Thoughts on the Long List - Update

I wrote a couple of short articles earlier this year about long lists (aka catch-all lists):

Thoughts on the Long List

My theory is that a properly handled and practised list removes the need for prioritization, goal-setting, planning and deadline-chasing.

The Natural Selection of Tasks

There is no such thing as procrastination. What we call “procrastination” is just our minds working through the selection process.

Since then I’ve been doing an enormous amount of work on this subject, and I’m going to be writing a series of articles on the results. These might  become the basis for a book. The first one should be up soon.

In the meantime I recommend reading or re-reading the two short articles above to set the scene.

Natural Selection Changes the Emphasis

One of the things that is coming out in the comments to yesterday’s post on The Natural Selection of Tasks is that the commenters are still thinking in terms of getting everything on the list done. But the whole point of Natural Selection is that you don’t get everything done or even aim to get everything done. You allow tasks and projects to find their own level.

The difference could be summarised as: 

1. A comprehensive list of everything that needs to be done, OR
2. A wide-ranging list of everything that you might do

 In the case of 1, the aim is to do everything on the list as quickly as possible whether you want to or not.

In the case of 2, the aim is to whittle the list down to what you are actually ready and motivated to do.

It should be obvious that there will be one major difference between how these two lists get actioned. In the case of 1, you will be continually struggling against procrastination. In the case of 2, procrastination will be virtually non-existent. 

In the absence of procrastination, the speed of work will be much greater. Therefore in theory you will get much more work done in the case of 2 than you would in the case of 1.

In practice, I have found this to be so. I have powered through mountains of work in the last few days, including stuff which I have been stuck over for weeks (even months in a few cases).

I know that my experience of a system doesn’t necessarily correspond to somone else’s experience, so this may not be for everyone. But I do encourage you to have a go  However make sure that you have first taken on board what I said at the end of yesterday’s article:

…the difference is not so much in the method as in the mental attitude that goes with it. It’s a matter of learning to trust that your subconscious mind is quite capable of sorting through your tangled priorities without any interference from your conscious mind. In fact it does a much better job on its own.

The Natural Selection of Tasks

When I first started developing Autofocus one of the ideas that was at the foundation of what I was trying to achieve was the natural selection of tasks. By this I meant that I wanted to find a method that would free our minds to naturally focus on what was important to us and leave the rest.

This never quite worked out with Autofocus or its successors. Recently I been spending quite a bit of time trying to work out what I was doing wrong.

Here are some of the conclusions I’ve come to: 

• We should consciously interfere with this natural selection process as little as possible.
• We need to rid ourselves of all ideas that we “should” be doing this, that or the other task.
• If we don’t get round to doing a task, that’s a sign that we should let it die.
• 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. 
• We should rid ourselves of the idea that putting a task on the list implies any commitment to doing it. It does however imply a commitment to keeping it under consideration for as long as it remains on the list.
• There is no such thing as procrastination. What we call “procrastination” is just our minds working through the selection process.
• A method of weeding out tasks which are showing no sign of getting done is required. This implies no condemnation - it is purely housekeeping to keep the list manageable.
• Our method of working the list should put no pressure on us to do any particular task or tasks. 

If you compare the above list with Autofocus you can see exactly why Autofocus ultimately failed to provide a long-term satisfactory answer.

The solution is not to make Autofocus more complicated or effective. It is to radically simplify it and remove even the faintest suspicion of compulsion from every part of it.

Current Method

What I have been working with over the last few days is a “Catch-all” list to which I add everything that I think of. I scan it continuously as one list from one end to the other, taking action on tasks that stand out and re-entering recurring and unfinished tasks.

At the end of the day (or beginning of the next) I remove pages on which there has been no movement during the day. This purely a housekeeping matter to keep the list manageable. It’s not a penalty or “dismissal”.

This is proving extremely effective. I’m getting a vast amount of work done without any of the usual heartache (or brainache) about what I should be doing.

Conclusion

As you will realise if you’ve been around my website for a bit, there’s nothing new about any part of this. In fact the difference is not so much in the method as in the mental attitude that goes with it. It’s a matter of learning to trust that your subconscious mind is quite capable of sorting through your tangled priorities without any interference from your conscious mind. In fact it does a much better job on its own.