Discussion Forum > Overly precise feedback kills motivation
+JMJ+
Very interesting indeed! Hmm, maybe that's why "Dreams" didn't work for me...
Very interesting indeed! Hmm, maybe that's why "Dreams" didn't work for me...
July 27, 2011 at 18:54 |
nuntym
nuntym
+JMJ+
I just realized that this could be a reason too for failure in sticking to AF/SF: the task items are too specific.
What do I mean?
I am pretty sure that the following example is quite a common event for AF and SF users: You are in the process of selecting a task in the current page of your AF/SF notebook, when an item in that page (let's call this item Task1) reminds you of a task that you are ready to do or (Heavens forbid!) you SHOULD do right NOW (let's call this item Task2). Task2, however, is a few pages away from Task1. So what do you do?
1) If you are using AF1, you either break from AF1 processing to do Task2 and come back later to the page of Task1 (which is actually PART of the instructions for AF1) or wait until you get to the page of Task2.
2) If you are using AF4, if Task1 and Task2 are either both in Open List or both in Closed List, then there is no problem. The problem is when either is in Closed List and the other is in Open List.
3) If in SF, you just write Task2 in C2. No problem.
If the article cited above is correct, then that could be one reason why SF is better than the rest of Mark's systems: it supports the subconscious' non-linear/out-of-the-box thinking.. However, what if Task2 is so related to Task1 that finishing Task2 actually helps in accomplishing Task1, like for example Task2 is a prerequisite of Task1, or Task1 and Task2 are parts of the same project? Shouldn't we be rewarded for finishing Task2 by deleting Task1 in the current page and rewriting it in the end (for AFs) or C2 of next page (SF)?
God bless.
I just realized that this could be a reason too for failure in sticking to AF/SF: the task items are too specific.
What do I mean?
I am pretty sure that the following example is quite a common event for AF and SF users: You are in the process of selecting a task in the current page of your AF/SF notebook, when an item in that page (let's call this item Task1) reminds you of a task that you are ready to do or (Heavens forbid!) you SHOULD do right NOW (let's call this item Task2). Task2, however, is a few pages away from Task1. So what do you do?
1) If you are using AF1, you either break from AF1 processing to do Task2 and come back later to the page of Task1 (which is actually PART of the instructions for AF1) or wait until you get to the page of Task2.
2) If you are using AF4, if Task1 and Task2 are either both in Open List or both in Closed List, then there is no problem. The problem is when either is in Closed List and the other is in Open List.
3) If in SF, you just write Task2 in C2. No problem.
If the article cited above is correct, then that could be one reason why SF is better than the rest of Mark's systems: it supports the subconscious' non-linear/out-of-the-box thinking.. However, what if Task2 is so related to Task1 that finishing Task2 actually helps in accomplishing Task1, like for example Task2 is a prerequisite of Task1, or Task1 and Task2 are parts of the same project? Shouldn't we be rewarded for finishing Task2 by deleting Task1 in the current page and rewriting it in the end (for AFs) or C2 of next page (SF)?
God bless.
July 27, 2011 at 21:38 |
nuntym
nuntym
The study seems dubious to me. I expect the conclusion is actually false.
With a poor index, it spoils any sense of progress that otherwise would be very motivating. Accurate and positive is very good feedback. Second, they suggested to the group that the indices would eventually converge. This statement adds a sense of mystery to the project. I know I would be enticed to try harder, not because of a vagueness that i can interpret, but becausecof a trend i was supposed to observe, that i can strive for.
" However, what if Task2 is so related to Task1 that finishing Task2 actually helps in accomplishing Task1, like for example Task2 is a prerequisite of Task1, or Task1 and Task2 are parts of the same project? Shouldn't we be rewarded for finishing Task2 by deleting Task1 in the current page and rewriting it in the end (for AFs) or C2 of next page (SF)?"
I know I do.
But I'm not convinced your article has anything to do with the original.
With a poor index, it spoils any sense of progress that otherwise would be very motivating. Accurate and positive is very good feedback. Second, they suggested to the group that the indices would eventually converge. This statement adds a sense of mystery to the project. I know I would be enticed to try harder, not because of a vagueness that i can interpret, but becausecof a trend i was supposed to observe, that i can strive for.
" However, what if Task2 is so related to Task1 that finishing Task2 actually helps in accomplishing Task1, like for example Task2 is a prerequisite of Task1, or Task1 and Task2 are parts of the same project? Shouldn't we be rewarded for finishing Task2 by deleting Task1 in the current page and rewriting it in the end (for AFs) or C2 of next page (SF)?"
I know I do.
But I'm not convinced your article has anything to do with the original.
