Discussion Forum > AF5 Progress
great ! a new Mf system near af1. !!!
seems to be powerfull.
yeap ! very interesting
seems to be powerfull.
yeap ! very interesting
July 19, 2011 at 8:43 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
That's good news Mark, good to hear from you. AF5 sort of sounds really good doesn't it (if that's what you end up naming it)!
July 19, 2011 at 10:55 |
leon
leon
Wonderful!
My own experiments have brought me much closer to grasping dismissal, Mark. I think I had never got over the feeling that "dismissal" meant giving up on things, when it really just meant getting them out of the way for now. These days I have no special dismissal process, just working through a one-column notebook in any order I want—remedial notebook learning! I have ended up with a few active pages, a few recent-but-growing-stale pages, and a bunch of pages that are effectively dismissed because I rarely visit them (and don't need to). I am thinking that if I were to highlight the latter, I would have dismissal much more the way you had intended.
Best of luck with AF5! I will be eager to see what you come up with and what I can learn from it.
My own experiments have brought me much closer to grasping dismissal, Mark. I think I had never got over the feeling that "dismissal" meant giving up on things, when it really just meant getting them out of the way for now. These days I have no special dismissal process, just working through a one-column notebook in any order I want—remedial notebook learning! I have ended up with a few active pages, a few recent-but-growing-stale pages, and a bunch of pages that are effectively dismissed because I rarely visit them (and don't need to). I am thinking that if I were to highlight the latter, I would have dismissal much more the way you had intended.
Best of luck with AF5! I will be eager to see what you come up with and what I can learn from it.
July 19, 2011 at 19:46 |
Bernie
Bernie
Just popped in to see what is going on after a bit of a break and there is a new system in the offing! Very impressed! Well done Mark - looking forward to hearing all about it when you have tested.
July 19, 2011 at 22:47 |
Alison Reeves
Alison Reeves
Further update:
I've been trying out a few variations with the aim of making it as easy as possible to work the system, and I think I have improved it slightly over the original version. Still no dismissal process though!
I've been trying out a few variations with the aim of making it as easy as possible to work the system, and I think I have improved it slightly over the original version. Still no dismissal process though!
July 20, 2011 at 23:19 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
+JMJ+
No dismissal process? Really? So the system is, so far, so efficient that you do not need a process to lighten the load on the system?
No dismissal process? Really? So the system is, so far, so efficient that you do not need a process to lighten the load on the system?
July 21, 2011 at 5:58 |
nuntym
nuntym
I'm intrigued to find out where the focus comes from without a dismissal process.
July 21, 2011 at 9:01 |
Will
Will
I didn't mean there wasn't going to be a dismissal process. What I meant was that I still need to work out whether a dismissal process is necessary and if so what it should be. Because I've been testing variations I haven't yet been able to establish the answer to either question.
July 21, 2011 at 9:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
+JMJ+
Any updates on AF5, Mark?
Any updates on AF5, Mark?
August 2, 2011 at 18:15 |
nuntym
nuntym
The initial hopes didn't live up to their promise unfortunately - so I'm still experimenting.
August 3, 2011 at 12:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
But this morning I found a solution to one of the problems I've been having with it - so maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel after all!
August 3, 2011 at 15:59 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
From Mark's first post in this thread:
"What are its characteristics?
It produces exactly the right tasks for the situation, time available, importance, urgency and your own psychological readiness. Whenever you use the system you will come away from it feeling that you have done exactly what you should have done and that there could have been no better use of your time."
This is the best definition I have ever seen of what the ideal time/task management system would look like; especially the last part, "that there could have been no better use of your time." That is, no more regret about the choices of the day's actions
Whether or not AF5 (or any system) can live up to this remains to be seen, but I am grateful for this succinct definition of what we (Mark and those who visit this site) are all striving to create.
"What are its characteristics?
It produces exactly the right tasks for the situation, time available, importance, urgency and your own psychological readiness. Whenever you use the system you will come away from it feeling that you have done exactly what you should have done and that there could have been no better use of your time."
This is the best definition I have ever seen of what the ideal time/task management system would look like; especially the last part, "that there could have been no better use of your time." That is, no more regret about the choices of the day's actions
Whether or not AF5 (or any system) can live up to this remains to be seen, but I am grateful for this succinct definition of what we (Mark and those who visit this site) are all striving to create.
August 4, 2011 at 17:55 |
George G.
George G.
Any updates Mark? (No pressure intended! I just always get very excited when you are working on a new system!) :-)
August 9, 2011 at 22:50 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
No, all has collapsed again and I've reverted to what I always revert to when I've temporarily run out of ideas - AF1.
Actually come to think of it AF1 isn't far off the characteristics which George has just reminded us of. I've certainly just had a very productive day using it.
No, all has collapsed again and I've reverted to what I always revert to when I've temporarily run out of ideas - AF1.
Actually come to think of it AF1 isn't far off the characteristics which George has just reminded us of. I've certainly just had a very productive day using it.
August 10, 2011 at 0:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
One further point about my use of AF1:
I've been wondering if I've paid enough attention to the number of lines per page. In my last few forays into AF1 I've been using a notebook with 31 lines. But this time I'm using a big A4 refill pad with 46 lines. The feel is quite different, and I'm asking myself whether increasing the number of lines might solve some of the problems associated with AF1.
It's easy enough to implement. If you have a smaller notebook, just treat facing pages as one page. That immediately doubles the number. Maybe I might even try that myself once I've seen how it goes with 46 lines. 92 lines would be quite a change!
And then there's always double columns . . . 184 lines per "page". Hmm . . .
