Problem 3 - Resistance
Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 20:14 Resistance is a huge problem in Time Management. Not only is it the main reason why we need time management systems and methods in the first place, but it is also the main reason why these systems and methods fail. At the extreme, resistance leads to a state of complete paralysis in which one is incapable of doing anything constructive at all.
It’s important to understand how resistance works.
- Anything which we don’t want to do will tend to build up more and more resistance if we don’t get started on doing it.
- The stage of a task which we resist the most is getting started. Once we are working on something resistance will diminish as long as we maintain momentum.
- Once resistance to a task or project has been allowed to build it will only get done when not doing it produces more pain than doing it. As you can imagine this is not a happy state to be living in.
- The more we give in to resistance, i.e. the more we procrastinate, the more difficult it becomes to do anything constructive at all.
- Resistance is stressful. Extreme resistance is stressful in the extreme.
There are really only two ways to work without experiencing resistance:
Firstly, “Do It Now”. In other words, get started on a project or task before resistance to it has a chance to build up. Since getting started is the point at which resistance is usually highest, from then on the “little and often” principle can keep you going with minimal resistance until the work has either been accomplished or has become a routine.
The problem with this method is that at any one time there are usually a number of new things clamouring for our attention. How do we chose which new project to start now? If we leave one task unfinished so that we can start the next, will we ever get back to finishing the one we’ve left?
The second way is more effective, but does take some practice and requires a rethink about the nature of resistance:
The feelings we identify as resistance are in fact nothing of the sort. Resistance doesn’t exist. Or - to be more exact - it won’t exist in the context of a properly run Long List time management system.
In a Long List system we have a list of everything we want or have to do. Scanning through the list results in certain tasks “standing out” as ready to be done. This implies that the majority of tasks won’t stand out on that scan. The reason certain tasks stand out is that your intuition is identifying them as the tasks best suited to be done at that precise time. The reason the majority of tasks don’t stand out is that your intuition has not identified them as the tasks best suited to be done at that time. It is not a question of easy tasks v. difficult tasks. It is purely a question of suitability to be done at that time.
The point of a Long List system is to build up consistency of action. It’s consistency that brings about results. But consistency works both ways. If we are consistently slapdash and unreliable, we will produce slapdash and unreliable results.
All this becomes automatic if you use a Long List system and follow the simple rule:
Do what stands out for as long as you feel like doing it and no longer
Reader Comments (40)
For me, resistance is caused by a fear of some sort, for example fear of failure, fear of boredom, or fear of missing out (missing out on something I'd find more enjoyable than doing X). Funnily enough, it's also fear that breaks my resistance to a task that involves a commitment to other people - fear of humiliation if I don't get it done.
I very often fall into the trap of not working on something till the fear of humiliation is greater than the fear of doing the task, even though logically I know it's not a comfortable way to live. I know I need to find another "fear" that gets me started in good time - fear of making a pig's ear of my life perhaps?
Trying to find ways to make it more painful not to do something than to do it is a route to constant stress and procrastination.
The answer is as I've outlined above:
1. Use a list
2. Allow your intuition to decide what to do by making it stand out
3. Do what stands out for as long as you feel like doing it
<<If we are consistently slapdash and unreliable, we will produce slapdash and unreliable results.
All this becomes automatic if you use a Long List system.>>
Aside from slapdash not being in my vocabulary, I'm puzzled how a system enhances as opposed to mitigates my unreliabilities.
Standing out is not a problem for me most of the time – I know exactly what tasks I should be working on and they stand out in glorious technicolour when I scan my list, but then I refuse to take action. Logic, common sense, a sense of duty to fulfil commitments, all of those make a task stand out, but they don't propel me to actually do any work on the task. It's the ultimate in self-sabotage.
I've just drafted a long reply trying to justify my lack of action, but – you know what? - I'm going to scrap my long list of excuses, quit complaining, stop over-analysing, and just blooming well get on with my list!
I'll report back soon on how I get on.
From Merriam-Webster:
Synonyms for slapdash
aimless, arbitrary, catch-as-catch-can, desultory, erratic, haphazard, helter-skelter, hit-or-miss, random, scattered, stray
The system is intended to make us consistently avoid being any of these things.
<< Standing out is not a problem for me most of the time – I know exactly what tasks I should be working on >>
Yes, but...
It's not scanning the list for tasks that you should be working on.
It's scanning the list for tasks that feel ready to be done.
Okay then it's clear. Your essay's structure made it seem as though the system is double-edged, but this response suggests you didn't intend that understanding, but just stick to the system.
Okay then it's clear. Your essay's structure made it seem as though the system is double-edged, but this response suggests you didn't intend that understanding, but just stick to the system.
