Discussion Forum > Toss Productivity Out
Ok, let's tackle this one at a time...
<<instead of making your days better>>
Can't argue with that.
<<....the idea list is never filled with your best ideas. That’s because when you have a really great idea, you get so excited about it you jump up and want to work on it immediately>>
Bingo!
<<I let go of future-focused thinking, and focus on what inspires and excites me now>>
For me, this mostly results in "drift" mode.
<<if I focus on enjoying running, that makes me want to run more often, and that’s a habit>>
Absolutely true. I employ tracking and hacking whenever I feel compelled to do something I don't really want to do.
<<This became too much work for me...>>
I've had the same experience with all of Mark's systems, GTD, etc.
Agree with 99% of the post.
<<instead of making your days better>>
Can't argue with that.
<<....the idea list is never filled with your best ideas. That’s because when you have a really great idea, you get so excited about it you jump up and want to work on it immediately>>
Bingo!
<<I let go of future-focused thinking, and focus on what inspires and excites me now>>
For me, this mostly results in "drift" mode.
<<if I focus on enjoying running, that makes me want to run more often, and that’s a habit>>
Absolutely true. I employ tracking and hacking whenever I feel compelled to do something I don't really want to do.
<<This became too much work for me...>>
I've had the same experience with all of Mark's systems, GTD, etc.
Agree with 99% of the post.
September 7, 2011 at 0:15 |
avrum
avrum
It's interesting how some productivity gurus seem to get tired after a while. Reminds me of Merlin Mann's big shift – http://www.43folders.com/2008/09/10/time-attention-creative-work – where he gave up on all the frequent GTD/life-hacks postings and conversations.
Leo's postings are thought-provoking, but he's essentially making a living at his writings, so he's now at a point where he can afford to have no goals and just do one thing all day, mindfully, I guess. Not sure how he remembers to pay the bills and get his kids to the dentist and all the other mundane things in life that an organized productivity system is useful for…
Leo's postings are thought-provoking, but he's essentially making a living at his writings, so he's now at a point where he can afford to have no goals and just do one thing all day, mindfully, I guess. Not sure how he remembers to pay the bills and get his kids to the dentist and all the other mundane things in life that an organized productivity system is useful for…
September 7, 2011 at 1:30 |
ubi
ubi
Very insightful article. Now take this for a challenge:
Say your job is enjoyable, but it demands keeping on top of a lot of stuff. So use simple stuff-maanagement techniques keep you on top of this. Now, within that context aim to enjoy your work fully, and to the fullest; maximize your love of work and work of love, be the best possible. And if work isn't quite as lovable as that, adapt it for the better. Do what you can to merge Leo's zeal and simplicity with your job.
Say your job is enjoyable, but it demands keeping on top of a lot of stuff. So use simple stuff-maanagement techniques keep you on top of this. Now, within that context aim to enjoy your work fully, and to the fullest; maximize your love of work and work of love, be the best possible. And if work isn't quite as lovable as that, adapt it for the better. Do what you can to merge Leo's zeal and simplicity with your job.
September 7, 2011 at 2:41 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Ubi:
<<Not sure how he remembers to pay the bills and get his kids to the dentist...>>
Are you saying that folks without lists and systems are walking around in circles collecting UI cheques?
<<Not sure how he remembers to pay the bills and get his kids to the dentist...>>
Are you saying that folks without lists and systems are walking around in circles collecting UI cheques?
September 7, 2011 at 3:04 |
avrum
avrum
Leo of zenhabits wrote:
<< You should work on stuff you love, so that you can’t wait to do it, and taking a break is just a matter of enjoying something else >>
My goal indeed. I just need to make it also pay the bills. ;-)
<< You should work on stuff you love, so that you can’t wait to do it, and taking a break is just a matter of enjoying something else >>
My goal indeed. I just need to make it also pay the bills. ;-)
September 7, 2011 at 3:18 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
Well, we can leave bills out of this.
He ... and I by the way ... has automated ALL his bills...
Not being able to do so in our day an age is a non issue.
He ... and I by the way ... has automated ALL his bills...
Not being able to do so in our day an age is a non issue.
September 7, 2011 at 5:46 |
Erik
Erik
Interesting article. Like avrum, I'll go through it one at a time. For the benefit of those who haven't read the article yet, the headings are what he is advising AGAINST:
1. Get organized.
That's an amazing bit of advice. Instead of getting organized, get simple. What does he think getting organized consists of? Really this advice boils down to "Don't get organized, instead get organized."
2. Keep an idea list.
Another bit of sound-good advice which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Doesn't he realize that brilliant ideas don't come out of nowhere? Your brilliant ideas are the result of all the thinking you have done about the rubbish ideas.
3. Have lots of goals.
It's sensible advice to have only a few goals, but surely that's what every "productivity guru" has been saying for years. To have no goals at all sounds like every hippie's dream from the 60s and 70s - remember them?
4. Track everything.
This is a case of advising us to use one tool to solve every problem. The truth is that different goals need different tools. Some goals work best with tracking, some without it.
5. Be productive when you're waiting.
Again this is a one tool for every task type statement. I tend to be the type of person myself who sits back and enjoys the scenery when I'm out of the office, and I can't imagine anything worse than having email on my mobile phone. So I have a lot of sympathy with what he says. But it's always a mistake to equate a natural tendency with a virtue.
6. Keep detailed context to-do lists.
This is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I constantly warn people about the dangers of over-organizing. All those pretty coloured markings and tags and cross-references and contexts take a huge amount of overhead for very little purpose. But if instead you just focus on doing one or two things a day, what will amaze you is how many days you _won't_ succeed in getting them done.
7. Work hard in bursts with frequent breaks.
I think the important part of this is the "work hard" bit. He seems to have given up on working hard. I'd like to know which things which have really benefited humanity (or even a micro section of it) have been achieved without hard work. Working hard means keeping going when you _don't_ feel like it. What he describes is how I imagined life would be when I retired. In reality a few weeks of it drove me mad with boredom.
All his advice seems to boil down to: do whatever you feel like and then retrospectively claim that it's the best thing you could have been doing.
1. Get organized.
That's an amazing bit of advice. Instead of getting organized, get simple. What does he think getting organized consists of? Really this advice boils down to "Don't get organized, instead get organized."
2. Keep an idea list.
Another bit of sound-good advice which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Doesn't he realize that brilliant ideas don't come out of nowhere? Your brilliant ideas are the result of all the thinking you have done about the rubbish ideas.
3. Have lots of goals.
It's sensible advice to have only a few goals, but surely that's what every "productivity guru" has been saying for years. To have no goals at all sounds like every hippie's dream from the 60s and 70s - remember them?
4. Track everything.
This is a case of advising us to use one tool to solve every problem. The truth is that different goals need different tools. Some goals work best with tracking, some without it.
5. Be productive when you're waiting.
Again this is a one tool for every task type statement. I tend to be the type of person myself who sits back and enjoys the scenery when I'm out of the office, and I can't imagine anything worse than having email on my mobile phone. So I have a lot of sympathy with what he says. But it's always a mistake to equate a natural tendency with a virtue.
6. Keep detailed context to-do lists.
This is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I constantly warn people about the dangers of over-organizing. All those pretty coloured markings and tags and cross-references and contexts take a huge amount of overhead for very little purpose. But if instead you just focus on doing one or two things a day, what will amaze you is how many days you _won't_ succeed in getting them done.
7. Work hard in bursts with frequent breaks.
I think the important part of this is the "work hard" bit. He seems to have given up on working hard. I'd like to know which things which have really benefited humanity (or even a micro section of it) have been achieved without hard work. Working hard means keeping going when you _don't_ feel like it. What he describes is how I imagined life would be when I retired. In reality a few weeks of it drove me mad with boredom.
