?

• Forecasting and prediction markets

  • Guesstimate
  • Squiggle

• Better critical reasoning

  • Socratic debate

• Audio and visual

  • Photoshop
  • MaxMSP
  • Logic Pro
    • Jacob Collier streams

• Game dev and dynamics

  • Houdini
  • Blueprint

• ML Assistants

  • Elicit for rigorous research

• Spatial understanding

  • Nothing that teaches alexander technique, movement, spatial awareness