Discussion Forum > It's not you ... it's me. (sabotaging time management systems)
"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do". - St. Paul
"I’m hesitant to post a new topic for fear that it’s been covered."
That rarely happens, so post away!.
"I’m pretty sure that if I had the dedication/drive/motivation/longevity/commitment to stick with any of Mark’s systems in the long term – and not let my commitment slip – then I’m sure I would work far more efficiently than I do. "
I'm certain that need is a big factor in my persistence with this system. I've never stuck with stuff before, but I never had a driving need before.
"So why don’t I keep doing what I know would work in my favour? As a therapist, I continuously come across people who ‘self-sabotage’"
The proverb, "Physician, heal thyself" comes to mind. Not being sarcastic, but inquisitive. How do you try to help your clients? Would that work for you?
"Whilst I am holding out hope for further improvements to my efficiency with the advent of the Final Version, am I – like most of the rest of us reading this forum – destined to fail in our attempts to maximise the system because we are likely to sabotage our use of it?"
I know one sure way to break the Final Version, even though I don't know that system yet: Neglect. If you find the system boring, tedious, too easy, or just continually get distracted from it, it won't do its thing. If you fear doing stuff, avoid success, or just wanna have fun, it can't help you.
You need a reason to persist, and that needs to overpower your reasons to quit. You also need to believe it will succeed, and believe that setbacks can be overcome. If your house were cold, and walking 10 miles to the utility and paying the bill was the only way to solve this, you would find it very easy to do.
"I’m hesitant to post a new topic for fear that it’s been covered."
That rarely happens, so post away!.
"I’m pretty sure that if I had the dedication/drive/motivation/longevity/commitment to stick with any of Mark’s systems in the long term – and not let my commitment slip – then I’m sure I would work far more efficiently than I do. "
I'm certain that need is a big factor in my persistence with this system. I've never stuck with stuff before, but I never had a driving need before.
"So why don’t I keep doing what I know would work in my favour? As a therapist, I continuously come across people who ‘self-sabotage’"
The proverb, "Physician, heal thyself" comes to mind. Not being sarcastic, but inquisitive. How do you try to help your clients? Would that work for you?
"Whilst I am holding out hope for further improvements to my efficiency with the advent of the Final Version, am I – like most of the rest of us reading this forum – destined to fail in our attempts to maximise the system because we are likely to sabotage our use of it?"
I know one sure way to break the Final Version, even though I don't know that system yet: Neglect. If you find the system boring, tedious, too easy, or just continually get distracted from it, it won't do its thing. If you fear doing stuff, avoid success, or just wanna have fun, it can't help you.
You need a reason to persist, and that needs to overpower your reasons to quit. You also need to believe it will succeed, and believe that setbacks can be overcome. If your house were cold, and walking 10 miles to the utility and paying the bill was the only way to solve this, you would find it very easy to do.
September 13, 2011 at 19:57 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I'm a self sabotager of time management systems. Yet, I believe that so long as the system is logical, it will probably bring 80% of the required results needed.
Some things that seem to drive me to change systems are 1 Feeling overwhelmed 2 Not feeling I'm making fast enough progress 3 Not having a clear enough idea of what I want 4 Losing confidence in the system 5 Resistance 6 Boredom etc...
I've been working with DIT again and am trying to build some self discipline consistency with the 'don't break the chain' method http://dontbreakthechain.com/ . My 'personal best' is 4 days! But I'll keep trying.
Some things that seem to drive me to change systems are 1 Feeling overwhelmed 2 Not feeling I'm making fast enough progress 3 Not having a clear enough idea of what I want 4 Losing confidence in the system 5 Resistance 6 Boredom etc...
I've been working with DIT again and am trying to build some self discipline consistency with the 'don't break the chain' method http://dontbreakthechain.com/ . My 'personal best' is 4 days! But I'll keep trying.