All his advice seems to boil down to: do whatever you feel like and then retrospectively claim that it's the best thing you could have been doing.
September 7, 2011 at 8:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
This is quite strange. Yesterday when the article was written I tossed my private to-do list (SF list). I saw this article today. Quite a coinsident :-)
September 7, 2011 at 14:08 |
Hans V
Hans V
Mark's summary misses a couple key issues though on the whole his rebuttal is good. First, Leo is all about reducing. Eliminate the unnecessary and what remains is thereby improved. Life becomes easier because you have fewer things to manage.
That is how reducing differs from organizing.
Second, Leo promotes enjoying life. Is driving yourself on worth the sacrifice to your life's enjoyment? Leo says no.
I happen to disagree with his bottom line, but enjoying life us a good thing, cf. Ecclesiastes, and less is often better. I recall my above challenge.
That is how reducing differs from organizing.
Second, Leo promotes enjoying life. Is driving yourself on worth the sacrifice to your life's enjoyment? Leo says no.
I happen to disagree with his bottom line, but enjoying life us a good thing, cf. Ecclesiastes, and less is often better. I recall my above challenge.
September 7, 2011 at 14:36 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
FWIW, here's an interview that Ollin Morales did with Leo Babauta:
http://ollinmorales.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/leo/
http://ollinmorales.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/leo/
September 7, 2011 at 16:19 |
Rainer
Rainer
Alan:
<< First, Leo is all about reducing. Eliminate the unnecessary and what remains is thereby improved. Life becomes easier because you have fewer things to manage. >>
I'm not sure this is actually true. Would you apply the same principle to your car for instance? or to your iPad? These have got much more complex over the years but have been organized so well that they _appear_ to be simpler.
<< First, Leo is all about reducing. Eliminate the unnecessary and what remains is thereby improved. Life becomes easier because you have fewer things to manage. >>
I'm not sure this is actually true. Would you apply the same principle to your car for instance? or to your iPad? These have got much more complex over the years but have been organized so well that they _appear_ to be simpler.
September 7, 2011 at 18:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Rainer:
I sort of agree with a lot of what he says in the interview, but my overall reaction is "Yes, but . . "
Besides it's a lot easier to give up your goals when you've already achieved them!
I sort of agree with a lot of what he says in the interview, but my overall reaction is "Yes, but . . "
Besides it's a lot easier to give up your goals when you've already achieved them!
September 7, 2011 at 18:18 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
On the blog post: "Amazing Progress", Alex W comments:
<<I have really gotten a bit tired of the of the ever-changing nature of all those 'systems' presented here>>
I agree. However I'm not upset at Mark for the changes, but rather my gullibility. I know, very well, that new rules, paper, software etc., are ALL distractions. Every last one of them. And yet, like an addict, I return for more. Anything... anything to soothe my resistance.
My less than stellar outcome with Dreams has led me back to drawing & journaling, with a simple to-do list. No deadlines... no rules. I'm not sure if this will stick, but the fantasy that another system will produce anything but "make work" work is dying.
<<I have really gotten a bit tired of the of the ever-changing nature of all those 'systems' presented here>>
I agree. However I'm not upset at Mark for the changes, but rather my gullibility. I know, very well, that new rules, paper, software etc., are ALL distractions. Every last one of them. And yet, like an addict, I return for more. Anything... anything to soothe my resistance.
My less than stellar outcome with Dreams has led me back to drawing & journaling, with a simple to-do list. No deadlines... no rules. I'm not sure if this will stick, but the fantasy that another system will produce anything but "make work" work is dying.
September 7, 2011 at 19:00 |
avrum
avrum
Mark:
Car maintenance is *much* harder than it used to be. Organizing iPad contents is vastly more involved than organizing rolodexes. The effect you observe is that things are easier for the user. This is an effect of technology adapted through tremendous effort to hide the complexity and manage it for you.
Now if you can make a life-management system to make a complex life seem simple, great! But in the meanwhile, a simple life is much easier to make seem simple.
Car maintenance is *much* harder than it used to be. Organizing iPad contents is vastly more involved than organizing rolodexes. The effect you observe is that things are easier for the user. This is an effect of technology adapted through tremendous effort to hide the complexity and manage it for you.
Now if you can make a life-management system to make a complex life seem simple, great! But in the meanwhile, a simple life is much easier to make seem simple.
September 7, 2011 at 20:23 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
All points but one seem to be 'all things in moderation' applied to productivity, in other words... common sense!
That remaining point, on ideas, I'm doubtful of, but not sure why.
Maybe there's a case for trying not to be 'over productive' or making sure 'productivity' really *is* productive :-)
That remaining point, on ideas, I'm doubtful of, but not sure why.
Maybe there's a case for trying not to be 'over productive' or making sure 'productivity' really *is* productive :-)
September 7, 2011 at 22:31 |
smileypete
smileypete
The article seems extreme but I can see where systems have led me to many plans and many finishes but spread out so thin they are hard to see. Over the last two weeks I've limited myself to one important project, and keeping up maintenance. First I scanned over 150 family photos. A project I would normally spread out over months and never finished. Now I'm painting one section of the outside of our house. I am limiting myself to what I can do in a week or so. So far it is very rewarding.
September 7, 2011 at 22:54 |
Erin
Erin
avrum:
<< My less than stellar outcome with Dreams has led me back to drawing & journaling, with a simple to-do list. No deadlines... no rules. >>
Isn't that exactly what Dreams is supposed to lead you to?
<< but the fantasy that another system will produce anything but "make work" work is dying. >>
If you regard the continuing work on this website to produce the best possible system to be a "fantasy" then I'm not surprised it's not working for you.
The fact that Babauta and evidently you too have given up doesn't mean that I have the slightest intention of doing so.
<< My less than stellar outcome with Dreams has led me back to drawing & journaling, with a simple to-do list. No deadlines... no rules. >>
Isn't that exactly what Dreams is supposed to lead you to?
<< but the fantasy that another system will produce anything but "make work" work is dying. >>
If you regard the continuing work on this website to produce the best possible system to be a "fantasy" then I'm not surprised it's not working for you.
The fact that Babauta and evidently you too have given up doesn't mean that I have the slightest intention of doing so.
September 8, 2011 at 0:22 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Alan:
<< Car maintenance is *much* harder than it used to be. Organizing iPad contents is vastly more involved than organizing rolodexes. The effect you observe is that things are easier for the user. >>
I think that's exactly what I said, isn't it?
<< This is an effect of technology adapted through tremendous effort to hide the complexity and manage it for you. >>
Exactly. Simplicity is the result of good organization, not the other way round.
<< Now if you can make a life-management system to make a complex life seem simple,
great! >>
Your life only seems complex because it's badly organized.
<< But in the meanwhile, a simple life is much easier to make seem simple. >>
Oh, yes, really? You grow your own food do you? Walk everywhere? Weave your own clothes? Do your own repairs? Write letters instead of sending emails?
Your projected "simple life" only seems simple because of the extremely complex work done by thousands of people to keep you in the simple style you wish to become accustomed to.
<< Car maintenance is *much* harder than it used to be. Organizing iPad contents is vastly more involved than organizing rolodexes. The effect you observe is that things are easier for the user. >>
I think that's exactly what I said, isn't it?
<< This is an effect of technology adapted through tremendous effort to hide the complexity and manage it for you. >>
Exactly. Simplicity is the result of good organization, not the other way round.