I've been wondering if I've paid enough attention to the number of lines per page. In my last few forays into AF1 I've been using a notebook with 31 lines. But this time I'm using a big A4 refill pad with 46 lines. The feel is quite different, and I'm asking myself whether increasing the number of lines might solve some of the problems associated with AF1.
It's easy enough to implement. If you have a smaller notebook, just treat facing pages as one page. That immediately doubles the number. Maybe I might even try that myself once I've seen how it goes with 46 lines. 92 lines would be quite a change!
And then there's always double columns . . . 184 lines per "page". Hmm . . .
August 10, 2011 at 0:58 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Final count of unactioned tasks after first day of "large-page" AF1:
Page 1 - 19
Page 2 - 14
Page 3 - 30
Page 4 - 22 (9 blank lines to go)
Total unactioned: 85
Tasks actioned: 90
Page 1 - 19
Page 2 - 14
Page 3 - 30
Page 4 - 22 (9 blank lines to go)
Total unactioned: 85
Tasks actioned: 90
August 10, 2011 at 1:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<<I've reverted to what I always revert to when I've temporarily run out of ideas - AF1.>>
Mark, thanks for sharing your experiment with us even if this one didn't pan out. Most people would only share their final, perfected creations, so your willingness to take personal risks here is inspiring.
Mark, thanks for sharing your experiment with us even if this one didn't pan out. Most people would only share their final, perfected creations, so your willingness to take personal risks here is inspiring.
August 10, 2011 at 7:41 |
Bernie
Bernie
Hi Mark - it was interesting to hear about your AF5 experiment and your subsequent return to AF1, for the time being at least. Thanks so much for sharing your systems with us. Superfocus has helped me enormously over the last six months in dealing with several serious illnesses and bereavements in my close family, and a few other crises besides. I can't say I've followed it faithfully every day, and there were many days when I didn't even use it, but it has kept things as much under control as was possible in the trying circumstances, and just opening up my SF notebook and reading through it brought me a sense of calm and peace amid the chaos. I think I'll follow AF1 for a while to see how it suits me now, having tried all the various systems. I didn't really apply the column 2 rules of Superfocus very stringently, and the great simplicity of AF1 appeals to me right now. All the best to you and the other forum members.
August 10, 2011 at 9:11 |
Margaret1
Margaret1
I'm amazed you find AF1 so wonderful, and it makes me think you must have very few priority items come up during the day. The one thing I found disconcerting to me about AF4 was that I wanted to focus on these priority items but after working one or two of the biggest out of the closed list, it took a while to get back to those now in the open list.
The best thing AF1 has going is simplicity in practice, which SF lost. But still, it seems to lack a healthy way of dealing with items like laundry unless you cycle the list extremely fast or have another technique. I mean: laundry comes up. Throw clothes in wash. Great! But will you get a reminder to throw them into the dryer? AF4 with two lists did. SF with optional tasks does. Anyway what goes for laundry is 5x desired for priority work tasks, where I need to keep the few items going over and over. "I'll get back to them after looping through 5 other pages" would be frustration.
My point is, I know I can do my own thing, but it seems to me your life must be very slow paced for AF1 to be so successful.
The best thing AF1 has going is simplicity in practice, which SF lost. But still, it seems to lack a healthy way of dealing with items like laundry unless you cycle the list extremely fast or have another technique. I mean: laundry comes up. Throw clothes in wash. Great! But will you get a reminder to throw them into the dryer? AF4 with two lists did. SF with optional tasks does. Anyway what goes for laundry is 5x desired for priority work tasks, where I need to keep the few items going over and over. "I'll get back to them after looping through 5 other pages" would be frustration.
My point is, I know I can do my own thing, but it seems to me your life must be very slow paced for AF1 to be so successful.
August 10, 2011 at 13:20 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
One of the things which is interesting to analyse while working with AF1 is which part of the list you spend most time working on. Generally speaking, most time is spent working on the last two pages of the list.
There are two reasons for this:
1) The last two pages tend to have a greater proportion of unactioned tasks than earlier pages.
2) Once you have finished working on the penultimate page, the next page may either have become or be on the point of becoming the penultimate page. "Working on the last two pages" may in fact involve working on three, four or more pages as the end of the list keeps moving in the same direction as you are.
Now where do you find most "priority items that come up in the course of the day"?
On the last two pages.
This is why sticking to the rules of AF1 results in much less of a problem with priority tasks than would at first appear.
There will be occasions when you really do need to do something before you can get to it in the normal course of working the list. In that case you simply invoke the "if it needs doing now, do it now" rule. But my experience is that if I trust the system that happens far less often than one would think.
One of the things which is interesting to analyse while working with AF1 is which part of the list you spend most time working on. Generally speaking, most time is spent working on the last two pages of the list.
There are two reasons for this:
1) The last two pages tend to have a greater proportion of unactioned tasks than earlier pages.
2) Once you have finished working on the penultimate page, the next page may either have become or be on the point of becoming the penultimate page. "Working on the last two pages" may in fact involve working on three, four or more pages as the end of the list keeps moving in the same direction as you are.
Now where do you find most "priority items that come up in the course of the day"?
On the last two pages.
This is why sticking to the rules of AF1 results in much less of a problem with priority tasks than would at first appear.
There will be occasions when you really do need to do something before you can get to it in the normal course of working the list. In that case you simply invoke the "if it needs doing now, do it now" rule. But my experience is that if I trust the system that happens far less often than one would think.