September 13, 2011 at 20:29 |
leon
leon
Neumatist:
I had similar thoughts today but with different focus. My ideas were that we are not sabotaging ourselves but that we are too expecting from time management systems. These systems should be considered only what they are: systems to help us decide what to do and when to do it. That is all. All the rest is on us - our motivational systems, habits, work attitudes, flexibility, vision...all plays important role.
Good time management systems should give us certainty that we (1) are in balance (with all the life areas/responsibilities), (2) have overview (thus we will not forget anything), (3) recognize relevant and important tasks over less relevant and (4) can a little bit force ourselves to do unpleasant but important tasks or not to overdo pleasant but not so important tasks (by systems like autofocus, eat the frog, timebox, pomodoro, small steps, schedules etc.)
That is all. We cannot expect system itself to be "effective". We have to be effective. (Every system "is" effective as such, some people excelled even with the simplest to-do list). We cannot expect system to make the unpleasant tasks for us. We have to. We cannot expect system to find time wasters and useless activities which are not very important but we love to do (e.g. thinking about new time management systems - I am not speaking about Mark, it is his job:). We have to find them. Time management is not cure for living successful and effective life. It is only aid for prioritizing, balancing, and seeing the right tasks. It is our "executive assistant" who tells us every day what should be done as most important. Maybe with little help of "tricks". The rest is on us - if we start the tasks, if we continue with them, if we remain motivated, if we can bear unpleasant, boring, intimidating, anxious situations connected with important projects etc.
I had similar thoughts today but with different focus. My ideas were that we are not sabotaging ourselves but that we are too expecting from time management systems. These systems should be considered only what they are: systems to help us decide what to do and when to do it. That is all. All the rest is on us - our motivational systems, habits, work attitudes, flexibility, vision...all plays important role.
Good time management systems should give us certainty that we (1) are in balance (with all the life areas/responsibilities), (2) have overview (thus we will not forget anything), (3) recognize relevant and important tasks over less relevant and (4) can a little bit force ourselves to do unpleasant but important tasks or not to overdo pleasant but not so important tasks (by systems like autofocus, eat the frog, timebox, pomodoro, small steps, schedules etc.)
That is all. We cannot expect system itself to be "effective". We have to be effective. (Every system "is" effective as such, some people excelled even with the simplest to-do list). We cannot expect system to make the unpleasant tasks for us. We have to. We cannot expect system to find time wasters and useless activities which are not very important but we love to do (e.g. thinking about new time management systems - I am not speaking about Mark, it is his job:). We have to find them. Time management is not cure for living successful and effective life. It is only aid for prioritizing, balancing, and seeing the right tasks. It is our "executive assistant" who tells us every day what should be done as most important. Maybe with little help of "tricks". The rest is on us - if we start the tasks, if we continue with them, if we remain motivated, if we can bear unpleasant, boring, intimidating, anxious situations connected with important projects etc.
September 13, 2011 at 21:37 |
Daneb
Daneb
Alan:
<< If you find the system boring, tedious, too easy, or just continually get distracted from it, it won't do its thing. If you fear doing stuff, avoid success, or just wanna have fun, it can't help you. >>
A good system should be designed with these problems in mind.
<< If you find the system boring, tedious, too easy, or just continually get distracted from it, it won't do its thing. If you fear doing stuff, avoid success, or just wanna have fun, it can't help you. >>
A good system should be designed with these problems in mind.
September 13, 2011 at 22:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Daneb:
<< We cannot expect system itself to be "effective". >>
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure that I agree with you about that. A good system should be able to help you to overcome procrastination, keep you going with what you have started, provide a creative tension between the rational and the intuitive mind, make you more aware of what you really want, and so on.
That's always what I've been aiming for. Whether I've succeeded in producing it is another question.
<< We cannot expect system itself to be "effective". >>
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure that I agree with you about that. A good system should be able to help you to overcome procrastination, keep you going with what you have started, provide a creative tension between the rational and the intuitive mind, make you more aware of what you really want, and so on.