<< Now if you can make a life-management system to make a complex life seem simple,
great! >>
Your life only seems complex because it's badly organized.
<< But in the meanwhile, a simple life is much easier to make seem simple. >>
Oh, yes, really? You grow your own food do you? Walk everywhere? Weave your own clothes? Do your own repairs? Write letters instead of sending emails?
Your projected "simple life" only seems simple because of the extremely complex work done by thousands of people to keep you in the simple style you wish to become accustomed to.
September 8, 2011 at 0:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
smileypete:
<< Maybe there's a case for trying not to be 'over productive' or making sure 'productivity' really *is* productive >>
Could you possibly expand on what you mean by this? What would you consider to be "over productive" and when would it be not "really" productive?
<< Maybe there's a case for trying not to be 'over productive' or making sure 'productivity' really *is* productive >>
Could you possibly expand on what you mean by this? What would you consider to be "over productive" and when would it be not "really" productive?
September 8, 2011 at 0:34 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Erin:
<< A project I would normally spread out over months and never finished. >>
When you say "normally" what sort of system would you have been using? AF? SF? Something else?
Since you say that systems have "led you to many finishes" what would have caused you not to finish this particular project?
<< A project I would normally spread out over months and never finished. >>
When you say "normally" what sort of system would you have been using? AF? SF? Something else?
Since you say that systems have "led you to many finishes" what would have caused you not to finish this particular project?
September 8, 2011 at 0:41 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, you seem to be denying the existence of "simpler" in life, which seems absurd to me. A simple life isn't "do everything yourself". It's a life with fewer features. Grocery stores make life easier than growing your own food. Not upgrading all your technology frequently is easier than the opposite. A small house is easier than a big house.
Living simply also means there's less to manage, so managing is easier. I don't see how you can possibly deny this.
Having said all that, simple living isn't my goal. It's only a tool that sometimes helps in my goals.
Living simply also means there's less to manage, so managing is easier. I don't see how you can possibly deny this.
Having said all that, simple living isn't my goal. It's only a tool that sometimes helps in my goals.
September 8, 2011 at 1:14 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Though I have enjoyed many of Leo's writings, I can't help but find the term "simplicity" ironic to describe deriving an income from a global network of HTTP and DNS servers so complex that no one would even think of charting them all, or the massive network of coordinated labor required to keep it all running—particularly the legions of stressed-out IT folks staying up all night to consult byzantine technical manuals when something crashes ("what's the path to python's default config file for an Apache web server? ... let's fix the media type on PDF files while we're at it ..."). All so that Leo can lead a simple life blogging from home with plenty of sleep.
The appearance of simplicity comes from the way all those people's efforts are organized in a decentralized fashion. If there were a Federal Dept. of World Wide Web Maintenance, we'd all be painfully aware of how complex this whole undertaking really is.
That being said, I do get the basic point that it helps to cut out extraneous stuff. When we dismiss items in SF/AF, we are simplifying in that way. If Mark's 1-to-7 system includes some mechanism to cut out stuff we haven't acted on, then it has that sort of simplification built in as well. And that sort of simplification comes at the cost of a different sort of simplification: not using a system is "simpler" than using a system of any sort, and some systems are simpler than others ... but that looks at only the systems and ignores the effect of the system on the user's life.
Winning systems bring the user a net gain in simplicity. They tame complexity by hiding it in the system. The world's most complex, crazily convoluted system might thus be "simple," if it successfully tames an even more complex problem. Ironically, David Allen has a nice quote about this, something to the effect that your most mundane items (e.g., incoming receipts) require the most complex systems. To make them simple, so you can spend your energy on something not mundane. I guess he would say GTD's complexity brings a net gain by taming the complexity of all those to-do's. In fact, that is exactly what he says.
I think most of this is pretty evident to all, except things go wrong when we exaggerate, e.g., "I'm going to simplify by not using lists at all, ever ... because lists are complex ..."
The appearance of simplicity comes from the way all those people's efforts are organized in a decentralized fashion. If there were a Federal Dept. of World Wide Web Maintenance, we'd all be painfully aware of how complex this whole undertaking really is.
That being said, I do get the basic point that it helps to cut out extraneous stuff. When we dismiss items in SF/AF, we are simplifying in that way. If Mark's 1-to-7 system includes some mechanism to cut out stuff we haven't acted on, then it has that sort of simplification built in as well. And that sort of simplification comes at the cost of a different sort of simplification: not using a system is "simpler" than using a system of any sort, and some systems are simpler than others ... but that looks at only the systems and ignores the effect of the system on the user's life.
Winning systems bring the user a net gain in simplicity. They tame complexity by hiding it in the system. The world's most complex, crazily convoluted system might thus be "simple," if it successfully tames an even more complex problem. Ironically, David Allen has a nice quote about this, something to the effect that your most mundane items (e.g., incoming receipts) require the most complex systems. To make them simple, so you can spend your energy on something not mundane. I guess he would say GTD's complexity brings a net gain by taming the complexity of all those to-do's. In fact, that is exactly what he says.
I think most of this is pretty evident to all, except things go wrong when we exaggerate, e.g., "I'm going to simplify by not using lists at all, ever ... because lists are complex ..."
September 8, 2011 at 3:33 |
Bernie
Bernie
After reading Leo's blog entry and a few of the comments about it, I would suggest that there are three concepts that need to be clarified: “Productivity;” “simplicity” and “hard work.” Simplicity is an inner state, a state of mind, heart, and soul. It is a way of being in the world, a way of relating to all the demands that are placed on us, (both internally and externally), and it doesn’t matter whether you have one task or a million. I discovered this after spending four months in a Trappist Monastery. From the outside, it was such a simple and idyllic life, yet on the inside I was just as torn and confused and stressed as I was outside, if not more so. Community life is very difficult, and a Trappist monastery is very real: it has a way of crushing your fantasies about being a monk. For the sake of clarity, and to avoid confusion with "simple systems" I call this kind of simplicity "Peace of mind."
For me, "productivity" refers to our systems of organizing things. To give “productivity advice” can mean "to help someone take a hard look at what their “systems” actually are and look at ways of streamlining them and simplifying them so that nothing falls through the cracks. One concept that I have borrowed (inaccurately I’m sure) from Chinese culture is the idea of Wu Wei, work without working. It’s the effortlessness of the master butcher who carves meat so efficiently that he doesn’t need to sharpen his knife. Productivity, in this sense, can be simple, but not necessarily lead to peace of mind. Productivity can also be confused with "hard work," as in "Mark is very productive." For this reason, I call this concept "systems" rather than productivity.
That leaves us with “Hard work.” Hard work just refers to the level of energy one commits to a certain task, or day, or goal. It refers to choice, decision and will. It refers also to level of concentration.
Now with all these concepts properly distinguished, we can have a sense of the value of Mark's leadership on these forums. Tossing "Systems" (aka "productivity") will not necessarily lead to peace of mind, on the contrary, if something does slip through the cracks you might lose your job or your life. Tossing "hard work" will not lead to peace of mind either. Ask anyone who is unemployed (perhaps because they didn't pay attention to "productivity?" So these three concepts are not mutually dependent at all.
Yet when I first used AF1 three years ago, these three different and independent concepts became actualized in my life, and it was a truly amazing feeling. AF1 was a fantastic system of productivity because it was so elegant and efficient. I was working hard, because I felt the wind was at my back.
So, in my opinion, I don’t think these three concepts are linked at all. Just because you have a PhD in “Things” or “Omnifocus” and you’re working your butt off doesn’t mean you are at peace. But it doesn’t mean you’re not, either. I think being at peace is something totally different. I think Leo’s article basically confuses peace of mind with "systems" and with "hard work." You can’t just “will” peace of mind by “tossing” productivity advice. I believe David Allen called it a “mind like water,” and he is exactly right. This is exactly how I felt with AF1 and I welcome the effort involved in creating new and better systems.