August 10, 2011 at 15:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Alan:
Further to the above, a look at the tasks I have done so far today bears out what I said:
Page 1 - 4
Page 2 - 6
Page 3 - 8
Page 4 - 13
Page 5 - 28
I tried to find an equivalent on my list of your "I need to keep the few items going over and over". Here are a few examples I found (there are more):
1) Because of the financial turmoil I have been following the FTSE-100 Index very closely (basically so I know whether I need to go back to work!). Looking back over my list I can see that I have looked at the index 13 times over the last two days.
2) I've looked at these Comments 7 times over the same period.
3) I've been putting in some major effort on my French and have worked on it 16 times (split into two tasks: French Practice - 9; French Vocabulary - 7).
All these have been done in strict accordance with the AF1 rules.
Further to the above, a look at the tasks I have done so far today bears out what I said:
Page 1 - 4
Page 2 - 6
Page 3 - 8
Page 4 - 13
Page 5 - 28
I tried to find an equivalent on my list of your "I need to keep the few items going over and over". Here are a few examples I found (there are more):
1) Because of the financial turmoil I have been following the FTSE-100 Index very closely (basically so I know whether I need to go back to work!). Looking back over my list I can see that I have looked at the index 13 times over the last two days.
2) I've looked at these Comments 7 times over the same period.
3) I've been putting in some major effort on my French and have worked on it 16 times (split into two tasks: French Practice - 9; French Vocabulary - 7).
All these have been done in strict accordance with the AF1 rules.
August 10, 2011 at 17:53 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark - if you're able, how many of those tasks were PULL initiated (and hence, related to a powerful vision) and how many were PUSH initiated (guilt, will power, etc).
August 10, 2011 at 18:05 |
avrum
avrum
Avrum:
Just about everything on the list is related to my five main goals. The exception is the FTSE-100 Index where the motivation is sheer terror!
Just about everything on the list is related to my five main goals. The exception is the FTSE-100 Index where the motivation is sheer terror!
August 10, 2011 at 18:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
eek. If your savings survive the present turmoil, I would look into a more secure vehicle than the stock market for your holdings.
August 10, 2011 at 19:15 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark:
<<Just about everything on the list is related to my five main goals. >>
In your example in Dreams - were you using a list? I don't think you were. Recently, I believe you mentioned that Dreams and AFs are incompatible. Or did i misunderstand?
<<Just about everything on the list is related to my five main goals. >>
In your example in Dreams - were you using a list? I don't think you were. Recently, I believe you mentioned that Dreams and AFs are incompatible. Or did i misunderstand?
August 10, 2011 at 21:51 |
avrum
avrum
<<1) The last two pages tend to have a greater proportion of unactioned tasks than earlier pages.
2) Once you have finished working on the penultimate page, the next page may either have become or be on the point of becoming the penultimate page. "Working on the last two pages" may in fact involve working on three, four or more pages as the end of the list keeps moving in the same direction as you are.
>>
This is very intriguing. For my work efforts, I have always used OneNote, and the mode of operation was always to *move* tasks rather than cross them out and re-enter them. Under AF4 rules, this form difference didn't matter. In SF, I noticed this factor really messed with the column 2 counts, and it was a real pain to properly track the "true" count for that column. As for column 1, the moving tasks didn't really matter because I knew what was closed, and important tasks always followed me around in C2 anyway.
With AF1, this theory is completely out the window. Where you get your last page growing and growing even with reentry, I would just be reorganizing that last page list. Where you start a second or third page, I start none.
So the electronic AF4 is the same as paper. SF is sort of the same except for clunkier on my computer. AF1 may be very different one to the other.
I've long been using a paper notebook at home, yet tend to follow the same process both places. However the feel is very different, and each environment presses me to make diverging adaptations.
2) Once you have finished working on the penultimate page, the next page may either have become or be on the point of becoming the penultimate page. "Working on the last two pages" may in fact involve working on three, four or more pages as the end of the list keeps moving in the same direction as you are.
>>
This is very intriguing. For my work efforts, I have always used OneNote, and the mode of operation was always to *move* tasks rather than cross them out and re-enter them. Under AF4 rules, this form difference didn't matter. In SF, I noticed this factor really messed with the column 2 counts, and it was a real pain to properly track the "true" count for that column. As for column 1, the moving tasks didn't really matter because I knew what was closed, and important tasks always followed me around in C2 anyway.
With AF1, this theory is completely out the window. Where you get your last page growing and growing even with reentry, I would just be reorganizing that last page list. Where you start a second or third page, I start none.
So the electronic AF4 is the same as paper. SF is sort of the same except for clunkier on my computer. AF1 may be very different one to the other.
I've long been using a paper notebook at home, yet tend to follow the same process both places. However the feel is very different, and each environment presses me to make diverging adaptations.
August 10, 2011 at 22:21 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
<< eek. If your savings survive the present turmoil, I would look into a more secure vehicle than the stock market for your holdings. >>
What would you suggest?
<< eek. If your savings survive the present turmoil, I would look into a more secure vehicle than the stock market for your holdings. >>
What would you suggest?
August 10, 2011 at 23:37 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
avrum:
<< In your example in Dreams - were you using a list? I don't think you were. >>
Whether goals are expressed in a list or in a narrative, it's still possible to count them!
<< Recently, I believe you mentioned that Dreams and AFs are incompatible. Or did i misunderstand? >>
I don't remember saying that, though that doesn't mean I didn't. But in any case, if one is experimenting then the results are not necessarily going to be what one thought they would be.
<< In your example in Dreams - were you using a list? I don't think you were. >>
Whether goals are expressed in a list or in a narrative, it's still possible to count them!