That's always what I've been aiming for. Whether I've succeeded in producing it is another question.
September 13, 2011 at 22:36 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
+JMJ+
A recent reading of a study guide on St Thomas Aquinas' works enlightened me about this subject. The book I am referring to can be found here: http://www.domcentral.org/farrell/companion/
Aquinas said fear as a passion happens when an evil arises that we want to run away from. An evil here means something that can harm or prevent us from attaining or preserving a good (for example money, comfort, pleasure, life). Now for the evil to aspire fear, then it must have these three characteristics altogether:
__1) The evil must be either barely surmountable or even impossible to conquer. We do not fear a rabbit, but we will certainly run away from a large lion roaring at us.
__2) The evil must be or could be in the immediate future; the more immediate, the worse the fear. That's why we do not fear eating a quadruple decker burger when we are healthy, but those who already survived a heart attack do, for they know another one could happen anytime.
__3) The evil must afford some form of escape, no matter how slim. And the slimmer the possible escape, the worse the fear. Have you noticed how those with terminal illnesses can be very calm and composed when they come to accept their eventual deaths, that there could be no cure, no escape? That's because since they know they cannot escape their eventual death, their fear leaves them.
Note that once one of these are removed, then the whole structure of fear collapses, and we do not fear anymore.
Now I have come to the conclusion that PROCRASTINATION is a kind of fear. Why so?
Isn't it strange that we procrastinate when there is a deadline, and the procrastination gets even worse the nearer we get to the deadline, until we come to a certain point in time when we suddenly go into a flurry of action to beat the deadline? That's pure fear logic for you. Since the deadline is far off you do not fear the deadline so you do not do anything. But as it comes nearer and nearer we come to fear the deadline, and we procrastinate even more, especially if lots of possible distractions as means of escape. And yet we come to the point, so near the deadline, that we realize we cannot escape the responsibility to do something about the deadline, and thus the fear of procrastination disappears, and we work against the clock.
So what is St Thomas Aquinas' solution to the problem? Well, courage is when you attack one of those three requirements of fear, and the most well known and least realized way is the first one, to challenge the size of the evil. "If God be for us, who can go against us?" (Romans 8:31) We also get help and resources to plow through evil, so that we can become bigger than the evil. In procrastination, we find someone to help us, or, even better, for someone to do everything for us. This is also the stratagem of most task management systems like GTD and the AF's: to cut down the problem into smaller pieces and/or do them "little and often".
Another way is to extend the time: you fear something less when it seems far away. Therefore, start something early. However, this is EXACTLY the problem with procrastination; it is kinda like saying to stop procrastinating by not procrastinating.
The third way, and I think the least worked on and even the weakness of the AFs, is to cut off escape. And, according to Aquinas, this is the most effective way of them all. As the author of the guide noted:
___"No one has yet been able to give an answer to that one question of Christ: 'What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul, or what return shall a man make for his soul?' There is no answer. There is no choice for a brave man. His courage consists precisely in acknowledging that fact and refusing to tell himself there is a choice in spite of the unceasing flow of sophistries suggested by cowardice. "___
This is the reason why Sun Tzu in his "Art of War" wrote: "Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve."
And as noted, this is the weakness of most task management systems, including the AFs, because these present to the person lots of choices as possible tasks to do, then he chooses the best of them all and does them. Well, the problem is that procrastination FEARS the BEST, and escapes towards the GOOD ENOUGH. The AF's are ruled by rules; procrastination scoffs at the rules of the time with respect to deadlines, do we honestly think it will honor the rules of AF?