For me, "productivity" refers to our systems of organizing things. To give “productivity advice” can mean "to help someone take a hard look at what their “systems” actually are and look at ways of streamlining them and simplifying them so that nothing falls through the cracks. One concept that I have borrowed (inaccurately I’m sure) from Chinese culture is the idea of Wu Wei, work without working. It’s the effortlessness of the master butcher who carves meat so efficiently that he doesn’t need to sharpen his knife. Productivity, in this sense, can be simple, but not necessarily lead to peace of mind. Productivity can also be confused with "hard work," as in "Mark is very productive." For this reason, I call this concept "systems" rather than productivity.
That leaves us with “Hard work.” Hard work just refers to the level of energy one commits to a certain task, or day, or goal. It refers to choice, decision and will. It refers also to level of concentration.
Now with all these concepts properly distinguished, we can have a sense of the value of Mark's leadership on these forums. Tossing "Systems" (aka "productivity") will not necessarily lead to peace of mind, on the contrary, if something does slip through the cracks you might lose your job or your life. Tossing "hard work" will not lead to peace of mind either. Ask anyone who is unemployed (perhaps because they didn't pay attention to "productivity?" So these three concepts are not mutually dependent at all.
Yet when I first used AF1 three years ago, these three different and independent concepts became actualized in my life, and it was a truly amazing feeling. AF1 was a fantastic system of productivity because it was so elegant and efficient. I was working hard, because I felt the wind was at my back.
So, in my opinion, I don’t think these three concepts are linked at all. Just because you have a PhD in “Things” or “Omnifocus” and you’re working your butt off doesn’t mean you are at peace. But it doesn’t mean you’re not, either. I think being at peace is something totally different. I think Leo’s article basically confuses peace of mind with "systems" and with "hard work." You can’t just “will” peace of mind by “tossing” productivity advice. I believe David Allen called it a “mind like water,” and he is exactly right. This is exactly how I felt with AF1 and I welcome the effort involved in creating new and better systems.
September 8, 2011 at 3:40 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Alan -
All your examples of making things simple would actually make things much more complicated for me...
<< Grocery stores make life easier than growing your own food. >>
Not if you're allergic to pesticides and buying raw milk is illegal in your jurisdiction and the only good grocery stores are an hour away. Growing (some) of our own food makes these issues much simpler to deal with.
<< Not upgrading all your technology frequently is easier than the opposite. >>
It depends what you mean by "frequently". My ten-year-old Mac certainly added a bit of unwanted complexity to our lives. Upgrading to a newer model simplified things.
<< A small house is easier than a big house. >>
Now this one really made me laugh. A smaller house would vastly complicate our lives, with the number of children we have. :-)
<< Living simply also means there's less to manage, so managing is easier. I don't see how you can possibly deny this. >>
We live near some large prisons, about 15,000 prisoners. Prison life is very simple. Especially solitary confinement. But "easy" doesn't seem to be an accurate description. I think most people would prefer a little complexity to liven things up.
Also - if less is more, how about less money? less time? less friendship? less freedom? These constraints do limit your options -- but is this really *easier*?
Simpler may mean "fewer features" but it also might not. A tape recorder has fewer features than an iPod. But having only a tape recorder would make my wanting to keep up with my favorite podcasts a lot more complicated. It would make my daily commute a lot more dreary.
All your examples of making things simple would actually make things much more complicated for me...
<< Grocery stores make life easier than growing your own food. >>
Not if you're allergic to pesticides and buying raw milk is illegal in your jurisdiction and the only good grocery stores are an hour away. Growing (some) of our own food makes these issues much simpler to deal with.
<< Not upgrading all your technology frequently is easier than the opposite. >>
It depends what you mean by "frequently". My ten-year-old Mac certainly added a bit of unwanted complexity to our lives. Upgrading to a newer model simplified things.
<< A small house is easier than a big house. >>
Now this one really made me laugh. A smaller house would vastly complicate our lives, with the number of children we have. :-)
<< Living simply also means there's less to manage, so managing is easier. I don't see how you can possibly deny this. >>
We live near some large prisons, about 15,000 prisoners. Prison life is very simple. Especially solitary confinement. But "easy" doesn't seem to be an accurate description. I think most people would prefer a little complexity to liven things up.
Also - if less is more, how about less money? less time? less friendship? less freedom? These constraints do limit your options -- but is this really *easier*?
Simpler may mean "fewer features" but it also might not. A tape recorder has fewer features than an iPod. But having only a tape recorder would make my wanting to keep up with my favorite podcasts a lot more complicated. It would make my daily commute a lot more dreary.
September 8, 2011 at 4:49 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
You're on a useful track o think, Paul. Systems can simplify complexity. I think your definition of simplicity needs work though:
"Community life ...has a way of crushing your fantasies.... I call this kind of simplicity "Peace of mind."
I'm not sure that's what you meant. :-)
"Community life ...has a way of crushing your fantasies.... I call this kind of simplicity "Peace of mind."
I'm not sure that's what you meant. :-)
September 8, 2011 at 4:51 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I try to create systems in my life that enable me to follow the path of least resistance as much as possible in order to achieve my objectives.
For example, it takes too much time to water the garden by hand. If we had to rely on that, the garden wouldn't get watered. So, we installed a drip system. Now, I just turn on the hose, set the timer for two hours, and I'm done. It takes 10 seconds every morning, plus occasional checking to make sure the rabbits haven't chewed holes in any of the lines.
Which approach is "simpler", watering by hand, or watering by drip system?
One could make a valid argument either way.
Watering by hand doesn't require any special equipment or tools. But it takes a lot more time each day.
Watering by drip takes a lot more up-front planning and investment, and a more cognitively-engaged approach to maintenance. But it makes the daily routine much less taxing.
So, it depends on your objectives.
For example, it takes too much time to water the garden by hand. If we had to rely on that, the garden wouldn't get watered. So, we installed a drip system. Now, I just turn on the hose, set the timer for two hours, and I'm done. It takes 10 seconds every morning, plus occasional checking to make sure the rabbits haven't chewed holes in any of the lines.
Which approach is "simpler", watering by hand, or watering by drip system?
One could make a valid argument either way.
Watering by hand doesn't require any special equipment or tools. But it takes a lot more time each day.
Watering by drip takes a lot more up-front planning and investment, and a more cognitively-engaged approach to maintenance. But it makes the daily routine much less taxing.
So, it depends on your objectives.
September 8, 2011 at 4:58 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Bernie wrote:
<< not using a system is "simpler" than using a system of any sort >>
I don't agree with this. Mark's example in the DIT book of the two mechanics -- one who doesn't have any systems or processes to manage his work, and one who has finely-tuned systems and processes -- illustrates this very well.
Avoiding systems to keep things "simple" can generate its own nasty kind of complexity.
<< not using a system is "simpler" than using a system of any sort >>
I don't agree with this. Mark's example in the DIT book of the two mechanics -- one who doesn't have any systems or processes to manage his work, and one who has finely-tuned systems and processes -- illustrates this very well.
Avoiding systems to keep things "simple" can generate its own nasty kind of complexity.
