Latest on Autofocus Revisit
Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 23:38 I’ve just completed my second day of Autofocus using my current list which I started early yesterday.
I’m having difficulty believing that it’s only been two days - I’ve done so much.
I’ve now got to a stage which I remember from when I originally developed the system. It’s where the easy and routine tasks have been brought under control, and one is now ready to tackle the more difficult and challenging (but also more worthwhile) tasks and projects. And probably do some dismissing in the process.
I’ve now got nine full pages and a tenth with only one task on it. That’s 280 in all.
Of these I’ve done 178 tasks and 102 are yet to be done - 42 from Day 1 and 60 from Day 2.
That means I’ve averaged 89 tasks a day, and there’s 1.1 days’ worth of tasks on the list if I keep up the present rate.
I doubt though if I’ll manage so many tasks tomorrow as I’m taken advantage of the relaxation of the Covid rules to have a long lunch in a local pub with friends.
Reader Comments (15)
Glad to hear it's working so far, and have a nice lunch!
Some support-group comrades introduced me to your video demo of AutoFocus, and I've been trying it out, along with the Groups-of-n Willpower Exercise.
I'd like to take a look at the animated pdf demo for AF4, but the link to it seems to be obsolete.
If you get a chance, world you please provide a current link to that demo?
Thanks very much for sharing your TM experiments!
wrk
For the "animation" to work, you must put the pdf reader in fullscreen mode and then flip through the pages.
That is a BEAUTIFULLY clear demo, and I also appreciate being pointed to the new link so quickly!
Reminds one of how elegant AF4 is.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/2/6/the-natural-selection-of-tasks.html
In particular, is there a more evolved "attitude" adjustment that you are taking to AF that will allow you to embrace the dismissal process in a different light rather than seeing it as excessively compulsive and likely to interfere with the natural selection of tasks?
<< I am curious to know how you plan to address your previous criticisms of Autofocus' ability to enable natural task selection >>
I'm afraid the simple answer to your question is that my re-visit of Autofocus has run into exactly the same problems that I had the first time round. And "my more evolved attitude adjustment" doesn't seem to be making much difference.
I've also been finding the solution I found then to be still working well.
I'll be writing a blog post on the subject shortly.
I found myself carried along by the argument until I came to the "Current Method" section of that post. Everything that comes before seems to make a strong case in favour of Simple Scanning. And manually deleting/pruning tasks, as one does in Simple Scanning, seems to fit with the thinking there. The method described in the blog post--removing "pages on which there has been no movement during the day"--seems more forced (basically = timed dismissal). Likewise, the post seems to suggest that we should prefer manual deletion (Simple Scanning) over automatic dismissal (AF1) (which, again, seems more forced).
I have a feeling that the "Natural Selection of Tasks" led Mark back to Simple Scanning eventually, but I haven't gone through all the old posts. Previously, Mark made compelling arguments in favour of Simple Scanning being the best system: how it makes "everything easy," etc.--much in the same vein as the "Natural Selection of Tasks." Personally, I can say that I used Simple Scanning successfully for extended periods in the past. The system basically never broke down. (And one never needed to jump outside the system.)
Like others, I've made a nostalgic return to AF1 for the last few days. I'm enjoying it. The system has worked well so far.
<< Mark made compelling arguments in favour of Simple Scanning being the best system: how it makes "everything easy," >>
In fact I've now come full circle and am back on Simple Scanning. The main problem with it, as I recall from the past, is that the list tends to grow uncontrollably. This, as I wrote in another thread yesterday, can be combated by adjusting the speed at which one moves through the list. Having a "Weed List" task is also a good thing.
The advantage of having a very long list is that it provides a "seedbed" effect out of which the really good stuff can grow.
Always interesting to hear about your current thinking. I have the feeling that Simple Scanning is the best long list system, but I do enjoy using the other systems as well.