And there is a worse problem with the AF's. Have you ever noticed that in using the different AFs, at the end of the day it seems you have done the trivial stuffs only and not the important ones? This is because the AFs use the subconscious, which is ruled not by reason but by the passions, and, according to the commentator to Aquinas,
___"No passion offers any help to the more difficult act of holding on in the face of fear and danger; that is a product of reason alone. To hold to good in spite of danger demands a tranquil soul, a calm willingness to face loss, even to seek loss rather than run; and no passion is a help to tranquillity. It is not by passion that a man weighs his chances and his choices; it is not by passion that his choice falls upon the goodness of his reason, his humanity, his God, a choice that turns an undaunted face to whatever loss, whatever pain, whatever sorrow may be necessary to hold on to the one thing that counts."___
HOWEVER, we must also note that to totally rely on reason alone to will make any system fall flat on its face, for we are all creatures of passion AND reason. Aquinas says that the passions intuit the good, therefore the passions are great advisers...but we should let the passions remain as advisers, and let reason have the final decision.
Therefore, the perfect system to defeat procrastination is one that uses reason, with the help of the passions, to choose what we should do, and it should tell us that what we are about to do is not the best, but the ONE AND ONLY, no alternatives, no escape, no "good enough."
Hahaha, tough order, eh, Mark? ^__^
God bless!
A recent reading of a study guide on St Thomas Aquinas' works enlightened me about this subject. The book I am referring to can be found here: http://www.domcentral.org/farrell/companion/
Aquinas said fear as a passion happens when an evil arises that we want to run away from. An evil here means something that can harm or prevent us from attaining or preserving a good (for example money, comfort, pleasure, life). Now for the evil to aspire fear, then it must have these three characteristics altogether:
__1) The evil must be either barely surmountable or even impossible to conquer. We do not fear a rabbit, but we will certainly run away from a large lion roaring at us.
__2) The evil must be or could be in the immediate future; the more immediate, the worse the fear. That's why we do not fear eating a quadruple decker burger when we are healthy, but those who already survived a heart attack do, for they know another one could happen anytime.
__3) The evil must afford some form of escape, no matter how slim. And the slimmer the possible escape, the worse the fear. Have you noticed how those with terminal illnesses can be very calm and composed when they come to accept their eventual deaths, that there could be no cure, no escape? That's because since they know they cannot escape their eventual death, their fear leaves them.
Note that once one of these are removed, then the whole structure of fear collapses, and we do not fear anymore.
Now I have come to the conclusion that PROCRASTINATION is a kind of fear. Why so?
Isn't it strange that we procrastinate when there is a deadline, and the procrastination gets even worse the nearer we get to the deadline, until we come to a certain point in time when we suddenly go into a flurry of action to beat the deadline? That's pure fear logic for you. Since the deadline is far off you do not fear the deadline so you do not do anything. But as it comes nearer and nearer we come to fear the deadline, and we procrastinate even more, especially if lots of possible distractions as means of escape. And yet we come to the point, so near the deadline, that we realize we cannot escape the responsibility to do something about the deadline, and thus the fear of procrastination disappears, and we work against the clock.
So what is St Thomas Aquinas' solution to the problem? Well, courage is when you attack one of those three requirements of fear, and the most well known and least realized way is the first one, to challenge the size of the evil. "If God be for us, who can go against us?" (Romans 8:31) We also get help and resources to plow through evil, so that we can become bigger than the evil. In procrastination, we find someone to help us, or, even better, for someone to do everything for us. This is also the stratagem of most task management systems like GTD and the AF's: to cut down the problem into smaller pieces and/or do them "little and often".
Another way is to extend the time: you fear something less when it seems far away. Therefore, start something early. However, this is EXACTLY the problem with procrastination; it is kinda like saying to stop procrastinating by not procrastinating.
The third way, and I think the least worked on and even the weakness of the AFs, is to cut off escape. And, according to Aquinas, this is the most effective way of them all. As the author of the guide noted:
___"No one has yet been able to give an answer to that one question of Christ: 'What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul, or what return shall a man make for his soul?' There is no answer. There is no choice for a brave man. His courage consists precisely in acknowledging that fact and refusing to tell himself there is a choice in spite of the unceasing flow of sophistries suggested by cowardice. "___
This is the reason why Sun Tzu in his "Art of War" wrote: "Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve."