September 8, 2011 at 5:01 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan: Yes, I can see how my description of "simplicity" needs clarification. I might define "simplicity" as a state of mind characterized by an inner peace and tranquility, relatively free from anxiety, hence my suggestion just to call it "peace of mind." In referring to the example of the monastery, I was trying to make the point that even though we may live in an environment that looks peaceful and simple to the outside, the outer appearance is not what really indicates simiplicity or peace of mind. Peace of mind is an inner state. By analogy, using a cool productivity system doesn't guarantee peace of mind either. To clarify a bit further, sometimes people enter a monastery thinking it will solve all their problems because the life looks so peaceful. The opposite is true. Because of the solitude and silence, you have to face your own demons, and that can be a bit disconcerting. This often takes the novice by surprise. Perhaps the same is true of people's expectations of a "productivity system." That alone won't bring peace of mind, but, as you can perhaps tell from the rest of my post, I think it still has tremendous value.
September 8, 2011 at 5:14 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
I'm a bit inebriated and tired, but I just wanted to log in and comment that this thread is great! A lot of heartfelt raw feelings expressed, quite articulately for a blog posting. Looking forward to reading some more gems after a few hours' rest…
September 8, 2011 at 8:45 |
ubi
ubi
Alan:
<< Living simply also means there's less to manage, so managing is easier. I don't see how you can possibly deny this. >>
As I keep saying, simplicity is the result of good organisation, not the other way round. To take an example someone gave earlier in the thread, Babauta has all his bills paid automatically through the bank. So do I. It may be easier to set up these days, but twenty years ago when I adopted that principle it was quite an expenditure of effort to get it organised. And there are still plenty of people who pay their bills by hand because they "haven't got round to sorting it out".
As for a small house being easier than a big house, you obviously don't have children!
<< Living simply also means there's less to manage, so managing is easier. I don't see how you can possibly deny this. >>
As I keep saying, simplicity is the result of good organisation, not the other way round. To take an example someone gave earlier in the thread, Babauta has all his bills paid automatically through the bank. So do I. It may be easier to set up these days, but twenty years ago when I adopted that principle it was quite an expenditure of effort to get it organised. And there are still plenty of people who pay their bills by hand because they "haven't got round to sorting it out".
As for a small house being easier than a big house, you obviously don't have children!
September 8, 2011 at 11:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I'd like to echo what Ubi said here :)
And reading what has been brought forward has been an immense resource of insight and, for a lack of a better description, entertaining.
I'd like to apologize for bringing up a topic that targets the foundation of Mark's work. If there is no complexity in life, then there is obviously no need for systems... The work, effort and wisdom of Mark's work should not be underestimated.
That said, what brings me to these questions is an honest questioning in my evolution through life management. And seeing the conversations on the forum center exclusively on the inside of systems, I'm glad for discussions that tackle the outside and the fundamental needs for systems in the first place. In other words, even if systems have permeated everyday life, I have yet to see a good exposition of it's authentic need. For me, It's about the same as someone questioning at one point: "Do we really need a mouse to use a computer?"
Anyway, what prompted me to post now is the following two things:
First, I'm sorry to be pushy but I have to "defend" Leo a bit. I have felt that some comments have been done without prior knowledge of the man and I'd like to rectify that. Sorry if I'm mistaken.
Second I've been flabbergasted at the number of thoughts I could put on paper with this but don't intend to write many more walls ;) I'd like to know if some people are interested in an online group voice chat or a webinar where we could discuss in real time or I could expose my thoughts more effectively then on the forum. I'd like to talk about simplicity and complexity because I'm under the impression that a lot of important details have been simply overlooked.
On to Leo! The guy really deserves a break. I've followed his journey over the course of a few years with a distanced stance and am genuinely impressed by a few things. First, while it is true that since he has not a lot of material needs anymore, being successful and all, he has the luxury of having no goals, the road that lead him to that really deserves scrutiny.
- He was a knowledge worker with a lot of goals and tasks.
- He started to blog to help people with systems
- He helped people tackle the complexity of GTD by installing habits a few at a time
- He became interested in habits and limiting or eliminating stuff
- He found out that eliminating helped a lot
- Started to get rid of all non essential stuff on his blog like adds and comments mind you!
- He published under a strict UNcopyright license; he owns nothing
- He sold his book 0$ and preferred to ask people to pay if they liked it (that's where all his monetary independence comes from)
- He dropped his lists
- He dropped his goals
And that's where we are. So all this just to say that he had a genuine experience of reducing and it being good to him every step of the way for the last 5 years at least. I am one that respects that kind of life experience.
Well, keep me posted on the interest Bout the talk!
Cheers
And reading what has been brought forward has been an immense resource of insight and, for a lack of a better description, entertaining.
I'd like to apologize for bringing up a topic that targets the foundation of Mark's work. If there is no complexity in life, then there is obviously no need for systems... The work, effort and wisdom of Mark's work should not be underestimated.
That said, what brings me to these questions is an honest questioning in my evolution through life management. And seeing the conversations on the forum center exclusively on the inside of systems, I'm glad for discussions that tackle the outside and the fundamental needs for systems in the first place. In other words, even if systems have permeated everyday life, I have yet to see a good exposition of it's authentic need. For me, It's about the same as someone questioning at one point: "Do we really need a mouse to use a computer?"
Anyway, what prompted me to post now is the following two things:
First, I'm sorry to be pushy but I have to "defend" Leo a bit. I have felt that some comments have been done without prior knowledge of the man and I'd like to rectify that. Sorry if I'm mistaken.
Second I've been flabbergasted at the number of thoughts I could put on paper with this but don't intend to write many more walls ;) I'd like to know if some people are interested in an online group voice chat or a webinar where we could discuss in real time or I could expose my thoughts more effectively then on the forum. I'd like to talk about simplicity and complexity because I'm under the impression that a lot of important details have been simply overlooked.
On to Leo! The guy really deserves a break. I've followed his journey over the course of a few years with a distanced stance and am genuinely impressed by a few things. First, while it is true that since he has not a lot of material needs anymore, being successful and all, he has the luxury of having no goals, the road that lead him to that really deserves scrutiny.
- He was a knowledge worker with a lot of goals and tasks.
- He started to blog to help people with systems
- He helped people tackle the complexity of GTD by installing habits a few at a time
- He became interested in habits and limiting or eliminating stuff
- He found out that eliminating helped a lot
- Started to get rid of all non essential stuff on his blog like adds and comments mind you!
- He published under a strict UNcopyright license; he owns nothing
- He sold his book 0$ and preferred to ask people to pay if they liked it (that's where all his monetary independence comes from)
- He dropped his lists
- He dropped his goals
And that's where we are. So all this just to say that he had a genuine experience of reducing and it being good to him every step of the way for the last 5 years at least. I am one that respects that kind of life experience.
Well, keep me posted on the interest Bout the talk!
Cheers
September 8, 2011 at 11:17 |
Erik
Erik
Paul:
<< Community life is very difficult, and a Trappist monastery is very real: it has a way of crushing your fantasies about being a monk. >>
I believe the advice they give to new monks who are getting a bit stressed is "Don't worry - the first fifty years are the worst."
<< Community life is very difficult, and a Trappist monastery is very real: it has a way of crushing your fantasies about being a monk. >>
I believe the advice they give to new monks who are getting a bit stressed is "Don't worry - the first fifty years are the worst."
September 8, 2011 at 11:18 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Erik:
My comments about Leo are based solely on his article and one or two of the links from it. I have virtually no prior knowledge about him.
But I was interested in your description of his progress. Here's my progress described in a similar way:
- He was a knowledge worker with a lot of goals and tasks.
- He started to blog to help people with systems
- He helped people tackle the complexity of GTD by installing simpler systems
- He became interested in systems and their effect in limiting or eliminating stress
- He found out that systems helped to eliminate stress a lot
- Started to get rid of all non essential stuff on his blog like ads - but not comments because he got brilliant feedback from them.
