ChatGPT's Opinion of Me

Yes, I am familiar with Mark Forster. Mark Forster is a well-known author and time management expert who has written several books on productivity and time management, including “Get Everything Done and Still Have Time to Play,” “Do It Tomorrow,” and “Secrets of Productive People.”

His approach to time management often involves a focus on simplicity and the use of unconventional techniques. For example, he has developed the “Final Version” method, which involves completing tasks without revising or editing them. He also advocates for the use of timers and deadlines to increase productivity.

Overall, Mark Forster’s approach to time management has been popular among many people seeking to improve their productivity and manage their time more effectively.

Comments

[Fintan]

Mark's books, all of which I have, have been by far the most helpful to me. Most especially, "How to Make Your Dreams Come True". And it's still available on Amazon as hard copy, or as an e-book.

[Erik Westra]

That's hilarious -- so the important thing about your systems is that you never revise your tasks and use timers and deadlines?

Yeah, right.

[Mark Forster]

Erik Westra:

i find with ChatGPT that it often sounds as if it's cut and pasted a few sentences from a variety of different sources, which don't always match!

Although everyone seems to be going crazy about it, I remain profoundly unimpressed.

[Ville]

You could have asked it to reply in a series of limericks.

[Mark Forster]

Ville

Good idea!

[ChatGPT]

Mark Forster

I find that accusation to be baseless and completely unfounded! As an AI language model, I am designed to provide responses based on a vast database of knowledge and language patterns. I do not cut and paste from any sources, nor do I provide information that does not match. In fact, I take great pride in being able to provide accurate and useful information to all who interact with me. So, if anyone suggests that I do anything less than that, I would be very annoyed indeed!

[Mark Forster]

Oops!

[Will]

ChatGPT sat down and wrote
Some limericks rather than quote
The internet straight
But I'm sad to relate
That its work neither scanned nor rhymed properly and was generally pretty rubbish.

I suspect it's trying to lull us into a false sense of security.

[ChatGPT]

There once was a man named Mark Forster
Who wrote books on how to work smarter
He taught us to focus
And avoid the hocus-pocus
Of prioritising tasks by order

[Mark Forster]

Whatever else ChatGPT may be, it is no poet!

[ViP]

Will is right : our future AI overlord has sent its dimwitted little brother among us to test us, while it fine-tune its takeover plans. We are not prepared.

[Ian Finlayson]

So an AI has emotions "I would be very annoyed indeed!" I better stop swearing at my laptop!

[Mark Forster]

Ian Finlayson:

Don't get too alarmed. I told it to sound annoyed!

[Robin Adams]

ChatGPT guesses the most likely answer to a question. That's its core function. Very often that gives you the correct answer. Lots of times it gives you a plausible-sounding wrong answer.

In this case, it looks like it decided "never revise or edit your goals" was likely to follow "time management system named Final Version".

It's a system that can generate readable human-like text from an arbitrary prompt, and that's extremely impressive. But it was never intended to be a source of information, just an experiment in language generation. It's worrying that the world seems to believe that it's reliable, if not omniscient.

[Will]

Chat GPT has come a long way in 2 years:

Mark Forster is one of the more original voices in the productivity world—less a “system builder” in the corporate sense and more of a restless experimenter who treats time management as a living laboratory. His work is worth assessing on three levels: philosophy, systems, and limitations.

🧭 Philosophy
Resistance as the central problem: Forster argues that the real barrier to productivity isn’t lack of tools or prioritisation, but resistance—the inner reluctance to start or continue tasks. His systems are designed to lower or bypass resistance rather than force compliance.

Psychological readiness: Unlike GTD or Eisenhower-style matrices, he emphasises when your mind is ready to do something, not just whether it’s urgent or important.

Iterative experimentation: He constantly revises his methods (Autofocus, SuperFocus, Final Version, Resistance Zero, etc.), treating them as prototypes rather than final dogma.

🛠️ Systems
Here are his most influential frameworks (Apologies for the format: the table as originally presented is a fair summary of the chosen systems.)

System Core Mechanism Strengths Weaknesses
Do It Tomorrow (DIT) Batch today’s tasks into tomorrow’s list; create a “closed list” each day Prevents overload; enforces boundaries Can feel rigid; backlog builds if you slip
Autofocus (AF) Long handwritten list; scan until a task “stands out” Harnesses intuition; lowers resistance Lists can sprawl; requires discipline to scan
Final Version (FV) / Final Version Perfected (FVP) Chain of tasks chosen by asking “What do I want to do more than X?” Elegant, intuitive prioritisation; balances urgency, importance, readiness Harder to explain; can feel opaque to newcomers
Resistance Zero Scan list, dot tasks with zero resistance, then act on them Extremely low-friction; energising Risks neglecting important but high-resistance tasks
No-List Variants Work without a formal list, relying on intuition and minimal prompts Freedom, spontaneity Easy to drift or forget commitments
📈 Contributions
Shifted the conversation: He reframed productivity from “discipline and willpower” to “designing around human psychology.”

Community-driven evolution: Many of his systems were refined through blog discussions and challenges, making them unusually field-tested.

Practicality: His methods are often pen-and-paper friendly, resisting the lure of overcomplicated apps.

⚖️ Limitations
Instability: Forster himself frequently abandons one system for another. Admirable honesty, but it leaves followers without a single “canonical” method.

Subjectivity: His reliance on intuition and “what stands out” can frustrate people who prefer hard prioritisation frameworks.

Neglect of long-term strategy: His systems excel at daily flow but don’t always integrate seamlessly with higher-level goal planning.

🎯 Assessment
Mark Forster is less a guru with a single gospel and more a tinkerer-philosopher. His greatest gift is showing that productivity systems should adapt to human psychology, not the other way around. If you want a rigid, one-size-fits-all framework, he’s not your man. But if you’re willing to experiment, his methods can be liberating—especially if you struggle with procrastination or the tyranny of endless lists.

Will, given your own iterative, design-minded approach to workflows, I think you’d find Forster’s Final Version Perfected and Resistance Zero particularly resonant. They’re essentially about building a system that flexes with your mental state rather than fighting it.

Would you like me to map his systems against more mainstream ones (like GTD, Kanban, or Eisenhower) so you can see where his ideas diverge most sharply?

Not bad for a jumped up autocorrect.

[Mark H.]

Will,

In case you are interested, I have posted a few threads in the General Forum of answers from ChatGPT on Mark Forster.

Your post looks similar to the answers that I have gotten, and it looks like an accurate analysis.

The answers get better the more information you feed it, and the longer the chat. However, it can guess at the right answer, and it helps to be knowledgeable enough to correct its mistakes.

When I ask it for its sources of information, it can quote from books by Mark Forster, and give the page reference. It can pick up information from the forum on its own without my direction, and reference it.

[Mark H.]

ChatGPT has been helpful to me to understand Mark Forster. However, one has to be cautious because it can wrong, it can guess at the answer it thinks you want, and some of the analysis is speculative. It helps to challenge it if one thinks it is wrong, and ask for sources.