And as noted, this is the weakness of most task management systems, including the AFs, because these present to the person lots of choices as possible tasks to do, then he chooses the best of them all and does them. Well, the problem is that procrastination FEARS the BEST, and escapes towards the GOOD ENOUGH. The AF's are ruled by rules; procrastination scoffs at the rules of the time with respect to deadlines, do we honestly think it will honor the rules of AF?
And there is a worse problem with the AF's. Have you ever noticed that in using the different AFs, at the end of the day it seems you have done the trivial stuffs only and not the important ones? This is because the AFs use the subconscious, which is ruled not by reason but by the passions, and, according to the commentator to Aquinas,
___"No passion offers any help to the more difficult act of holding on in the face of fear and danger; that is a product of reason alone. To hold to good in spite of danger demands a tranquil soul, a calm willingness to face loss, even to seek loss rather than run; and no passion is a help to tranquillity. It is not by passion that a man weighs his chances and his choices; it is not by passion that his choice falls upon the goodness of his reason, his humanity, his God, a choice that turns an undaunted face to whatever loss, whatever pain, whatever sorrow may be necessary to hold on to the one thing that counts."___
HOWEVER, we must also note that to totally rely on reason alone to will make any system fall flat on its face, for we are all creatures of passion AND reason. Aquinas says that the passions intuit the good, therefore the passions are great advisers...but we should let the passions remain as advisers, and let reason have the final decision.
Therefore, the perfect system to defeat procrastination is one that uses reason, with the help of the passions, to choose what we should do, and it should tell us that what we are about to do is not the best, but the ONE AND ONLY, no alternatives, no escape, no "good enough."
Hahaha, tough order, eh, Mark? ^__^
God bless!
September 14, 2011 at 0:29 |
nuntym
nuntym
I will give my opinion on your questions.
>>>Whilst I am holding out hope for further improvements to my efficiency with the advent of the Final Version, am I – like most of the rest of us reading this forum – destined to fail in our attempts to maximise the system because we are likely to sabotage our use of it?<<<
Yes.
>>>And if this is the case, then is our eternal quest for the ‘right system’ actually a case of avoiding what we really need to confront: the reason why each of us employs ‘self-sabotaging’ behaviours which stop us from thriving more than we do? <<<Registered Commenter neumatist
The quest for the right system is not a case of avoiding what one needs to confront, it is rather a search for the truth because you are not satisfied with where you are right now and are earnestly looking for the solution.
>>>The third way, and I think the least worked on and even the weakness of the AFs, is to cut off escape. And, according to Aquinas, this is the most effective way of them all. ...
This is the reason why Sun Tzu in his "Art of War" wrote: "Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve." <<< | Registered Commenter nuntym
I completely agree with this. See my post on Components of Success and the link that I posted. I was intrigued by it because it creates the situation where there is no escape. Until that happens I don't think any system will be effective because of self-sabotage. I would be willing to try it using Mark Forster's system as the task to aim for.
>>>Whilst I am holding out hope for further improvements to my efficiency with the advent of the Final Version, am I – like most of the rest of us reading this forum – destined to fail in our attempts to maximise the system because we are likely to sabotage our use of it?<<<
Yes.
>>>And if this is the case, then is our eternal quest for the ‘right system’ actually a case of avoiding what we really need to confront: the reason why each of us employs ‘self-sabotaging’ behaviours which stop us from thriving more than we do? <<<Registered Commenter neumatist
The quest for the right system is not a case of avoiding what one needs to confront, it is rather a search for the truth because you are not satisfied with where you are right now and are earnestly looking for the solution.
>>>The third way, and I think the least worked on and even the weakness of the AFs, is to cut off escape. And, according to Aquinas, this is the most effective way of them all. ...
