Talk:Mind map

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

- Right-Brain Left Brain discussion: What I miss on this topic is that some people are visual thinkers and others lineair thinkers (most people can do both but one way of thinking is dominant and their comfort zone). And people like dyslectians and adhd / add people or dyslcalculie or what have you: (brain diversity: there are different styles of thinking, people are wired differently all kind of theories about that) And that Mindmapping is popular in the dyslexian and adhd world . It is what we do all the time, we were droodling during class and drawing things all the time, but now when they come up with an official name mindmapping it is nog legitimized. There could be a paragraph in this article about mindmapping beeing a lifesavior for people who are not lineair thinkers. - group mindmapping. Many companies have a board on the wall where things like: time and place etc. are anounced in a lineair way. But if you have a whiteboard or something where people can work on the content together, and share their ideas. Or if a team works on one project together: like for instance a website: there is the ict department, the content journalist department, there are graphic designers etc. It can work wonders if you have a joint mindmap. Especially if there is a project that is growing on the job, you don't know all the steps in advance. In that case a joint mindmap where everyone can fill in what their doing. So if there is a congress: one takes pictures, one writes about one lectures content, one is organizing logistics etc. With mindmaps your team will be much more in sink. It works wonders for ad hoc team projects. - ad hoc - 3 D you can also mindmap in 3 D. You write things on cards. You hang a rope through your office and hang the cards in differnt order on the rope, and change it untill it fits. Some dyslexians say they think 3 D. If they really would like to visualize their thoughts especially highly gifted people: who knows what you get. It does not fit on a paper. Einsteins thoughts can only be visualized with movement. I projected things arount him in 3D because it was about a differnt speed and relative movement etc. - Dynamic. If you use post-its (or cards with pin, or magnets etc) you can change the mindmap around. The whole point of mindmapping I think, is that it is mapping 'while' you think. So it is not hierarchical like it sais in the article. The point is that you can change things. For instance you write in a lineair way you make a matrix with vertical and horizontal lines: a column says for instance where you make something (on the website, in the newsletter, on twitter etc.) and vertically for instance who does it or the subject of the content. But with a mindmap you can change this around: you could completely tilt the whole schedual: so the columns say intrinsically the subject. And the details: wether it is published in a book or website or if you make it into a film or the subject is more appropriate for a photo reportage etc. It completely changes the whole dynamic between content and form. - I think the people who use mindmapping as a tool just to visualize lineair concepts in another way: are missing the point. That is a primitive mindmap. If you are a visual conceptual thinker, you can use mindmaps to map your mind: but if that mind is conceptually thinking it works wonders. Because you get your ideas on paper directly without having to translate it into lineair thinking first. Because a lot gets lost in translation that whay. - I think I will try to write an article about this mindmapping for conceptual thinkers one day but I don't have time this month so I just give you this 'brainstorm so others can write it down more scientifically. I just thought the whole article missed an important point. Like who invented the mindmap maybe the name is invented by somebody. But if you look at aboriginal art etc you know that mankind is mindmapping the whole time. Caveman were painting their caves with paint: mindmapping how to hunt etc. I think mindmapping came before reading and writing in a linair and semantic way. Also abstract concepts and complex thinking can be mindmapped. -connections: you draw arrows between words in the mindmap. So you do not only try to figure out what word is the umbrella concept and which words are sub concepts. But in a mindmap you can also indicate how they are related and interlinked. Or not. So an arrow is one way or two ways or you will find out it doesnt make sense and it will make you think why. You wouldn't have seen that if you would have just wrote everything down lineair. For instance you cannot draw a square circle. If you try to draw it, you'll find out it is not possible. That sometimes happenes with mindmapping something like law: a subject that is very dominated by lineair thinking. The whole law education is often lineair, all the law books. If you are a lawyer and confronted with a legal issue: if you just draw the problem in a non-linair way you could find out where the problem is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


"Mind map is copyright of Tony Buzan." This is plain wrong. He either has a patent for something related to mind mapping or trademark rights for the term "mind map". Copyrights only cover actual works, i.e. books he has written, software he has developed etc. Somebody with a clue should correct this.

I'm not sure where that bit about copyright was seen. A word or phrase can't be copyright. What I've seen all over the Buzan-related sites is indeed a claim to registered trademarks - on "Mind Map", "Mind Maps", and "Mind Mapping" - belonging to the "Buzan Organisation". These sites don't necessarily belong to said organisation, so some claims may be wrong (erroneous), but I presume that Buzan and his organisation have trademarked at least one of these terms.
That being the case, this Wikipedia entry would seem inappropriate - a bit like having the information on vacuum cleaners in an entry entitled "Hoover".
In my experience, "mind map" and "concept map" are synonymous. Concept maps have been around for a long time, although I don't know when the descriptive phrases were coined (I would like to find time to research this!). I don't think there is the slightest possibility that the concept of "concept map" or "mind map" were invented by Buzan. However, Buzan may well have invented the concept of destroying the concept by restricting it to hierarchical structures as in all the examples of "Mind Maps" that I've found on the commercial sites ( as well as the freeware "Freemind" which I've trialled and found excellent, provided that you want to draw hierarchical structures and NOT more general concept maps).
Trademark law does not permit registration of words descriptive of the product. For a trademark on "Mind Map" to be valid, it could not therefore refer to what is commonly called a mind map or concept map. It seems to me that Buzan's trademark(s) would be valid precisely because they do not describe mind maps, but that would hinge on legal detail that is beyond my capability or interest.
This trademarked "Mind Mapping" seems to represent simultaneous commercial appropriation and vandalising of a valuable public concept, and should not be promoted in Wikipedia.

>> This is a valid legal point. The mind map is a trademarked product of the Buzan organization. There is no clear legal definition of a mind map. Other non-trademarked diagrams do have clear definitions. Based on this point, it would seem that the mind map is completely inappropriate for wikipedia.