<< Recently, I believe you mentioned that Dreams and AFs are incompatible. Or did i misunderstand? >>
I don't remember saying that, though that doesn't mean I didn't. But in any case, if one is experimenting then the results are not necessarily going to be what one thought they would be.
August 10, 2011 at 23:40 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Alan:
<< So the electronic AF4 is the same as paper. SF is sort of the same except for clunkier on my computer. AF1 may be very different one to the other. >>
I can't really follow from your description what you would be doing with AF1 under your electronic system. But if it doesn't involve the number of active tasks on each page shrinking progressively, then it isn't AF1 or anything resembling it.
<< So the electronic AF4 is the same as paper. SF is sort of the same except for clunkier on my computer. AF1 may be very different one to the other. >>
I can't really follow from your description what you would be doing with AF1 under your electronic system. But if it doesn't involve the number of active tasks on each page shrinking progressively, then it isn't AF1 or anything resembling it.
August 10, 2011 at 23:48 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
avrum / Mark,
<< Recently, I believe you mentioned that Dreams and AFs are incompatible. Or did i misunderstand? >>
I remember Mark suggesting at first that Dreams was incompatible with SF/AF due to the primacy of Pull. Then we had some discussion of "standing out" vs. Pull, and Mark decided that they may be compatible after all, at which point he set out to develop a new Dreams-compatible version of SF, which he later referred to as AF5.
Mark, has the AF5 experiment affected your view of "standing out" vs. Pull?
<< Recently, I believe you mentioned that Dreams and AFs are incompatible. Or did i misunderstand? >>
I remember Mark suggesting at first that Dreams was incompatible with SF/AF due to the primacy of Pull. Then we had some discussion of "standing out" vs. Pull, and Mark decided that they may be compatible after all, at which point he set out to develop a new Dreams-compatible version of SF, which he later referred to as AF5.
Mark, has the AF5 experiment affected your view of "standing out" vs. Pull?
August 11, 2011 at 0:39 |
Bernie
Bernie
Mark:
re investments, I only know stocks are considered aggressive and risky. I would talk to a financial planner about what's more conservative and fitting your situation.
re AF1. It's simple really. Rather than cross out an item, I delete it. Rather than rewrite an item, I move it to the end. Not because I want to be contrarian, but because it fits the medium easier. Works brilliant. But with AF1, where you get several new pages at the end, I get only one, because deleting shrinks the list and reentry doesn't grow it. It takes longer to fill a page and close it off, because it only grows by moving tasks forward and by adding new tasks.
But since I'm not operating AF1....
re investments, I only know stocks are considered aggressive and risky. I would talk to a financial planner about what's more conservative and fitting your situation.
re AF1. It's simple really. Rather than cross out an item, I delete it. Rather than rewrite an item, I move it to the end. Not because I want to be contrarian, but because it fits the medium easier. Works brilliant. But with AF1, where you get several new pages at the end, I get only one, because deleting shrinks the list and reentry doesn't grow it. It takes longer to fill a page and close it off, because it only grows by moving tasks forward and by adding new tasks.
But since I'm not operating AF1....
August 11, 2011 at 2:17 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Bernie -
My thinking on PULL is that without accountability, my energy wanes, and drift takes over. Perhaps this is only my problem, but i haven't noticed a significant drop in drift activity since using Dreams. And yet, I don't want to resort to rules/list making. AFs always felt PUSH-ish to me... regardless of what was on the list. I still believe in the power of the unconscious to direct actions towards noble goals, but I've yet to find a system that works for me. Alas, I will continue with my re-reading of Dreams and see what transpires.
My thinking on PULL is that without accountability, my energy wanes, and drift takes over. Perhaps this is only my problem, but i haven't noticed a significant drop in drift activity since using Dreams. And yet, I don't want to resort to rules/list making. AFs always felt PUSH-ish to me... regardless of what was on the list. I still believe in the power of the unconscious to direct actions towards noble goals, but I've yet to find a system that works for me. Alas, I will continue with my re-reading of Dreams and see what transpires.
August 11, 2011 at 2:21 |
avrum
avrum
Alan - I also use OneNote, roughly following an SF or AF1 algorithm, very happily. I've been closing each new "page" at the end of each day. I find the exact number of items allowed on a page to be far less important than a clear, simple mechanism for closing the page, and preserving the "number of active tasks on each page shrinking progressively" effect.
The same applies to my "accordion files on a shelf" system -- each accordion file holds a different number of items, depending on what those items are. I just keep stuffing each one till it's full, and then I "close" the folder, don't add anything new to it, and add a new folder at the end of the shelf. It's usually 20-30 items. If it's all paper mail and scraps of paper with "to-do's" on them, each folder can hold 30-70 items. If I throw in a new package of socks that I don't want to unpack right now, that fills the accordion folder pretty quickly. :-) I've found it really doesn't matter so much as long as (1) I do close the folder in some systematic way, and (2) each time I process a folder, the number of items remaining gets smaller.
The same applies to my "accordion files on a shelf" system -- each accordion file holds a different number of items, depending on what those items are. I just keep stuffing each one till it's full, and then I "close" the folder, don't add anything new to it, and add a new folder at the end of the shelf. It's usually 20-30 items. If it's all paper mail and scraps of paper with "to-do's" on them, each folder can hold 30-70 items. If I throw in a new package of socks that I don't want to unpack right now, that fills the accordion folder pretty quickly. :-) I've found it really doesn't matter so much as long as (1) I do close the folder in some systematic way, and (2) each time I process a folder, the number of items remaining gets smaller.
