Why You’re Not Just an Architect or Gardener. On the Problem of the Notetaker Typology.

“I think there are two types of writers, the architects and the gardeners. The architects plan everything ahead of time, like an architect building a house. They know how many rooms are going to be in the house, what kind of roof they’re going to have, where the wires are going to run, what kind of plumbing there’s going to be. They have the whole thing designed and blueprinted out before they even nail the first board up. The gardeners dig a hole, drop in a seed and water it. They kind of know what seed it is, they know if planted a fantasy seed or mystery seed or whatever. But as the plant comes up and they water it, they don’t know how many branches it’s going to have, they find out as it grows. And I’m much more a gardener than an architect”.
― George R.R. Martin
Types of Notetakers: A Compelling Yet Misleading Narrative
The notion that individuals can be neatly categorized into distinct types of notetakers (or writers) — such as the Architect or the Gardener — is an appealing idea. Popularized by productivity experts and knowledge management gurus, these classifications offer a simple framework for understanding how people approach personal knowledge management (PKM). I initially found this narrative alluring to myself. Influenced by Anne-Laure Le Cunff’s blog post (Le Cunff, 2020), Nick Milo’s keynote at the PKM Summit 2024 in Utrecht (Milo, 2024), and Tiago Forte’s videos on note taker archetypes (Forte, 2024), I quickly concluded that my colleague, David Lohner, and I neatly fit these roles: David, an architect, meticulously plans every detail of his PKM or PKMS, while I, a self-identified gardener, prefer to collect, connect, and let ideas grow organically.
We even used this story in workshops to illustrate our supposedly distinct notetaking approaches (or notemaking, as we prefer, to emphasize its generative nature). Initially, the narrative seemed both helpful and relatable. Yet, over time, we began to question it. At first, it was a certain discomfort—an unease about being confined to a particular category. Something about the simplicity of these roles felt limiting, though I couldn’t articulate why at the time.
This blog post critically examines the allure and limitations of this classification, exploring its potential benefits while highlighting its risks. Drawing parallels with the debunking of learning styles—frequently referred to as The Biggest Myth in Education—this post challenges the idea that notetaking must conform to static, predefined categories.

Fact First
The idea of categorizing notetakers into fixed types like Architects, Gardeners or Librarians is compelling but oversimplified. Research in education and cognitive psychology has debunked similar typologies, such as learning styles, showing that adhering to these labels do not automatically improve teaching, learning, or productivity outcomes (see e.g., Kirschner, 2017). Effective Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) is probably not about fitting into predefined categories; it’s about adopting adaptable strategies that align with individual goals, contexts, and topics.
Questioning Some Assumptions
The belief in that several distinct types of notetakers exist, rests on several intuitive and appealing, yet flawed assumptions:
- Every person has their own notetaking-style: Similar to learning styles, the typology of notetakers assumes that individuals belong to one category. This categorization ignores the fact, that the fact that approaches to notetaking can change regarding context, purpose, or time (e.g., Brown & Kaminske, 2018).
- Taking-Notes in the “own” notetaking-style leads to better outcomes: Proponents often claim that aligning one’s approach with a predefined “type” enhances productivity or learning. This mirrors the debunked idea that aligning teaching methods with learning styles improves educational outcomes.
These questionable ideas likely stem from…
- efforts to simplify complex processes like learning and knowledge management into actionable categories, which can make PKM more accessible but sacrifices nuance.
- Popular literature and online content that categorize notetakers to provide guidance, frequently oversimplifying the complexity of personal information management.
- As humans, we naturally classify and label behaviors to make sense of diversity, even when it results in oversimplification (Siegel, 2024).
These factors echo the origins of the “learning styles” myth, which suggested that people learn best through specific modalities (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic). While appealing, such frameworks fail to account for the situational and adaptable nature of human behavior (see e.g., Sinatra & Jacobson, 2019 on zombie concepts in education).
Consequences of Fixed Notetaking Types