<< Your essay's structure made it seem as though the system is double-edged >>
I apologize for the ambiguity. I meant that consistency is double-edged, not that the system is double-edged.
I had similar issues in the past as you describe.
However, once I made a commitment to myself to do ANY task that stands out without resistance it was truly liberating.
If you can shake off all those bad procrastination habits then any time management system you adopt will work fine.
For me it feels like I have reached a state of a pure, uncontaminated mind.
It is by no means easy, but certainly a challenge.
Test yourself - see if you can do it for an hour, then a day, then a week etc, and then permanently.
<< once I made a commitment to myself to do ANY task that stands out without resistance... >>
Do you mean:
"once I made a commitment to myself to do without resistance ANY task that stands out... "
or
"once I made a commitment to myself to do ANY task that without resistance stands out... "
?
Both I suppose. I guess your two sentences above describe the different stages of a task process.
First is to properly identify the task as and when it stands out ready to be done.
The second is to actually do it.
Sometimes the hard bit is the doing it, especially when there are loads of other tasks also standing out and it is easy to get distracted and worry about the tasks not being done at that particular moment in time.
That has been the real achievement for me. My mind has finally let go of all the worry of the overwhelm of a large number of tasks. No longer do thoughts pop into my head of things to do at inappropriate times. I know the system will get all the tasks done no matter what and none will fall through the cracks.
Really what I'm am getting at is to accept that resistance does not exist. i.e. that once a task stands out ready to be done, it simply gets done with focus fully on that task and nothing else.
"Do what stands out <<for as long as you feel like doing it and no longer>>"
is actually very important.
I found myself at times some tasks that "stood out" and then I did not even feel like starting them. It was only when I just trusted my intuition and crossed them out and rewrote them that I started to get into the flow of using my Long List with minimal resistance. It was like I first I had to give myself permission to only work "for as long as I feel like doing it and no longer" before I could use it effectively.
Yes that does raise a question.
When a task stands out I might initially feel like doing it and then change my mind for one reason or another. e.g. it feels a bit difficult and might need some brain power etc, but it is Friday pm and all I want is something really simple. So I drop the task.
Now that for me is where has all gone wrong in the past. That task then suddenly becomes "difficult" in my mind and some resistance builds up for no reason whatsoever. I might pick it up and put it down a few times.
So the solution? Not sure - any suggestions welcome.
The only thing that has worked for me is just to do the task as far as possible to break that cycle.
I wonder if this is an extreme form of just opening the folder, or something else entirely.
<< I found myself at times some tasks that "stood out" and then I did not even feel like starting them.>>
This is a bit like saying "I like John, but I can't stand the sight of him", or "I support the Democrats by always voting Republican".
Tasks are supposed to stand out because they feel ready to be done. If you don't feel like starting them, then they aren't standing out.
I think what Nuntym is getting at is working the list to pull out all those old tasks and moving them to the more recent part of the list presumably so they get done now?
Might be a bit easier to dot and do them instead etc?
Maybe Nuntym could clarify?
I suppose one thing the long list might not handle too well is what to do with tasks that might need to be done in a week or month in the future. Will then get missed? What about tasks waiting on responses from others?
I also rewrite errands without doing them, but it's more a way of grouping the remaining ones.
Expanding on Wooba's comment, it mixes up the order of the list, with so might have benefits similar to Randomizer.
MrBacklog, There are several ways of handling future events. It needs to be easy to do, not clutter the main page with tasks you can't do yet, and not let them hide (especially if there's a narrow window to do them in). The most extreme form is a calendar kept with the master list. I use that for far-future tasks. The least extreme is write them in the main list. I often do that, with an "activate on" date, and copy them to the active page when I want to close the page they're on. If I'm copying a lot, I'll sort them by activation date. If I anticipate a problem, I might write new future tasks at the bottom of the active page, or the top of the next page, so they aren't scattered throughout the page. If it's a list of monthly tasks, I usually put them in all at once, even if some are for later in the month, just so they're in. (I also leave blank lines, so I can edit that list as I go, so it becomes a template for next month's list.) Bulletjoural.com has two ways of handling future tasks. One is create calendar pages (at whatever granularity works for you). Another is dedicate a page for future tasks, with one wide column and several narrow ones. Each narrow column is a month Write the tasks, in any order, in the main column, and the activation date in the month column. That way, it's easy to scan just this month's column.
<< I suppose one thing the long list might not handle too well is what to do with tasks that might need to be done in a week or month in the future. Will then get missed? >>
These shouldn't be on the list at all. The list is for things which you can do now (or at the most within a couple of days). The right place for them is in your schedule/calendar which should prompt you to put them on the list when due.