Alternatively, the entry could simply read, "The mind map is a trademark of the Buzan organization, used to promote a radial graphic that is perported by the Buzan literature to have been intuitively adopted by numerous "geniuses" because it harnesses the otherwise "untapped 99% of the brain's mental potential" (The Mind Map Book, ((Buzan and Buzan 1991))" Arnold >>

I intend working on an entry for "concept map(ping)", but I'm new to Wikipedia and have a lot on my plate, so it may not appear soon. If someone else can do it sooner or better, I'll be very happy!
It would be nice to include links to genuine concept mapping software (not restricted to hierarchical structures).
A few years ago I trialled "TheBrain" and found it excellent. Unfortunately the trial version is time-limited and crippled and the product is associated with a defective business model (high price, low volume, for software that has a potential market of everyone on the planet with access to a computer.)
Google Directory
lists a few concept mapping programs. Some seem to be inferior (and even more expensive) compared to TheBrain, and I am not motivated to download the trials. I am downloading IHMC CMap Tools to test. This looks VERY promising, being network-enabled (link concept maps across web or other networks). I'm not clear on their business model. The software seems to be fee-free, but I find the license difficult to read and it may be restrictive in ways that I don't understand. It is a large download (25.9) but I am open to the possibility that its extra features will justify this.
Richard Jones 04:29, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added a hand drawn image of a mind map. Strictly speaking, a mind map should have a central image, with images throughout. I do like the computer version, and think it appropriate to keep it there. Oliver Y

The claim that Buzan came up with idea in 1971 is dubious. He has a chapter on Mind Maps in the first edition of his book Speed Reading, published in 1971. It seems very unlikely he came up with the idea, developed it enough to include in a book, wrote the book, and had it published, all in 12 months. I have heard, though can't cite, that he was developing the idea while at university in Vancouver. Lutin

Agreed; the claim that he came up with it in 1971 would be dubious if we were making such a claim in the article. However, we're perfectly within our rights to simply report what Buzan has claimed himself: that he came up with it as he started to write that book, which was published in 1971. If we have conflicting information we should add it.  — Saxifrage |  22:36, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I altered the 10% result, as it was inconclusive. The only conclusion that the researchers made after analysis was that it led to only a small increase in memory. Regards EBlack 06:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that the trademark symbol should be removed. There is no reason to respect the dubious claim by Busan. I don't think (but IANAL) that his trademark is valid. And clearly the term is already generally used to describe other non-Busan products. Paranoid 14:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Having read the book "The Mind Map Book" (Tony Buzan and Barry Buzan, 1993, 2000, 2003, publ. BBC Worldwide Limited, ISBN 0 563 48701 1), I would like to point out the following:

  • "The Mind Map Book" is copyright to Tony Buzan and Barry Buzan.
  • Mind Map® is a trade mark. That is, the phrase "Mind Map" is trade mark. It should be sufficent to make this trade mark acknowledgement at the foot of the article.
  • Individual mind maps are the work of the artist or mind mapper, and are copyrighted to the artist.Kreb Dragonrider 09:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a section in the article that mentions the trademarks. Does it look appropriately placed and worded to you?  — Saxifrage |  23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that section which declare the trademark is placed and worded okay. Despite the wider legal implication of the trademark, I have drawn mind maps occasionally (unpublished) for my personal inspirations. I think I am using mind maps in the way that Tony Buzan had intended, for the mental enhancement of readers. The trade mark is, I believe, a safeguard from copycats, imitators, charlatans, using the word "mind map" in their own publications, in a different method from Tony's methods.Kreb Dragonrider 04:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the trademark site in UK, it shows that Buzan only has trademark for 'iMindMap' his software. </ref></ref>. There are various entries for variations of Mind maps, for a particular font and business logo. There does not seem to be a current trademark listed for 'mind map' or 'mind mapping' or 'mind maps'. Searching on the US site, it looks like Buzan has something on 'Mind Maps' [1] , it says 'live'. There is another company with a trademark on 'mind maps' displayed in a particular logo. So it looks like Buzan does not have a trademark on Mind mapping, Mind maps or mind map as words, rather a particular logo style use of them. It is that, which is protected.

It looks to me like people are just repeating what they have heard elsewhere, that Buzan has trademarked the words as a whole. I think he has rights to specific logo uses of 'Mind Maps' and 'iMindMap' in US, and just 'iMindMap' in Uk.

This might help anyone who is thinking about teaching mindmapping professionally. (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)



As an anthropologist I doubt very much that categorizing and structuring concepts have really started with Aristoteles. But maybe we could make a collection of mind mapping or concept mapping of before Christ. If you look at Farao Egypt ancient encryption And Aborigina concepts are mabybe 60.000 years old. They didnt have wrtings with fonetic words but did use symbols. And apparently those symbols in paintings were explaining all kinds of complex dynamics or idea's or stories.

On Wikipedia it says the first writing 3500 BC. (but Aboriginal is much older.) it depends on when you call something writing. Because non-fonetic languages like chinese are using symbols and that can become more complex. Also deaf language is without semantics. people started carving or painting things, and immediately in the oldest thing found so far, you see the people drawing things in boxes, and that some things belonged together and other things belonged in another box. And that this was so importaint they spend hours to capture this idea into something lasting. Like carving stones or wood or a rockwall. Or graves. They are trying to tell us not just literally things but also concepts and structures and how things are intertwined etc.

It is rediculous to say Aristotle invented this. You can say it was taboe to droodle things in our culture it was considered dumn and primitive, until respected people started doing it in a sofisticated way with abstract thought. But if you take a good look at primitive art you see they were doing it al the time: and there is a whole world of meaning behind all those symbols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)