This is the reason why Sun Tzu in his "Art of War" wrote: "Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve." <<< | Registered Commenter nuntym
I completely agree with this. See my post on Components of Success and the link that I posted. I was intrigued by it because it creates the situation where there is no escape. Until that happens I don't think any system will be effective because of self-sabotage. I would be willing to try it using Mark Forster's system as the task to aim for.
September 14, 2011 at 1:16 |
Zeloc
Zeloc
Nuntym, excellent essay there! Of 1000 words, I only find a handful to disagree with. Procrastination is driven by fear, but not usually of the distant deadline. It's fear is the immediate "pain" of the proposed time of working, or the consequential loss of enjoyment doing something else.
Everything else, right on!
Everything else, right on!
September 14, 2011 at 1:36 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
nuntym:
<< Therefore, the perfect system to defeat procrastination is one that uses reason, with the help of the passions, to choose what we should do, and it should tell us that what we are about to do is not the best, but the ONE AND ONLY, no alternatives, no escape, no "good enough."
<< Hahaha, tough order, eh, Mark? ^__^ >>
You've given a pretty good description of the new system there.
<< Therefore, the perfect system to defeat procrastination is one that uses reason, with the help of the passions, to choose what we should do, and it should tell us that what we are about to do is not the best, but the ONE AND ONLY, no alternatives, no escape, no "good enough."
<< Hahaha, tough order, eh, Mark? ^__^ >>
You've given a pretty good description of the new system there.
September 14, 2011 at 1:40 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
I agree with you - systems can help you to go over procrastination, balance rational and emotional aspects etc. That is what I meant by "tricks". But what I wanted to say was that these are only systems. If we do not obey the rules, do not have clear vision in mind, do not aim our tasks to meaning and importance in our life etc. we cannot blame system for failing to do that. It is like with real "personal assistant" - metaphor I like. We can have better assistant - she can remind us every two hours what to do, what is important, she can "motivate" us, trick us, tell us only relevant things and hide irrelevant. We can have also slightly worse assistant - who forget to tell us sometimes, is moody, who mistakes what is relevant. But still we can be successful and effective. And - what is most important - when we do not want to or do not have our own inner priorities, even the top assistant will not persuade us at all... So in my opinion, sometimes it is better to look into ourselves than to fire next personal assistant :-) (But as anybody on this forum, I am eagerly waiting for your new system/your new personal assistant...)
I agree with you - systems can help you to go over procrastination, balance rational and emotional aspects etc. That is what I meant by "tricks". But what I wanted to say was that these are only systems. If we do not obey the rules, do not have clear vision in mind, do not aim our tasks to meaning and importance in our life etc. we cannot blame system for failing to do that. It is like with real "personal assistant" - metaphor I like. We can have better assistant - she can remind us every two hours what to do, what is important, she can "motivate" us, trick us, tell us only relevant things and hide irrelevant. We can have also slightly worse assistant - who forget to tell us sometimes, is moody, who mistakes what is relevant. But still we can be successful and effective. And - what is most important - when we do not want to or do not have our own inner priorities, even the top assistant will not persuade us at all... So in my opinion, sometimes it is better to look into ourselves than to fire next personal assistant :-) (But as anybody on this forum, I am eagerly waiting for your new system/your new personal assistant...)
September 14, 2011 at 7:10 |
Daneb
Daneb
+JMJ+
@Mark: Let's hope it delivers its promises ^___^
God bless!
@Mark: Let's hope it delivers its promises ^___^
God bless!
September 14, 2011 at 7:27 |
nuntym
nuntym
Thanks to all for the food for thought …
And in response, here are several replies /additions:
In relation to the ‘Physician, heal thyself’: In most cases, the aim is to help a client to eventually situate themselves with increasing ease between two opposing factors – on the one hand, they need to accept the reality of their own limitations, circumstances and potential; and on the other hand, they need to simultaneously develop an increased insight into the historical factors which have determined (and which continue to determine) their perception of their limitations and potential. This insight is then used to bring about realistic change to their limits and potential, which in turn should have a positive impact on their understanding and view of themselves.