July 27, 2011 at 22:16 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Between Merlin Mann's First Care:
http://www.43folders.com/2010/02/05/first-care
and Barbara Sher's caution that: "Isolation is the dream killer"
I think you'd cover the major reasons why some procrastinate, and others thrive. Everything else seems to be commentary and window dressing.
http://www.43folders.com/2010/02/05/first-care
and Barbara Sher's caution that: "Isolation is the dream killer"
I think you'd cover the major reasons why some procrastinate, and others thrive. Everything else seems to be commentary and window dressing.
July 27, 2011 at 22:42 |
avrum
avrum
I don't think there's enough information in the article to judge whether the studies were well founded or not. On the face of it giving people a fake index and then drawing conclusions from how well they responded to it doesn't seem to make much sense. Precision and accuracy are not the same thing. Maybe giving people accurate information rather than precise information would be more helpful.
July 28, 2011 at 11:42 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym:
<< I am pretty sure that the following example is quite a common event for AF and SF users: You are in the process of selecting a task in the current page of your AF/SF notebook, when an item in that page (let's call this item Task1) reminds you of a task that you are ready to do or (Heavens forbid!) you SHOULD do right NOW (let's call this item Task2). Task2, however, is a few pages away from Task1. So what do you do?
<< 1) If you are using AF1, you either break from AF1 processing to do Task2 and come back later to the page of Task1 (which is actually PART of the instructions for AF1) or wait until you get to the page of Task2.>>
You've given a very precise description of what happens in AF1, but unfortunately not an accurate one. In AF1 the only reason for departing from the normal working of the list is if a task NEEDS to be done NOW, in which case you just do it. The task may not even be on the list at all, and even if it is you do not move to the page on which it is. Consequently there is no need to come back to the original page since you never left it.
Doing a task out of order in AF1 should be regarded as a highly exceptional event, not a routine part of the system. Therefore it should not be rewarded in any way.
<< I am pretty sure that the following example is quite a common event for AF and SF users: You are in the process of selecting a task in the current page of your AF/SF notebook, when an item in that page (let's call this item Task1) reminds you of a task that you are ready to do or (Heavens forbid!) you SHOULD do right NOW (let's call this item Task2). Task2, however, is a few pages away from Task1. So what do you do?
<< 1) If you are using AF1, you either break from AF1 processing to do Task2 and come back later to the page of Task1 (which is actually PART of the instructions for AF1) or wait until you get to the page of Task2.>>
You've given a very precise description of what happens in AF1, but unfortunately not an accurate one. In AF1 the only reason for departing from the normal working of the list is if a task NEEDS to be done NOW, in which case you just do it. The task may not even be on the list at all, and even if it is you do not move to the page on which it is. Consequently there is no need to come back to the original page since you never left it.
Doing a task out of order in AF1 should be regarded as a highly exceptional event, not a routine part of the system. Therefore it should not be rewarded in any way.
July 28, 2011 at 11:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
When I read the article ( http://blogs.forbes.com/alexknapp/2011/07/25/the-virtues-of-the-imprecisely-measured-self/ and particularly the study's abstract linked to from there), I was reminded of the What's Better? list, and the way in which we may need to reflect creatively on our day in order to cite progress.
If our day were somehow evaluated objectively using a rigid metric of "progress," then many would call that more accurate, but it would rob us of the ability to set our mental filter to encourage ourselves after our Vision. An effective What's Better? list demands a flexible perspective. E.g., you have "wasted" the whole day trimming the hedge and are now trying to work out what is better about that.
Another way to put this: we need encouragement during those times when our progress flat-lines. Often, that encouragement comes when we recognize the other variables in life, the ones that haven't quite flat-lined. This study is about more than accuracy and objectivity. It is also about a predictive metric. They have envisioned human beings going about their lives with "success" determined in advance. This is their hidden variable, or their unacknowledged assumption.
But life is not that way. What we thought was success turns out to be only one facet, and more become apparent when the obvious ones have flat-lined.
When we develop our Visions, we are pursuing exactly this: pursuing the very definition of "success" rather than following slavishly the one we first imagined. Again, a flexible perspective brings power.
It is really not about "inaccurate" or "fuzzy" or "rough." Those terms entirely miss the point. It is about "flexible."
It's a great study. As with all studies, keep the data, but draw your own conclusion.
If our day were somehow evaluated objectively using a rigid metric of "progress," then many would call that more accurate, but it would rob us of the ability to set our mental filter to encourage ourselves after our Vision. An effective What's Better? list demands a flexible perspective. E.g., you have "wasted" the whole day trimming the hedge and are now trying to work out what is better about that.