August 11, 2011 at 2:41 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark & Alan,
<< re investments, I only know stocks are considered aggressive and risky. I would talk to a financial planner about what's more conservative and fitting your situation. >>
A diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, real estate, and hard assets, with a buy-and-hold strategy, might be called the AF1 of investing: simple, not flashy, but tried & true. When stocks fall, other asset classes are likely to stay even or to rise. When you need to generate cash, you can often find *something* to sell that has had a net gain, so that you are taking a profit. Yesterday, amid the depressing stock news, I took profits in bonds to raise cash for next year. My stocks are down, so I won't be selling them for a while. Mostly, I ignore the financial news.
Buying stocks and bonds is straightforward on the markets. Lesser known but still widely available are REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) and various funds that hold a stake in hard assets such as oil and gold. REITs have the advantage of paying a quarterly dividend and have been an excellent performer for me this past decade. A financial planner can guide you through all this, and the good ones are well worth their fee. Mine receives a tiny percentage of my *total* portfolio value annually, meaning that he can double his income by doubling my assets (and those of his other clients). I like that arrangement!
<< re investments, I only know stocks are considered aggressive and risky. I would talk to a financial planner about what's more conservative and fitting your situation. >>
A diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, real estate, and hard assets, with a buy-and-hold strategy, might be called the AF1 of investing: simple, not flashy, but tried & true. When stocks fall, other asset classes are likely to stay even or to rise. When you need to generate cash, you can often find *something* to sell that has had a net gain, so that you are taking a profit. Yesterday, amid the depressing stock news, I took profits in bonds to raise cash for next year. My stocks are down, so I won't be selling them for a while. Mostly, I ignore the financial news.
Buying stocks and bonds is straightforward on the markets. Lesser known but still widely available are REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) and various funds that hold a stake in hard assets such as oil and gold. REITs have the advantage of paying a quarterly dividend and have been an excellent performer for me this past decade. A financial planner can guide you through all this, and the good ones are well worth their fee. Mine receives a tiny percentage of my *total* portfolio value annually, meaning that he can double his income by doubling my assets (and those of his other clients). I like that arrangement!
August 11, 2011 at 2:42 |
Bernie
Bernie
There are lots of ways to save & invest for one's future rather than trusting to a random number generator cleverly disguised as a shell game:
- Keeping a good stock (1 year's worth?) of food, water, medical and other tangible supplies on hand. Of course you need to have space for all this. So, invest in the space if you don't have it.
- "Portable wealth" (as per Charles Dickens' Great Expectations) - physical gold & silver - might not have as much growth potential as stocks in normal economic times - but who knows when we'll return to normal economic times?
- Real estate - become a landlord - which is really a job, not an investment
- Real estate - invest in a private REIT - the REIT pays someone to do the landlording
- Real estate - invest in a publicly traded REIT - downside - you get the same random-number-generator issues as the Stock Market
- More liquid versions of portable wealth - gold & silver ETFs
- Other commodities, such as oil, and their proxies, such as oil ETFs
- At least put some money in the currency of other countries, as a hedge, especially if gold & silver seem too barbaric to you. You can do this easily through ETFs. See http://www.currencyshares.com for example.
- Caveat: all ETFs, even for currencies and commodities, tend to fall in the random-number-generator camp. When these things are all put on a "portfolio" list they tend to look like a bunch of horses competing in a race, together with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. Probably more useful to keep them in distinctly different mental categories.
- Invest in building a community network - know your neighbors - know the spokes of the neighborhood and local networks - know the people who know people - if you really fall on hard times, you'll have a network of people to help you get through it - this is a way to build your own luck, another resource on which to fall if needed - through churches, community organizations, political organizations, or whatever catches your interest
- If you still decide to keep a lot of money in self-managed stocks/bonds etc., at least learn to use options to do some hedging. A great online broker for this is www.thinkorswim.com - they provide lots of free educational resources, training courses, etc. They are US-based; I don't know if they have a Europe-based equivalent.
Some other online resources along these lines are as follows:
- Dorsey Wright - a data service for brokers that provides a sound methodology for gauging markets and investing - ask them for referrals to investment advisors in your state or country - http://dorseywright.com/
- Jim Garbor and Sean Balog - Investment advisors in Arizona who follow to Dorsey Wright methodologies - http://www.garberbalog.wfadv.com/
- Porter Stansberry / Steve Sjuggarud - Investment newsletters with an excellent track record - not all stock-oriented - especially Sjuggarud's True Wealth newsletter - and a fairly broad variety of niche newsletters for people in particular situations - but look out for the constant onslaught of new offerings they try to sell you. http://www.stansberryresearch.com/
- I like books by Jim Rogers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rogers) as a theoretical backdrop to all this. And Ron Paul. And Tom Dorsey. And mises.org.
- Keeping a good stock (1 year's worth?) of food, water, medical and other tangible supplies on hand. Of course you need to have space for all this. So, invest in the space if you don't have it.
- "Portable wealth" (as per Charles Dickens' Great Expectations) - physical gold & silver - might not have as much growth potential as stocks in normal economic times - but who knows when we'll return to normal economic times?
- Real estate - become a landlord - which is really a job, not an investment
- Real estate - invest in a private REIT - the REIT pays someone to do the landlording
- Real estate - invest in a publicly traded REIT - downside - you get the same random-number-generator issues as the Stock Market
- More liquid versions of portable wealth - gold & silver ETFs
- Other commodities, such as oil, and their proxies, such as oil ETFs
- At least put some money in the currency of other countries, as a hedge, especially if gold & silver seem too barbaric to you. You can do this easily through ETFs. See http://www.currencyshares.com for example.