Adhering to this typology can lead to several pitfalls:
- Discouragement of Experimentation: Predefined categories can stifle creativity and personalization, deterring individuals from developing flexible, context-driven PKM approaches.
- Constraint in Personal Growth: Individuals may feel confined to strategies that align with their perceived type, missing opportunities to adopt more effective or innovative methods. Those who do not identify with a specific type may feel inadequate, doubting the validity or effectiveness of their unique practices.
- Reinforcement of Myths: Typologies reinforce myths such as: “Everyone has a unique notetaking style” or “Sticking to your ‘type’ leads to better outcomes.”
Some Remedies
The parallels between the notetakers typologies and the learning styles myth provide valuable lessons. Insights from educational discourse (e.g., Brown & Kaminske, 2018; Kirschner, 2017) suggest strategies to challenge and move beyond these overly simplistic classifications:
- Experiment: Explore different notetaking approaches and adapt them to your changing needs and contexts. Notetaking isn’t static—what works best often depends on the task, goals, and circumstances (Milo, 2024). Tiny experiments can help you discover flexible strategies tailored to your objectives.
- Reflect and Evolve: Regularly assess your practices to identify what works for you. Adjust your methods as you gain experience or encounter new challenges. Avoid rigidly sticking to a single approach; instead, focus on continuous improvement.
- (Always) Question Typologies: Be critical of labels like Architect or Gardener. These categories can limit your perspective, so focus on principles rather than predefined roles.
Concluding Thoughts
While research on specific types of notetakers is scarce, parallels with the literature on learning styles suggest that rigid categorizations regularly fail to enhance outcomes. Instead of framing the discussion around types of people, focusing on types of approaches—and their adaptability to context, subject, and goals—offers a more practical and evidence-informed perspective. While notetaking preferences exist, they do not automatically translate into better learning outcomes—much like the debunked learning styles in educational research (e.g., Brown & Kaminske, 2018; Kirschner, 2017). PKM and notetaking are not about conforming to rigid, predefined categories, but about adapting strategies to fit your context, your topics, and your goals. Stay curious, stay critical, and experiment.
Reflecting on our own journey, David and I have appreciated the profound value of collaboration in Knowledge Management. While PKM is inherently personal, the opportunity to exchange ideas with a peer has significantly enriched our individual understandings of many aspects of our PKM systems and practices. This experience resonates with co-constructivist learning theory (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978), which emphasizes that knowledge is co-constructed through social interaction and shared experiences. Engaging in dialogue allows us to challenge assumptions, share perspectives, and foster deeper insights. Accordingly, embracing the social dimension of (P)KM emerges as a highly desirable approach to further developing our knowledge—a reminder that personal growth is often amplified through collective exploration.
References
- Brown, A. M., & Kaminske, A. N. (2018). Five Teaching and Learning Myths—Debunked: A Guide for Teachers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150239
- Forte, T. (2024). The 4 Notetaking Styles: How to Choose a Digital Notes App as Your Second Brain. https://fortelabs.com/blog/the-4-notetaking-styles-how-to-choose-a-digital-notes-app-as-your-second-brain/
- Le Cunff, A. L. (2020). How to choose the right note-taking app. Ness Labs https://nesslabs.com/how-to-choose-the-right-note-taking-app
- Milo, Nick (2024). This Secret Principle Will Transform Your Notes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0pQh69iPWA
- Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
- Siegel, S. T. (2024). Educational Myths Debunked. Lehrblick – ZHW Uni Regensburg. https://doi.org/10.5283/ZHW.20240215.EN
- Sinatra, G. M., & Jacobson, N. (2019). Zombie Concepts in Education: Why They Won’t Die and Why You Cannot Kill Them. In P. Kendeou, D. H. Robinson, & M. T. McCrudden (Ed.), Misinformation and fake news in education (S. 7–27). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Dr. Stefan T. Siegel (17. Dezember 2024). Why You’re Not Just an Architect or Gardener. On the Problem of the Notetaker Typology. Note Lab. Abgerufen am 14. Mai 2025 von https://doi.org/10.58079/12xxz
Hi! I just stumbled upon this while looking up something else. I just wanted to quote myself from that original 2020 blog post which was then expanded upon and adapted by Tiago and Nick: “Again, it is likely that you don’t fall under one single category, and different projects will require different approaches to growing, structuring, and retrieving your ideas.” To me, those archetypes are more like simple heuristics to help you choose a note-taking app. Not a fixed personality trait and nothing to do with learning styles, which I’m aware have been debunked many times over.
Hi Anne-Laure
Thanks so much for dropping by and for sharing your original quote—it’s great to have your voice in the conversation. I really appreciate the clarification. I fully agree: these archetypes can be helpful as flexible heuristics, however dangerous when mis(used) as rigid categories. And yes, totally with you on distancing them from fixed traits or the learning styles narrative, which, as you rightly noted, has been thoroughly debunked. Thanks again for adding this nuance—it’s an important distinction!