- He published under a strict copyright license; he owns everything he has written but access to it is free of charge.
- He sells one of his books £0 and doesn't ask people to pay at all (though they can donate if they wish - hint, hint)
- He constantly worked on improving his theories of list management
- He always believed that goals naturally arose from forward movement
And that's where we are. So all this just to say that he had a genuine experience of reducing stress and it being good to him every step of the way for the last 15 years at least.
I'm glad you are one that respects that kind of life experience.
My comments about Leo are based solely on his article and one or two of the links from it. I have virtually no prior knowledge about him.
But I was interested in your description of his progress. Here's my progress described in a similar way:
- He was a knowledge worker with a lot of goals and tasks.
- He started to blog to help people with systems
- He helped people tackle the complexity of GTD by installing simpler systems
- He became interested in systems and their effect in limiting or eliminating stress
- He found out that systems helped to eliminate stress a lot
- Started to get rid of all non essential stuff on his blog like ads - but not comments because he got brilliant feedback from them.
- He published under a strict copyright license; he owns everything he has written but access to it is free of charge.
- He sells one of his books £0 and doesn't ask people to pay at all (though they can donate if they wish - hint, hint)
- He constantly worked on improving his theories of list management
- He always believed that goals naturally arose from forward movement
And that's where we are. So all this just to say that he had a genuine experience of reducing stress and it being good to him every step of the way for the last 15 years at least.
I'm glad you are one that respects that kind of life experience.
September 8, 2011 at 11:34 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I was interested to hear from Erik's post that Leo doesn't have comments on his blog (and presumably no forum either).
That means that this discussion couldn't have taken place on his blog.
What would be your reaction if I turned off the comments on my blog and shut this forum down? That's a genuine question btw - I'm thinking I'd get a lot more blog posts done if I didn't spend so much time responding to comments.
My finger is hovering over the button!
That means that this discussion couldn't have taken place on his blog.
What would be your reaction if I turned off the comments on my blog and shut this forum down? That's a genuine question btw - I'm thinking I'd get a lot more blog posts done if I didn't spend so much time responding to comments.
My finger is hovering over the button!
September 8, 2011 at 11:42 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Erik:
<< It's about the same as someone questioning at one point: "Do we really need a mouse to use a computer?">>
Anyone who's old enought to have used the old mouseless DOS-based programs knows that they were _much_ faster than today's programs to operate. The mouse may be easier, but for sheer speed it can't compare with the old slash key commands.
<< It's about the same as someone questioning at one point: "Do we really need a mouse to use a computer?">>
Anyone who's old enought to have used the old mouseless DOS-based programs knows that they were _much_ faster than today's programs to operate. The mouse may be easier, but for sheer speed it can't compare with the old slash key commands.
September 8, 2011 at 11:51 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I have followed Leo from the beginning of his journey, and it was interesting, helpful and informative. However, since turning off comments on his blog, his blog posts seem to have generally become more and more boring, repetitive, and superficial over time. I agree with all of Mark's comments regarding this particular blog post of Leo's, and I am a fan (though a constantly disappointed one).
So the purpose of my post is to urge Mark to keep blog comments, and definitely keep the forum, because otherwise your ideas might stagnate. Feedback is essential in endeavors of this sort.
So the purpose of my post is to urge Mark to keep blog comments, and definitely keep the forum, because otherwise your ideas might stagnate. Feedback is essential in endeavors of this sort.
September 8, 2011 at 12:18 |
Wooba
Wooba
Regarding the "fundamental needs for systems" I'd like to mention that if the surgeon who saved my life about 20 years ago hadn't a system for his special kind of productivity, I would be dead and gone and rotting in my grave, and I wouldn't be able to use a mouse and a keyboard right now.
September 8, 2011 at 12:41 |
Rainer
Rainer
Leo Babauta's post of August 29th, "Best Procrastination Tip Ever", really got my goat (http://zenhabits.net/tada/ ).
First, he says "I’ve written the book on ending procrastination, but I’ve since come up with a very simple technique for beating everyone’s favorite nemesis." Seems a bit arrogant to me, and I'm sure this is an age old tip that has been around since the Greeks.
Then, the first part of his "tip" is to "Identify the most important thing you have to do today." This for me is the hardest thing to do. Trying to do this is what causes my procrastination problems. Mark Forster's methods are far better for avoiding procrastination, because you don't need to decide what to do -- you do what feels right to do right now.
Next, "Decide to do just the first little part of it." Another decision.
Then, "Clear away distractions." Now this is just an invitation to procrastinate.
It goes on, but the whole tip is just a recipe for a wasted day IMHO.
First, he says "I’ve written the book on ending procrastination, but I’ve since come up with a very simple technique for beating everyone’s favorite nemesis." Seems a bit arrogant to me, and I'm sure this is an age old tip that has been around since the Greeks.
Then, the first part of his "tip" is to "Identify the most important thing you have to do today." This for me is the hardest thing to do. Trying to do this is what causes my procrastination problems. Mark Forster's methods are far better for avoiding procrastination, because you don't need to decide what to do -- you do what feels right to do right now.
Next, "Decide to do just the first little part of it." Another decision.
Then, "Clear away distractions." Now this is just an invitation to procrastinate.
It goes on, but the whole tip is just a recipe for a wasted day IMHO.
September 8, 2011 at 12:58 |
Wooba
Wooba
Opus, sorry about that!
Misread something...
Misread something...
September 8, 2011 at 13:01 |
Erik
Erik
Mark
If your posts have genuine appeal, I believe people would follow your writings even if you disabled all that :) But he did it after having way too many followers posters to be of any help responding to comments... so maybe he has no credit for doing it.
If your posts have genuine appeal, I believe people would follow your writings even if you disabled all that :) But he did it after having way too many followers posters to be of any help responding to comments... so maybe he has no credit for doing it.
September 8, 2011 at 13:04 |
Erik
Erik
Seraphim, we are in complete agreement.
Your point
<<Avoiding systems to keep things "simple" can generate its own nasty kind of complexity.>>
matches mine:
<< not using a system is "simpler" than using a system of any sort, and some systems are simpler than others ... but that looks at only the systems and ignores the effect of the system on the user's life. ... The world's most complex, crazily convoluted system might thus be "simple," if it successfully tames an even more complex problem.>>
although yours is expressed more simply. ;)
Your point
<<Avoiding systems to keep things "simple" can generate its own nasty kind of complexity.>>
matches mine:
<< not using a system is "simpler" than using a system of any sort, and some systems are simpler than others ... but that looks at only the systems and ignores the effect of the system on the user's life. ... The world's most complex, crazily convoluted system might thus be "simple," if it successfully tames an even more complex problem.>>
although yours is expressed more simply. ;)
September 8, 2011 at 14:05 |
Bernie
Bernie
To Leo's fans,
I basically like the guy. I own two of his books, one hardcover, the other e- (which I paid for and don't recall it being a donation ... maybe that has changed). He has said many things that resonated with me enough to forward links to friends and/or loan them the book. His ZTD system was an important part of my GTD journey, although the major lesson I learned was that GTD's architecture was so hopelessly flawed (for an operator like me) that even its Zen-ified incarnation was unworkable.
In the end, for me, most of his advice has boiled down to (1) reminders to ask myself whether I am overcomplicating my life—I often am, and his reminders often end up helping; and (2) pithy, quotable, oversimplified exhortations such as "identify today's most important thing."