- Caveat: all ETFs, even for currencies and commodities, tend to fall in the random-number-generator camp. When these things are all put on a "portfolio" list they tend to look like a bunch of horses competing in a race, together with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. Probably more useful to keep them in distinctly different mental categories.
- Invest in building a community network - know your neighbors - know the spokes of the neighborhood and local networks - know the people who know people - if you really fall on hard times, you'll have a network of people to help you get through it - this is a way to build your own luck, another resource on which to fall if needed - through churches, community organizations, political organizations, or whatever catches your interest
- If you still decide to keep a lot of money in self-managed stocks/bonds etc., at least learn to use options to do some hedging. A great online broker for this is www.thinkorswim.com - they provide lots of free educational resources, training courses, etc. They are US-based; I don't know if they have a Europe-based equivalent.
Some other online resources along these lines are as follows:
- Dorsey Wright - a data service for brokers that provides a sound methodology for gauging markets and investing - ask them for referrals to investment advisors in your state or country - http://dorseywright.com/
- Jim Garbor and Sean Balog - Investment advisors in Arizona who follow to Dorsey Wright methodologies - http://www.garberbalog.wfadv.com/
- Porter Stansberry / Steve Sjuggarud - Investment newsletters with an excellent track record - not all stock-oriented - especially Sjuggarud's True Wealth newsletter - and a fairly broad variety of niche newsletters for people in particular situations - but look out for the constant onslaught of new offerings they try to sell you. http://www.stansberryresearch.com/
- I like books by Jim Rogers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rogers) as a theoretical backdrop to all this. And Ron Paul. And Tom Dorsey. And mises.org.
August 11, 2011 at 3:06 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Regarding lines per page... We had a lengthy discussion on this a few months back, in the context of SuperFocus. It can really change the system dynamics.
Back in AF1 days, I did try a few different approaches here -- pocket notebook (~20 lines per page) and graph-paper notebook (~50 lines per page).
I liked having more lines per page. I can see more context in one glance that way. It also gives me more choices when I visit a page -- which keeps the motivation higher. It also helped to cycle through the overall list more quickly -- which was always a problem for me.
Imagine a notebook with 5 items per page. If any of those items are high-resistance, you will be forced to do some work on them very quickly, without much of the frequent repeated exposure that AF applies to break down the resistance.
But imagine a notebook with 1000 items per page. It would function like a big open list most of the time, not giving you any of the benefits of the AF processing rules. You might NEVER be forced to take action on the high-resistance items. They might become irrelevant by the time you are forced to take action or dismiss them.
Obviously the optimum number of items per page is somewhere between 5 and 1000.
Mark - What are your key observations regarding an increased number of items per page?
Back in AF1 days, I did try a few different approaches here -- pocket notebook (~20 lines per page) and graph-paper notebook (~50 lines per page).
I liked having more lines per page. I can see more context in one glance that way. It also gives me more choices when I visit a page -- which keeps the motivation higher. It also helped to cycle through the overall list more quickly -- which was always a problem for me.
Imagine a notebook with 5 items per page. If any of those items are high-resistance, you will be forced to do some work on them very quickly, without much of the frequent repeated exposure that AF applies to break down the resistance.
But imagine a notebook with 1000 items per page. It would function like a big open list most of the time, not giving you any of the benefits of the AF processing rules. You might NEVER be forced to take action on the high-resistance items. They might become irrelevant by the time you are forced to take action or dismiss them.
Obviously the optimum number of items per page is somewhere between 5 and 1000.
Mark - What are your key observations regarding an increased number of items per page?
August 11, 2011 at 3:49 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan Baljeu wrote:
<< re AF1. It's simple really. Rather than cross out an item, I delete it. Rather than rewrite an item, I move it to the end. Not because I want to be contrarian, but because it fits the medium easier. Works brilliant. But with AF1, where you get several new pages at the end, I get only one, because deleting shrinks the list and reentry doesn't grow it. >>
I agree deleting/hiding done items and moving re-entered items fits the electronic list better. I do similar for SF (sans C2) list on Android mobile.
Since my last page won't grow if I continue hiding/deleting and moving tasks on the last page, I can get stuck for some time there. I need to push myself a bit to make sure I cycle the list.
On my electronic list I can easily see when a task was last done. When all (most) tasks on last page have been done once, is a trigger for me to move to the first page.
<< re AF1. It's simple really. Rather than cross out an item, I delete it. Rather than rewrite an item, I move it to the end. Not because I want to be contrarian, but because it fits the medium easier. Works brilliant. But with AF1, where you get several new pages at the end, I get only one, because deleting shrinks the list and reentry doesn't grow it. >>
I agree deleting/hiding done items and moving re-entered items fits the electronic list better. I do similar for SF (sans C2) list on Android mobile.
Since my last page won't grow if I continue hiding/deleting and moving tasks on the last page, I can get stuck for some time there. I need to push myself a bit to make sure I cycle the list.
On my electronic list I can easily see when a task was last done. When all (most) tasks on last page have been done once, is a trigger for me to move to the first page.
August 11, 2011 at 7:12 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
Seraphim:
<< Mark - What are your key observations regarding an increased number of items per page? >>
I suspect it has a lot to do with the total number of tasks which one has on one's list. If you only had ten things to do, then a page size of 5 lines might work very well. If on the other hand your list was 5,000 tasks long then a page size of 1,000 might work well too (or perhaps I mean less badly).