Another way to put this: we need encouragement during those times when our progress flat-lines. Often, that encouragement comes when we recognize the other variables in life, the ones that haven't quite flat-lined. This study is about more than accuracy and objectivity. It is also about a predictive metric. They have envisioned human beings going about their lives with "success" determined in advance. This is their hidden variable, or their unacknowledged assumption.
But life is not that way. What we thought was success turns out to be only one facet, and more become apparent when the obvious ones have flat-lined.
When we develop our Visions, we are pursuing exactly this: pursuing the very definition of "success" rather than following slavishly the one we first imagined. Again, a flexible perspective brings power.
It is really not about "inaccurate" or "fuzzy" or "rough." Those terms entirely miss the point. It is about "flexible."
It's a great study. As with all studies, keep the data, but draw your own conclusion.
July 29, 2011 at 4:01 |
Bernie
Bernie
+JMJ+
Alan: <<But I'm not convinced your article has anything to do with the original. >>
On second reading of the article and comparing it to my previous post, I realized that too, Alan!
Mark: <<You've given a very precise description of what happens in AF1, but unfortunately not an accurate one. >>
Hmm, maybe I am the only one who does that? >__<
<<Doing a task out of order in AF1 should be regarded as a highly exceptional event, not a routine part of the system. Therefore it should not be rewarded in any way. >>
I am aware of this, but I was speculating what would happen if an AF system PROMOTES doing tasks out of order (as long as these tasks are related to what currently "stands out") instead of regarding this as a malevolent exception to the rules. My hypothesis is that this will enhance the subconscious' role in getting everything done.
This is, in fact, what I am experimenting on with my CAF. Most items in my CAF list are already preceded with context labels in the form of two-three letter codes: AM for morning chores, PM for morning chores, OL for online/internet, OLF for online internet "fun"/leisure, etc. So what I would do is process the list AF1 style, check the current task "standing out", then either do this current task right now or look for other tasks with the same context elsewhere in the list, do them and cross them out. If at the end of this context-driven cycle the original current task is done then it is crossed out and re-written at the end when needed; however, when the original current task was NOT done, it is still crossed out, yet it MUST be re-written at the end of the list and labeled as "unfinished".
Currently, the tweak is working really well, but it is too early to say now whether it works because it is a truly superior way of processing tasks or because it is a novelty. I will post updates on this.
God bless.
Alan: <<But I'm not convinced your article has anything to do with the original. >>
On second reading of the article and comparing it to my previous post, I realized that too, Alan!
Mark: <<You've given a very precise description of what happens in AF1, but unfortunately not an accurate one. >>
Hmm, maybe I am the only one who does that? >__<
<<Doing a task out of order in AF1 should be regarded as a highly exceptional event, not a routine part of the system. Therefore it should not be rewarded in any way. >>
I am aware of this, but I was speculating what would happen if an AF system PROMOTES doing tasks out of order (as long as these tasks are related to what currently "stands out") instead of regarding this as a malevolent exception to the rules. My hypothesis is that this will enhance the subconscious' role in getting everything done.
This is, in fact, what I am experimenting on with my CAF. Most items in my CAF list are already preceded with context labels in the form of two-three letter codes: AM for morning chores, PM for morning chores, OL for online/internet, OLF for online internet "fun"/leisure, etc. So what I would do is process the list AF1 style, check the current task "standing out", then either do this current task right now or look for other tasks with the same context elsewhere in the list, do them and cross them out. If at the end of this context-driven cycle the original current task is done then it is crossed out and re-written at the end when needed; however, when the original current task was NOT done, it is still crossed out, yet it MUST be re-written at the end of the list and labeled as "unfinished".
Currently, the tweak is working really well, but it is too early to say now whether it works because it is a truly superior way of processing tasks or because it is a novelty. I will post updates on this.
God bless.
July 29, 2011 at 4:52 |
nuntym
nuntym
Bernie:
<<If our day were somehow evaluated objectively using a rigid metric of "progress,">>
How about this.
What if each of us:
1. Stated a specific goal/project we were hoping to achieve
2. Stated which system we were going to use to help us achieve it
3. Posted a link to a video or photo of the project once achieved
How many on this board would be willing to do this?
<<If our day were somehow evaluated objectively using a rigid metric of "progress,">>
How about this.
What if each of us:
1. Stated a specific goal/project we were hoping to achieve
2. Stated which system we were going to use to help us achieve it
3. Posted a link to a video or photo of the project once achieved
How many on this board would be willing to do this?
July 29, 2011 at 13:42 |
avrum
avrum
I'm not sure that works for me avrum. My day is successful when a half dozen things moved forward, but most days the progress isn't all that visible unless you know the before and after. Besides that, I think Bernie was specifically arguing against having a preset progress indicator.