Really: "work on my latest big idea" ... "make more progress on last week's big idea" ... "finally get started on the pile of junk in my room that palpably drains my energy" ... "volunteer to coach my son's soccer team for the next nine weeks" ... if I *knew* which was today's "most important item," do you think I'd be reading a Zen productivity blog? Perhaps this is where the Zen master hits me on the head with a stick, but these days I am wearing my helmet.
I find Mark's work refreshing because it tends not to make those exhortations of type (2). Mark realizes that this "most important thing" business is the entire question, and so he designs clever techniques to unlock it, such as "standing out" and Future Self dialogs. I would much rather participate in experiments with these sorts of clever techniques, whether or not they ultimately solve all of my problems, than bang my head against some pithy but opaque turn of phrase ... or get rapped with a stick.
So these days, when I see Leo's book on my shelf, I am reminded to simplify something, taking "simplify" to mean whatever it needs to mean in order to help me. I think that is a valuable and lasting contribution, undoubtedly worth more than I've paid him for his work. But I don't need to read his blog anymore.
I basically like the guy. I own two of his books, one hardcover, the other e- (which I paid for and don't recall it being a donation ... maybe that has changed). He has said many things that resonated with me enough to forward links to friends and/or loan them the book. His ZTD system was an important part of my GTD journey, although the major lesson I learned was that GTD's architecture was so hopelessly flawed (for an operator like me) that even its Zen-ified incarnation was unworkable.
In the end, for me, most of his advice has boiled down to (1) reminders to ask myself whether I am overcomplicating my life—I often am, and his reminders often end up helping; and (2) pithy, quotable, oversimplified exhortations such as "identify today's most important thing."
Really: "work on my latest big idea" ... "make more progress on last week's big idea" ... "finally get started on the pile of junk in my room that palpably drains my energy" ... "volunteer to coach my son's soccer team for the next nine weeks" ... if I *knew* which was today's "most important item," do you think I'd be reading a Zen productivity blog? Perhaps this is where the Zen master hits me on the head with a stick, but these days I am wearing my helmet.
I find Mark's work refreshing because it tends not to make those exhortations of type (2). Mark realizes that this "most important thing" business is the entire question, and so he designs clever techniques to unlock it, such as "standing out" and Future Self dialogs. I would much rather participate in experiments with these sorts of clever techniques, whether or not they ultimately solve all of my problems, than bang my head against some pithy but opaque turn of phrase ... or get rapped with a stick.
So these days, when I see Leo's book on my shelf, I am reminded to simplify something, taking "simplify" to mean whatever it needs to mean in order to help me. I think that is a valuable and lasting contribution, undoubtedly worth more than I've paid him for his work. But I don't need to read his blog anymore.
September 8, 2011 at 14:35 |
Bernie
Bernie
Summary: blog posts are Mark's best means of communicating big ideas. Responses are his best way to learn and communicate better. Fora are the best supplement for creating a sustained community, but only so long as Mark leads.
John C. Maxwell writes, "I promise you, every idea I take into a collaborative environment comes out better than it was before."
( http://johnmaxwellonleadership.com/2009/10/18/connectors-do-the-difficult-work-of-keeping-it-simple/ )
I think he's right on. Now Leo removed comments because doing so matched his goal of simplicity, not because it improves his writing or gains followers. I suspect it does neither, and only works because he has a dedicated fanbase already.
Mark: I think your participation in forums is good, but better is when you lead discussion via blog posts or new threads. Forums are the place where people can ask broader questions and share ideas. (If this one closed, I'd find another. ) Active forums also prove to visitors you have an audience (ie you have something worth hearing) and help them understand and contextualize your work. This doesn't require your continuous input, so choose where your input is most valuable.
John C. Maxwell writes, "I promise you, every idea I take into a collaborative environment comes out better than it was before."
( http://johnmaxwellonleadership.com/2009/10/18/connectors-do-the-difficult-work-of-keeping-it-simple/ )
I think he's right on. Now Leo removed comments because doing so matched his goal of simplicity, not because it improves his writing or gains followers. I suspect it does neither, and only works because he has a dedicated fanbase already.
Mark: I think your participation in forums is good, but better is when you lead discussion via blog posts or new threads. Forums are the place where people can ask broader questions and share ideas. (If this one closed, I'd find another. ) Active forums also prove to visitors you have an audience (ie you have something worth hearing) and help them understand and contextualize your work. This doesn't require your continuous input, so choose where your input is most valuable.
September 8, 2011 at 15:25 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Wooba:
<<"I’ve written the book on ending procrastination... Seems a bit arrogant to me>>
David Allen promises the absurd "mind like water"
Tim Ferris claims you can do all you work within a "4 hour work week"
etc
etc
The formula works because we're all looking for quick(ish) way to get rich, calm and enjoy our life.
Mental Health facilities and professionals are not immune. From medication to mindfulness, some (most?) of my colleagues promise (x) # of week-based programs to cure you of (insert symptom).
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from i.e. HMOs, Publishers, or an authors personal anxiety, the end result will produce short-lived relief, followed by a search for the next quick fix.
I'm tired of hearing myself yammer on about these ideas. Hell, being guilty of this myself, it's time to follow through on my convictions and take a hiatus from this forum (and productivity talk in general).
So many of you, particularly Mark, have been kind and helpful as I try to recapture the creative, adventuresome spirit I had as a child. I know what I need to do. Slowly... slowly, it's happening.
<<"I’ve written the book on ending procrastination... Seems a bit arrogant to me>>
David Allen promises the absurd "mind like water"
Tim Ferris claims you can do all you work within a "4 hour work week"
etc
etc
The formula works because we're all looking for quick(ish) way to get rich, calm and enjoy our life.
Mental Health facilities and professionals are not immune. From medication to mindfulness, some (most?) of my colleagues promise (x) # of week-based programs to cure you of (insert symptom).
Regardless of where the pressure is coming from i.e. HMOs, Publishers, or an authors personal anxiety, the end result will produce short-lived relief, followed by a search for the next quick fix.
I'm tired of hearing myself yammer on about these ideas. Hell, being guilty of this myself, it's time to follow through on my convictions and take a hiatus from this forum (and productivity talk in general).
So many of you, particularly Mark, have been kind and helpful as I try to recapture the creative, adventuresome spirit I had as a child. I know what I need to do. Slowly... slowly, it's happening.
September 8, 2011 at 15:27 |
avrum
avrum
Having read and digested Leo's article, I think the major problem with it is that it presupposes an awful lot about the person trying to apply its principles. Mostly what it presupposes is that every individual is, or is aiming to be, his or her own boss and is providing for worldly requirements like food, clothing, shelter etc by means of monetizing something that person loves to do.
Which is fine, but (Dreams notwithstanding) is very far from reality for the vast majority of the population of the planet. This is where it falls down in my opinion. I, for instance, would like nothing better than to e.g. teach Yoga, read great literature and spend the intervening time walking the dogs, but there exists a small matter of a Mortgage, the need to eat, the fact that I'm nowhere near good enough at Yoga yet to teach it without significant extra investment of time (not to mention certification), and of course the dogs need to eat too (in fact some weeks their food bill exceeds ours!). In order to support that I need an interim income stream, which I achieve by working for someone else who pays me money in return. This is the bit which Leo seems to be denying, and is the crucial difference between his situation and that in which most other people find themselves.