<< Mark - What are your key observations regarding an increased number of items per page? >>
I suspect it has a lot to do with the total number of tasks which one has on one's list. If you only had ten things to do, then a page size of 5 lines might work very well. If on the other hand your list was 5,000 tasks long then a page size of 1,000 might work well too (or perhaps I mean less badly).
August 11, 2011 at 10:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thanks to everyone for your suggestions re investments, though I was interested to see that some of the recommended investments are generally considered even riskier than stocks and shares.
My affairs are already in the hands of a firm with the reputation of being the best financial advisers in the country, so I think we can safely drop the subject now!
My affairs are already in the hands of a firm with the reputation of being the best financial advisers in the country, so I think we can safely drop the subject now!
August 11, 2011 at 10:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark wrote:
<<One of the things which is interesting to analyse while working with AF1 is which part of the list you spend most time working on. Generally speaking, most time is spent working on the last two pages of the list.
...
This is why sticking to the rules of AF1 results in much less of a problem with priority tasks than would at first appear.>>
Mark,
I am finding this comment, coupled with my recent remedial learning on dismissal, very powerful. I never did use AF1, since I joined up here just in time for SF, and I'm intrigued that you keep returning to AF1 rather than SF.
The time has come: I will take up AF1 and see what happens.
<<One of the things which is interesting to analyse while working with AF1 is which part of the list you spend most time working on. Generally speaking, most time is spent working on the last two pages of the list.
...
This is why sticking to the rules of AF1 results in much less of a problem with priority tasks than would at first appear.>>
Mark,
I am finding this comment, coupled with my recent remedial learning on dismissal, very powerful. I never did use AF1, since I joined up here just in time for SF, and I'm intrigued that you keep returning to AF1 rather than SF.
The time has come: I will take up AF1 and see what happens.
August 11, 2011 at 19:15 |
Bernie
Bernie
Alan said,
< The one thing I found disconcerting to me about AF4 was that I wanted to focus on these priority items but after working one or two of the biggest out of the closed list, it took a while to get back to those now in the open list.>
The use of 'triple task' offers some flexibility, making it possible to work on closed list items for long periods whilst keeping them from being moved into the open list prematurely. This is because three, rather than one, items can be selected to work on. Thus a task does not need to be moved into the open list in order to be able to work on another task. It can be just 'put down' for a while.
This seems to work well with simply selecting upto 3 items from my AF4 list. The backlog list gets first priority. In practice this means that upto 3 items will be selected within the backlog list before venturing into the open list.
< The one thing I found disconcerting to me about AF4 was that I wanted to focus on these priority items but after working one or two of the biggest out of the closed list, it took a while to get back to those now in the open list.>
The use of 'triple task' offers some flexibility, making it possible to work on closed list items for long periods whilst keeping them from being moved into the open list prematurely. This is because three, rather than one, items can be selected to work on. Thus a task does not need to be moved into the open list in order to be able to work on another task. It can be just 'put down' for a while.
This seems to work well with simply selecting upto 3 items from my AF4 list. The backlog list gets first priority. In practice this means that upto 3 items will be selected within the backlog list before venturing into the open list.
August 11, 2011 at 20:04 |
leon
leon
Bernie: Semi-ditto. My process resembles AF1, and I find these comments encouraging.
leon: If Mark had invented the AF4+3T process back in Spring 2010, I might have jumped on it and never left. However, the timing was such that AF4 was no longer on my horizon and I wasn't searching for a fix anymore.
leon: If Mark had invented the AF4+3T process back in Spring 2010, I might have jumped on it and never left. However, the timing was such that AF4 was no longer on my horizon and I wasn't searching for a fix anymore.
August 11, 2011 at 20:33 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark,
Sorry to hear that "all has collapsed again and [you]'ve reverted" to AF1. It would still be interesting to understand what your AF5 process was before the collapse, if you'd care to share.
I've been very happily using SF(v3) with slight modifications, through several notebooks already. But I waste a tremendous amount of space on mostly-blank 2nd columns. (I use a 28-line pocket notebook with right-side pages functioning as C2. I'm currently on p. 18 and all the C2 entries so far would fit together on half of one page!) So I might revert back to AF1 as well when it's time for a new notebook. The "common-sense" rule of AF1 could be used liberally to handle more-frequent action on unfinished tasks, as well as dealing with urgent tasks.
Sorry to hear that "all has collapsed again and [you]'ve reverted" to AF1. It would still be interesting to understand what your AF5 process was before the collapse, if you'd care to share.
I've been very happily using SF(v3) with slight modifications, through several notebooks already. But I waste a tremendous amount of space on mostly-blank 2nd columns. (I use a 28-line pocket notebook with right-side pages functioning as C2. I'm currently on p. 18 and all the C2 entries so far would fit together on half of one page!) So I might revert back to AF1 as well when it's time for a new notebook. The "common-sense" rule of AF1 could be used liberally to handle more-frequent action on unfinished tasks, as well as dealing with urgent tasks.
August 11, 2011 at 20:55 |
ubi
ubi
ubi:
"But I waste a tremendous amount of space on mostly-blank 2nd columns. (I use a 28-line pocket notebook with right-side pages functioning as C2...)"
Exactly the same for me. I transferred to AF1 today and will use facing pages as a single page as Mark suggested. Intuitively it feels like that will solve the problem I had with AF1 the first time around.
Filed Notes by chance?
"But I waste a tremendous amount of space on mostly-blank 2nd columns. (I use a 28-line pocket notebook with right-side pages functioning as C2...)"
Exactly the same for me. I transferred to AF1 today and will use facing pages as a single page as Mark suggested. Intuitively it feels like that will solve the problem I had with AF1 the first time around.