July 29, 2011 at 14:03 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
avrum:
Along the same lines as Alan. While I don't mind participating in the exercise, my project won't realistically be complete for another six months. I don't think a forum thread would live that long.
Along the same lines as Alan. While I don't mind participating in the exercise, my project won't realistically be complete for another six months. I don't think a forum thread would live that long.
July 29, 2011 at 15:38 |
jFenter
jFenter
avrum wrote:
<< What if each of us:
1. Stated a specific goal/project we were hoping to achieve
2. Stated which system we were going to use to help us achieve it
3. Posted a link to a video or photo of the project once achieved
How many on this board would be willing to do this?>>
avrum, that sounds great in theory, but I can already feel its effect on me: that feeling of "oh no, more overhead." That social accountability will be great for a lot of people, and I would likely participate if I had a personal assistant to make it happen for me. But as it is, I would rather just use my energy on the actual work and then be glad for myself when it's done. The What's Better list and dialog are giving me all the social accountability I need.
Perhaps, more in the spirit of what you are saying, my objective/rigid metric is:
1. Revise my Future Vision and Present Reality each morning (refreshes the goal),
2. Dialog with my Future Self when necessary (refreshes the how/why/what),
3. Write my What's Better? list each night (review progress indicators).
Those correspond to your three points in a way that fits my existing work.
I don't mean to be discouraging. Like exercising at a gym or with a personal trainer, many people find that social accountability very attractive. Myself, I exercise at home in my basement or back yard in between other work.
<< What if each of us:
1. Stated a specific goal/project we were hoping to achieve
2. Stated which system we were going to use to help us achieve it
3. Posted a link to a video or photo of the project once achieved
How many on this board would be willing to do this?>>
avrum, that sounds great in theory, but I can already feel its effect on me: that feeling of "oh no, more overhead." That social accountability will be great for a lot of people, and I would likely participate if I had a personal assistant to make it happen for me. But as it is, I would rather just use my energy on the actual work and then be glad for myself when it's done. The What's Better list and dialog are giving me all the social accountability I need.
Perhaps, more in the spirit of what you are saying, my objective/rigid metric is:
1. Revise my Future Vision and Present Reality each morning (refreshes the goal),
2. Dialog with my Future Self when necessary (refreshes the how/why/what),
3. Write my What's Better? list each night (review progress indicators).
Those correspond to your three points in a way that fits my existing work.
I don't mean to be discouraging. Like exercising at a gym or with a personal trainer, many people find that social accountability very attractive. Myself, I exercise at home in my basement or back yard in between other work.
July 29, 2011 at 19:33 |
Bernie
Bernie
The full text of the study is here: http://himanshumishra.com/publication_files/Malleable%20information_Psych%20Science%202011.pdf There were several additional experiments in the paper.
Basically, the participants were given a doctored score representing their weight. The "precise" group was given a single number, while the "vague" group was given a range of scores.
It seems like having vague information let the participants use their "positive filter" more:
...We predicted that participants provided with precise feedback would be less influenced by feedback (i.e., would show less weight loss) than would participants provided with vague feedback because they would be unable to selectively focus on favorable pieces of information (e.g., the lower score in a range)....
The others also note the difference between precision and accuracy:
...We would like to emphasize that vague information is not the same thing as false information. In the studies we report here, vague information was accurate information presented in the form of a range. People can easily convert such vague information into a precise form (e.g., a range of 1.5 to 2.5 lb can be converted to a more precise “average” of 2 lb)....
Basically, the participants were given a doctored score representing their weight. The "precise" group was given a single number, while the "vague" group was given a range of scores.
It seems like having vague information let the participants use their "positive filter" more:
...We predicted that participants provided with precise feedback would be less influenced by feedback (i.e., would show less weight loss) than would participants provided with vague feedback because they would be unable to selectively focus on favorable pieces of information (e.g., the lower score in a range)....
The others also note the difference between precision and accuracy:
...We would like to emphasize that vague information is not the same thing as false information. In the studies we report here, vague information was accurate information presented in the form of a range. People can easily convert such vague information into a precise form (e.g., a range of 1.5 to 2.5 lb can be converted to a more precise “average” of 2 lb)....
July 29, 2011 at 19:53 |
Ryan Freckleton
Ryan Freckleton
An excerpt:
When people are motivated to pursue a desired goal...vague information allows them latitude in interpretation so that they can distort the information. This distortion, in turn, allows them to generate and act in line with positive expectancies....
It seems that having imprecise information lets people focus more on what's going better.
http://blogs.forbes.com/alexknapp/2011/07/25/the-virtues-of-the-imprecisely-measured-self/