Visual SenseMaking with Stephen P. Anderson @stephenpa - Session 5 at the Sketch Your Mind Conference, 2025 - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv3JBB-lFH0&t=977s
Modelling stuff via visuals, like the visual sensemaking almost seems like reengineering the meaning behind the words, like redefining the boundaries of their meaning by pulling apart its component parts via visuals
You can say competition is good and competition is harmful in the same conversation and feel no tension because the sentences are sequential.
Put them in a 2x2 and suddenly you need to explain which quadrant each claim lives in. Visuals force concepts to declare their boundaries.
Language lets concepts float.
Visuals force them to commit.
Visual Sensemaking is basically about repackaging meaning of words via visuals.
The boundary is the meaning. Where a concept ends is what defines what it is.
Its the boundaries of the containers that give the word its meaning, so repackaging it is no small feat.
Competition means something specific because it excludes things : cooperation, self-improvement, play. Change the boundary and you've changed the concept, not just the label.
So the visual primitive is essentially a boundary-testing instrument. Each primitive proposes a different boundary condition.
2×2 grid : Concept depends on 2 independent dimensions
Spectrum : Concept varies by degree
Venn : Concept is about overlap/intersection
Tree : Concept has hierarchical decomposition
Triangle : Concept has exactly 3 interacting forces
Network : Concept is relational, not categorical
So when you choose a primitive, you are saying: I believe this is the structure of reality for this concept.
You use visual primitives to find where a concept's boundaries are wrong, and redraw them so the concept actually holds what it claims to hold.
So for example In a 2×2:
You must define axes as boundary conditions
Each claim must occupy a region. If it doesn’t fit, contradiction becomes visible
Raghav Agrawal