<< What about tasks waiting on responses from others? >>
If I'm waiting for an immediate response from John Smith, I'd put "John Smith replied re X?" as a task.
If I'm not expecting a reply for some time, then I'd schedule "John Smith replied re X?" as above.
<< For me, sometimes a task stands out as ready to be done, but then my brain gets involved and doesn't *want* to do it. >>
Just get on with it. Start moving without thinking about it. Every time something stands out and you don't do it you are reducing the efficacy of the standing out process.
<< So I do what Nuntym does. It keeps things ticking along, allows me to find another task to do, and prevents resistance building up. >>
Or rather it gives you the illusion of progress without any progress and increases the problem rather than reducing it.
Basically what you are doing is a work-around, rather than tackling the problem directly.
What I meant was that after a few consecutive instances of "'standing out' then felt like not even starting it" the "Do what stands out for as long as you feel like doing it and no longer" just started happening. It was like my intuition was asking me "Are you SURE you will listen to me this time?!" and making sure I was serious before it started working for me. It is weird, but It felt important enough to report it, and after it first happened to me a few weeks ago it has happened occasionally (around once a day) ever since.
Tasks are supposed to stand out because they feel ready to be done. If you don't feel like starting them, then they aren't standing out. >>
When this happened to me, it just felt like I am really ready to do the task, but when I started to do it, like for example walk to where the task is supposed to be done or just pull out the things I need to do it, it just feels like I do not want to do it anymore. So I don't.
There has been a lot of comment on doing tasks based on what one feels like doing. Now that does seem a good idea.
But surely there are tasks you never feel like doing it. What then?
would following the instruction "do something as long as you feel like it" lead those tasks to build up until they really really need doing and can't be put off any longer. All being done last minute etc...
Is it not a recipe for disaster?
1. You realize the task doesn’t need to be done at all.
2. The resistance disappears and you find a way to move the task forward.
3. You find a completely different way to achieve the desired outcome.
In Mark Forster's blogpost "Natural Selection Changes the Emphasis (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/2/7/natural-selection-changes-the-emphasis.html )", he proposed that the long list was traditionally thought of as
• "A comprehensive list of everything that needs to be done"
and since in this mentality "the aim is to do everything on the list as quickly as possible whether you want to or not", with this kind of thinking "you will be continually struggling against procrastination." To eliminate procrastination, he proposed looking at the long list as
• "A wide-ranging list of everything that you might do"
This outlook means that "the aim is to whittle the list down to what you are actually ready and motivated to do," which results to "procrastination will be virtually non-existent."
Now, what if these two outlooks on the list are incomplete ways to looking at the long list, and that the second way of looking at lists can still lead to procrastination?
I have been trying to be honest at myself looking at how I look at my list, and I noticed that I look at my long list as
• "A wide-ranging list of things I should be doing plus things I want or like to do plus things that I might like or want to do."
This outlook still fulfills the second way of looking at a long list proposed above, but it definitely will cause procrastination. And lo and behold, it is those tasks I classify as "things I should be doing" that are not being done, and the tasks that keep on being done are the "things I like and want to do".
Now in the article Mark Forster posted above, "The Natural Selection of Tasks (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/2/6/the-natural-selection-of-tasks.html )", he said that "We need to rid ourselves of all ideas that we “should” be doing this, that or the other task," and "We should rid ourselves of the idea that putting a task on the list implies any commitment to doing it," which basically are the same thing. And, which veterans of this website might find ironic, the only way to do this might be to stop "wanting" and start "liking".
Dr. Rick Hanson in the book "Resilient" gave these examples to distinguish the two: Imagine yourself at the end of a sumptuous feast where you had already your fill, including desserts. A waiter arrives and lets you taste a sample of another kind of dessert. "How do you like it?" you were asked, and naturally you answered, "It's delicious!" You were asked again, "Do you want some?" and then you answer "No thank you I am absolutely full!" You liked, but did not want.
Imagine again a slot machine addict in a casino. I live in Las Vegas, so I am well acquainted with people who just push and push buttons looking tired and bored, the occasional payoff barely registering a smile. There is a compulsive persistence, but little enjoyment. They want, but do not like.
"Liking" and "wanting" therefore have experiential differences. In fact, Dr. Hanson explains that they are regulated by different neurological pathways in the brain. The difference between the two is that, in wanting, there is a definite feeling of lack in something that translates into a feeling of stress and wrongness that needs to be corrected.
As the saying goes, "Liking without wanting is heaven, but wanting without liking is hell." This is because when you like something without wanting it, there is no tension in enjoying it: you won't be afraid of it ending, nor would you hold on to it too much for fear of losing it. Wanting something without liking though is the exact definition of an addiction. As Henry David Thoreau wrote, "I make myself rich by making my wants few." And as another Book says, "The LORD is my Shepherd, I shall not want."