What Mark's systems bring to the table, I think, is a toolset to manage the stuff which needs to be done while moving towards the dream scenario. So I use SF etc to handle the tasks which need to be done at work and at home so that I remain employed and earning, to pay the mortgage and dogfood bills and stop the house falling down while I'm counting down to the mortgage going away and practicing my Yoga so that at some point in the future *once the logistics of the situation have been arranged appropriately* I can move to a scenario where I, like Leo, can do what *I* want to do without those messy real-world constraints causing it all to go pearshaped in short order. It's possible that in, say, 10 years I too will have reached a stage where I can stop worrying about systems, and look back at this period in my life as a period of excessive complexity I'll be glad to be done with, following a similar path to that which Leo has followed. But I think it's more likely that systems will remain a part of my life - the Yoga classes will have to be scheduled and organised, the studio maintained, the house repaired as necessary and, yes, the dogs will still need to be fed!
In the meantime, I find, along the lines of Mark's comments about stress reduction, that having a system to manage the messy bits of my life reduces my stress level and frees up time so that I actually have space to move towards my dreams, and even occasionally to do some yoga practice or take the dogs for a walk even though my dreams have not yet manifested fully.
And in case anyone is in any doubt, I very much hope that Mark doesn't switch off this forum and comments because (a) I for one greatly enjoy reading them and (b) I think it would lose a huge amount of value contributed by the variety of viewpoints represented.
Which is fine, but (Dreams notwithstanding) is very far from reality for the vast majority of the population of the planet. This is where it falls down in my opinion. I, for instance, would like nothing better than to e.g. teach Yoga, read great literature and spend the intervening time walking the dogs, but there exists a small matter of a Mortgage, the need to eat, the fact that I'm nowhere near good enough at Yoga yet to teach it without significant extra investment of time (not to mention certification), and of course the dogs need to eat too (in fact some weeks their food bill exceeds ours!). In order to support that I need an interim income stream, which I achieve by working for someone else who pays me money in return. This is the bit which Leo seems to be denying, and is the crucial difference between his situation and that in which most other people find themselves.
What Mark's systems bring to the table, I think, is a toolset to manage the stuff which needs to be done while moving towards the dream scenario. So I use SF etc to handle the tasks which need to be done at work and at home so that I remain employed and earning, to pay the mortgage and dogfood bills and stop the house falling down while I'm counting down to the mortgage going away and practicing my Yoga so that at some point in the future *once the logistics of the situation have been arranged appropriately* I can move to a scenario where I, like Leo, can do what *I* want to do without those messy real-world constraints causing it all to go pearshaped in short order. It's possible that in, say, 10 years I too will have reached a stage where I can stop worrying about systems, and look back at this period in my life as a period of excessive complexity I'll be glad to be done with, following a similar path to that which Leo has followed. But I think it's more likely that systems will remain a part of my life - the Yoga classes will have to be scheduled and organised, the studio maintained, the house repaired as necessary and, yes, the dogs will still need to be fed!
In the meantime, I find, along the lines of Mark's comments about stress reduction, that having a system to manage the messy bits of my life reduces my stress level and frees up time so that I actually have space to move towards my dreams, and even occasionally to do some yoga practice or take the dogs for a walk even though my dreams have not yet manifested fully.
And in case anyone is in any doubt, I very much hope that Mark doesn't switch off this forum and comments because (a) I for one greatly enjoy reading them and (b) I think it would lose a huge amount of value contributed by the variety of viewpoints represented.
September 8, 2011 at 15:29 |
Paul Taylor
Paul Taylor
Just a note on the need for systems...
When I started my job 5 years ago, I noted that my manager was using his inbox as a to-do list and he was staying on top of managing multiple projects mainly through nervous energy. Over the years, using many tips and ideas gleaned from GTD and Mark Forster, we've instituted some 'simple' (ie, few moving parts) systems that ensures he stays on top of his regular work and maintenance tasks while keeping him nimble enough to respond to emergencies.
Of course, these simple systems depend on computer-based automatic reminders, a spreadsheet, and other complicated widgets and tools -- but they all work together to create for him a rather simple system that enables him to work efficiently. The system also involves both of us sitting together for about 90 mins/week to troll his email, calendars, desk, etc. for tasks; the time we spend building his task list saves him time for the rest of the week.).
Now, sure, his life would be simpler if he had a simpler job; we're working on that too :) A simpler job wouldn't require the level of overhead we currently employ, but I daresay many of the habits we've established for him would carry over into whatever new system he would need to stay on top of things.
Now, all that said -- I've always had extreme difficulty crafting a system *I* could use both at work and at home. Systems tend to benefit me at my office, but seem overkill for when I'm at home. Using DIT with an AF list to capture my ideas and thoughts in a buffer seems to be the best system for me to use to keep moving ahead on personal projects and make sure I'm on top of things (like ordering stamps -- yes, I still write checks for some bills, because that's the level of simplicity that works best for me right now.)
When I started my job 5 years ago, I noted that my manager was using his inbox as a to-do list and he was staying on top of managing multiple projects mainly through nervous energy. Over the years, using many tips and ideas gleaned from GTD and Mark Forster, we've instituted some 'simple' (ie, few moving parts) systems that ensures he stays on top of his regular work and maintenance tasks while keeping him nimble enough to respond to emergencies.
Of course, these simple systems depend on computer-based automatic reminders, a spreadsheet, and other complicated widgets and tools -- but they all work together to create for him a rather simple system that enables him to work efficiently. The system also involves both of us sitting together for about 90 mins/week to troll his email, calendars, desk, etc. for tasks; the time we spend building his task list saves him time for the rest of the week.).
Now, sure, his life would be simpler if he had a simpler job; we're working on that too :) A simpler job wouldn't require the level of overhead we currently employ, but I daresay many of the habits we've established for him would carry over into whatever new system he would need to stay on top of things.
Now, all that said -- I've always had extreme difficulty crafting a system *I* could use both at work and at home. Systems tend to benefit me at my office, but seem overkill for when I'm at home. Using DIT with an AF list to capture my ideas and thoughts in a buffer seems to be the best system for me to use to keep moving ahead on personal projects and make sure I'm on top of things (like ordering stamps -- yes, I still write checks for some bills, because that's the level of simplicity that works best for me right now.)
September 8, 2011 at 15:30 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
I think Leo like many other myself included have designed their TM systems to solve their own issues and create the life they want. This is why many people have a difficult time using somebody's system. The things I have written may have little use for someone else.
Mark regarding comments, I think the two things that make this site great have been, the constant development of new methods and the interaction of the group with you and each other. I basically stopped using my website because after awhile while without feedback it does get boring. Now when you have designed the perfect system, things may get boring when we all go off and actually use it to become productive.
Gerry
Mark regarding comments, I think the two things that make this site great have been, the constant development of new methods and the interaction of the group with you and each other. I basically stopped using my website because after awhile while without feedback it does get boring. Now when you have designed the perfect system, things may get boring when we all go off and actually use it to become productive.
Gerry
September 8, 2011 at 17:13 |
Gerry
Gerry
Oops I cited the wrong article in my post. I meant this one:
http://johnmaxwellonleadership.com/2009/03/20/seeking-creativity-in-its-natural-habitat/
Another quote: "If you want to do something creative, bring in others to help you."
http://johnmaxwellonleadership.com/2009/03/20/seeking-creativity-in-its-natural-habitat/
Another quote: "If you want to do something creative, bring in others to help you."
September 8, 2011 at 17:15 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
"Could you possibly expand on what you mean by this? What would you consider to be "over productive" and when would it be not "really" productive? "
Not entirely sure myself... possibly when outstrips the psychological and physical resources we have.
Is that the fault of the system itself or rather our expectations or the way we use it?
Not entirely sure myself... possibly when outstrips the psychological and physical resources we have.
Is that the fault of the system itself or rather our expectations or the way we use it?
September 8, 2011 at 20:13 |
smileypete
smileypete
Any thoughts?
http://zenhabits.net/un/