Filed Notes by chance?
August 12, 2011 at 4:00 |
Zane
Zane
Mark wrote:
<< If you only had ten things to do, then a page size of 5 lines might work very well. If on the other hand your list was 5,000 tasks long then a page size of 1,000 might work well ...>>
Another great point to think about! More items per page sounds appealing to me. However, I've found that I vastly prefer my small 5x7 notebooks (24 lines to a page), vastly prefer to use the full page width (only one column), and find it annoying to write on both sides of the page (although I really wanted to like the facing-page setup). Call me picky, but I have found a way out:
Take each pair of pages (regular, civilized, full-width, one-side-of-the-paper pages!) as one "AF page." Keep your place by writing an "A" or "B," alternately, at the top of each page (regular page, not AF page). Then, each A-B pair is dismissed when nothing stands out on either page, while actioning any item on either page is sufficient to keep both pages (the "AF page") active.
If that sounded complicated, then forget all that and just think "each pair of pages is one page."
Processing these page-pairs? To follow AF1 strictly, one would scan both pages and then look for a stand-out, but I imagine it would be fine to scan each page in turn; if nothing stands out on A, then flip to B.
This could extend to page triplets or quads if one wants even more lines per page, but I wonder how soon that would become cumbersome.
SuperFocus users could label their pages C1 and C2 instead of A and B. As new pages are added at the end, alternate pages (C2) would be left blank to be filled in later. This would actually reinforce the rules in those variations calling for a strict C1/C2 processing order. One could also use a triplet of, say two C1's in a row, followed by a C2. That would double the effective page size without changing the rate of forced dismissals (when C2 fills up). I guess this is equivalent to blocking off the lower half of every C2 in advance, so it will fill up prematurely. Conversely, one could let pages survive longer by creating two C2's between every C1.
All theoretical at this point, but I am still on my first page of a fresh AF1, so it is not too late to write an "A" up top! I think I'm gonna do it ...
<< If you only had ten things to do, then a page size of 5 lines might work very well. If on the other hand your list was 5,000 tasks long then a page size of 1,000 might work well ...>>
Another great point to think about! More items per page sounds appealing to me. However, I've found that I vastly prefer my small 5x7 notebooks (24 lines to a page), vastly prefer to use the full page width (only one column), and find it annoying to write on both sides of the page (although I really wanted to like the facing-page setup). Call me picky, but I have found a way out:
Take each pair of pages (regular, civilized, full-width, one-side-of-the-paper pages!) as one "AF page." Keep your place by writing an "A" or "B," alternately, at the top of each page (regular page, not AF page). Then, each A-B pair is dismissed when nothing stands out on either page, while actioning any item on either page is sufficient to keep both pages (the "AF page") active.
If that sounded complicated, then forget all that and just think "each pair of pages is one page."
Processing these page-pairs? To follow AF1 strictly, one would scan both pages and then look for a stand-out, but I imagine it would be fine to scan each page in turn; if nothing stands out on A, then flip to B.
This could extend to page triplets or quads if one wants even more lines per page, but I wonder how soon that would become cumbersome.
SuperFocus users could label their pages C1 and C2 instead of A and B. As new pages are added at the end, alternate pages (C2) would be left blank to be filled in later. This would actually reinforce the rules in those variations calling for a strict C1/C2 processing order. One could also use a triplet of, say two C1's in a row, followed by a C2. That would double the effective page size without changing the rate of forced dismissals (when C2 fills up). I guess this is equivalent to blocking off the lower half of every C2 in advance, so it will fill up prematurely. Conversely, one could let pages survive longer by creating two C2's between every C1.
All theoretical at this point, but I am still on my first page of a fresh AF1, so it is not too late to write an "A" up top! I think I'm gonna do it ...
August 12, 2011 at 6:22 |
Bernie
Bernie
Zane,
You asked: "Filed Notes by chance?"
Nope. I use Field Notes. :-)
You asked: "Filed Notes by chance?"
Nope. I use Field Notes. :-)
August 12, 2011 at 13:50 |
ubi
ubi
ubi - sometimes I get my tang toungled. Gotta love Field Notes!
August 12, 2011 at 15:37 |
Zane
Zane
Zane,
Ha!
I think I will also try AF1 again, using (Field Notes) "facing pages as a single page as Mark suggested," after I finish my current SF notebook – should be middle of next week.
I'll be interested to hear how you get along with these 56-line pages, and if Mark thinks that's a good number (between 5 and 1000).
Ha!
I think I will also try AF1 again, using (Field Notes) "facing pages as a single page as Mark suggested," after I finish my current SF notebook – should be middle of next week.
I'll be interested to hear how you get along with these 56-line pages, and if Mark thinks that's a good number (between 5 and 1000).
August 12, 2011 at 20:40 |
ubi
ubi
My feeling is 10 is about the max number of pages you might want. Mark above has 5, with the new large-page test, which means he used to have 10. AF4 proves that 2 pages can work, though page size varies. 1 giant page is deemed unworkable as it's just an "open list". DWM proved that 30 pages can work, although usually there weren't even 20 still-active pages, and the rules were different.
August 12, 2011 at 21:39 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
What are its characteristics?
It produces exactly the right tasks for the situation, time available, importance, urgency and your own psychological readiness. Whenever you use the system you will come away from it feeling that you have done exactly what you should have done and that there could have been no better use of your time.
I've still got a few things to work out yet, such as whether a dismissal rule is necessary and, if so, what it should be. And then I shall need to test the system thoroughly for a few weeks. But I just thought you ought to be kept up with the latest developments!