<The main problem with it, as I recall from the past, is that the list tends to grow uncontrollably.>
I probably will confront this problem at some point in my career. But for now (while my work is less intense), I actually tend to face the opposite problem... In my experience, Simple Scanning (or, really, any long list system) can become less effective when the list gets shorter. To take an extreme example: Consider a novelist who has "Write Novel" as a task, plus only a select few other tasks on her list. Simple Scanning may well be effective for her, but the marginal gain in effectiveness may not be huge compared to using "no-list" or no list at all. Contrast, say, an administrative assistant who was hundreds of tasks on her list (many of which could be tough to keep track of). Simple Scanning is going to plow through those tasks, providing a highly effective framework for her thinking. She's probably going to be way more effective than a colleague using "no-list" or no list... Food for thought, I guess. I don't know if anyone else has experienced this effect.
One more afterthought about "The Natural Selection of Tasks"... In that blog post you say: "A prerequisite for natural selection is a large seed-bed of possibilities. This would imply that we should use a 'catch-all' list and add every fleeting idea to it." Merely to play devil's advocate: Is this necessarily true? Isn't it at least plausible that the "The Natural Selection of Tasks" could be an argument in favour of using "no-list" or no list at all? The argument being that "naturally" our brain filters out things that aren't that important so we're not overwhelmed by the trivia of life. Simple Scanning disrupts this by creating a thorough (if unconstrained) scaffolding for your mind, bringing to your attention many things you wouldn't otherwise have thought about. This scaffolding is "unnatural." It actually disrupts the "natural" selection of tasks.
For example, I admit that in my recent trial of "The Simplest Form of No List," I would often work on "Write Report"-type tasks, because they are important to me and ever-present in my mind. But I was a little less on the ball with more mundane or trivial matters (compared to long list, where the mundane stuff is taken care of much better than when one relies on the mind alone).
Of course, I have nothing against long list, and for some occupations (e.g. the admin assistant above), the advantages of long list are palpable. In short, I'm all for doing what is practically best, but perhaps this argument is at least of theoretical interest.
<< Consider a novelist who has "Write Novel" as a task >>
A novelist wouldn't just have "Write Novel" as a task. Producing a novel consists of a lot more than just writing. You have to draft out the plot, plan each individual chapter, write first draft, second draft, third draft, correct proofs, find an agent, find a publisher, give interviews, sell film rights, ideas for future novels. Etc, etc.
I'm looking forward to your write up and conclusions. Reading that you are coming back around to simple scanning, does that mean that very shortly you'll be remarking of simple scanning:
"*) It’s boring. This may sound a rather frivolous reason but one of the characteristics of a good system is that it maintains interest and motivation. Just going round and round a list gets to be a bit mind-numbing.
"*) There’s not enough encouragement to get moving on tasks which have been on the list for a long time.
"*) There’s also not enough encouragement to keep moving on tasks or projects which have been started"
And that NQ-FVP is the best system because:
"*) It’s not boring. The way the list is processed keeps interest alive and encourages engagement with the individual tasks on the list as well as the list as a whole.
"*)The sorting method is designed so that every task on the list will get dealt with. The progress towards the early tasks on the list is inevitable. The algorithm used ensures this. So indefinite skipping over tasks is not possible.
"*)Once a task starts moving, the pressure is kept up on it until it is completed. This applies whether it is a new or an old task. It will deal equally well with small routine tasks and major projects. What’s more there is no need to differentiate between these when working the list. "
? :-)
Sorry, I couldn't help noticing the cycle of life, and just wanted to give you a little ribbing.
<< Does that mean that..."
Yes
< A novelist wouldn't just have "Write Novel" as a task. Producing a novel consists of a lot more than just writing. You have to draft out the plot, plan each individual chapter, write first draft, second draft, third draft, correct proofs, find an agent, find a publisher, give interviews, sell film rights, ideas for future novels. Etc, etc. >
For sure, that's true. Though I think it's probably fair to say that, at times, it seems tough to increase your efficiency in doing the core task-- actually writing the darn thing!--via a long-list system. I suspect many of us have struggled with "draft report"-type tasks even when the long-list has given us a perfect handle on everything else we have to do.
I guess that was what I was trying to get at in the prior post: the sense sometimes that long-list systems get so much done for you but that progress seems to slow when you get down to those few difficult tasks. But perhaps the slow-down is only an illusion, and allowing you to maximize the time you spend on tough stuff is where the real work begins (even if, when you're down to a few items, there isn't a whole lot of movement on the list). I don't know. I feel this topic has been addressed elsewhere on the forum, so I don't want to derail this thread, which was about Autofocus.