When it comes to procrastination, I hypothesize that the reason we procrastinate could be that the mere needing or wanting of a task to be done is in itself distressing and hurtful and thus we do not want to do them. What I mean is that categorizing a task as a "want" or "need" automatically places a lack in ourselves that we feel as stress and wrongness, and we notice that this wrong feeling subsides when we distance ourselves from it.
Therefore, ideally the long list should be,
• A comprehensive list of things I might like to do.
That means that have to start liking without wanting the things we have always thought we want and need. For example, imagine what would happen if the task you were supposed to do were not done, or even imagine the worst case scenario, what would you lose if you do not do the tasks you "want" or "need" to do. Of course it would suck, but you can still live, can't you? Beware of "musturbation" too; that is, your self-talk that includes must, should, always, and other such words.
But I think the best way to start liking without wanting is to look at our procrastinated tasks themselves. I mean, you have not been doing them; did you really lack something essential in the days they have not been done?
There is a New Age practice called the Sedona Method that delves deeply and profoundly into this topic. You might enjoy having a look.
It also drags in a hodge-podge of less deep and profound things, but nobody's perfect.
<< Now in the article Mark Forster posted above, "The Natural Selection of Tasks (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/2/6/the-natural-selection-of-tasks.html )", he said that "We need to rid ourselves of all ideas that we “should” be doing this, that or the other task," and "We should rid ourselves of the idea that putting a task on the list implies any commitment to doing it," which basically are the same thing. And, which veterans of this website might find ironic, the only way to do this might be to stop "wanting" and start "liking". >>
The thing is that I didn't say anything about stopping "wanting" and starting "liking". Those are entirely your words, though you've appended them to what I did say as if they were part of what I said.
What I have said is that we should do the tasks that stand out as being ready to be done. This doesn't imply either "wanting" or "liking" to do the task. And in fact tasks which we want or like to do may very well not be standing out as being ready to be done.
In 99% of cases, when a task stands out as ready to be done, I am also ready to do it. But sometimes, a task stands out as ready to be done but I am not ready to do it.
That is entirely my bad Mark, I should have made my words clearer. What I meant was that at least with my experience to remove the "shoulds" from how we look at the tasks of the list we might have to start looking at all the items from a "like" perspective instead of a "want" perspective. And this is all to remove the feelings of resistance, not to clarify whether a task is standing out or not.
And please note that I used the word "might", as in I am entirely not sure and I could be wrong.
<< Is there a difference between a task "being ready to be done" and me being ready to do the task? In 99% of cases, when a task stands out as ready to be done, I am also ready to do it. But sometimes, a task stands out as ready to be done but I am not ready to do it. >>
That's an interesting question. My assumption has always been that if my mind identifies a task as being ready to be done, then it's included my own mental state in its assessment. And I think that's what I've always found to be the case. I have occasionally changed my mind about a task before I do it, but that's usually been because I've realized that there's a more pressing task that needs to be done first.
What you are saying is one of the problems with pre-selecting tasks (as in FV and FVP). What seemed a good idea half an hour ago, may not seem so good when you actually come to it!
I guess that if it's only in 1% of cases, then you can just change your mind. It's only if it becomes more frequent that it's likely to be a problem.
>> Every time something stands out and you don't do it you are reducing the efficacy of the standing out process. <<
You say we should work on a task for as long as we feel like doing it and no longer. So when the task stands out, I dot it (so I am now working on it), then decide I actually can't be bothered for whatever reason, so I cross it off and re-write it at the end of the list. This seems to fit the rules because I am working on it for as long as I feel like working on it and no longer, which might only be a millisecond.
Is there a minimum length of time we should be working on a task?
<< This seems to fit the rules because I am working on it for as long as I feel like working on it and no longer, which might only be a millisecond. >>
The question isn't really whether it fits the rules or not, but whether it helps to get the work done. If you find that it does, then don't take any notice of what I say - stick to it!
I have just started reading your insightful work and am trying to implement it - I have been using GTD for over 10 years so I already have long lists of everything. However GTD does not address resistance and spontaneity - and I don't think they understand that or want to address it - as it is really complex and varied issue. You have, however, found a way using our instinct with long lists to provide both spontaneity and prevent resistance buildup.
You had proposed method of handling Resistance in your book, but that seems to have no mention now. Now your thinking seems to be that we can avoid resistance by the long list method.
Do you believe everything can be left to instinct in choosing tasks? Or we need to use the Resistance Thinking separately to flush out and address those tasks ?
If you have addressed this anywhere - can you/blog readers point me to the link?
Thanks