From my own particular school of thought, self-sabotaging behaviours invariably have their origins in our early life experiences. If, for example, I experienced primary care givers who didn’t provide me with good examples of either looking after themselves or of looking after me (eg. poor diet, erratic sleep patterns, shouting in response to stress … or perhaps more disturbed behaviours such as alcohol misuse etc.) then I am more likely to develop habits which reflect a failure to look after myself and those around me. As I mentioned in my first post, on a conscious and practical level, this will often manifest itself in the same obvious behaviours (ie. repeating the poor diet, etc.), but it will also manifest itself in more subtle and less conscious behaviours, such as repeatedly forgetting to take medication, or – in my own case – persistently delaying the decision to discharge clients because I’m fearful they might perceive the therapy to have been a failure, and one way of avoiding this failure is continuing to delay the point at which the measure of success/failure is possible.
The ‘healing’ therefore, is the improved insight (and the ability/courage to act upon it). I’ve known for a long time that I wasn’t good at discharging clients, but I previously thought this was merely because I enjoyed the engagement stage more than the ending phase; and I didn’t realise there was something more going on beneath the surface.
So I wonder what else goes on for each of us beneath the surface which so often leads us to ‘sabotage’ a good time management system. Alan made the point that a system will fail if one ‘neglects the system’. I wonder if our neglect of a system (which we know will be good for us) is actually a by-product of our self-sabotaging acts whereby the underlying driver is a subtle and unwitting self-neglect (as opposed to mere system-neglect)?
And if that’s true, then I fear that unless the historical (and more recent) causes of the self-neglect/self-sabotaging are confronted, then we will all continue on our quest for the perfect time management system because, we will – at a deeper level – always self-sabotage (regardless of how ingenious the system is, and regardless of its inbuilt design to counteract our self-sabotaging behaviours)?
All that said, the more a time management system is specifically designed to counteract our self-sabotaging behaviours, the better equipped we become to battle against these same behaviours (even if they remain a thorn in our flesh – to end with the Apostle).
So – as always – all strength, wisdom and gratitude to Mark.
Just thinking aloud.
And in response, here are several replies /additions:
In relation to the ‘Physician, heal thyself’: In most cases, the aim is to help a client to eventually situate themselves with increasing ease between two opposing factors – on the one hand, they need to accept the reality of their own limitations, circumstances and potential; and on the other hand, they need to simultaneously develop an increased insight into the historical factors which have determined (and which continue to determine) their perception of their limitations and potential. This insight is then used to bring about realistic change to their limits and potential, which in turn should have a positive impact on their understanding and view of themselves.
From my own particular school of thought, self-sabotaging behaviours invariably have their origins in our early life experiences. If, for example, I experienced primary care givers who didn’t provide me with good examples of either looking after themselves or of looking after me (eg. poor diet, erratic sleep patterns, shouting in response to stress … or perhaps more disturbed behaviours such as alcohol misuse etc.) then I am more likely to develop habits which reflect a failure to look after myself and those around me. As I mentioned in my first post, on a conscious and practical level, this will often manifest itself in the same obvious behaviours (ie. repeating the poor diet, etc.), but it will also manifest itself in more subtle and less conscious behaviours, such as repeatedly forgetting to take medication, or – in my own case – persistently delaying the decision to discharge clients because I’m fearful they might perceive the therapy to have been a failure, and one way of avoiding this failure is continuing to delay the point at which the measure of success/failure is possible.
The ‘healing’ therefore, is the improved insight (and the ability/courage to act upon it). I’ve known for a long time that I wasn’t good at discharging clients, but I previously thought this was merely because I enjoyed the engagement stage more than the ending phase; and I didn’t realise there was something more going on beneath the surface.
So I wonder what else goes on for each of us beneath the surface which so often leads us to ‘sabotage’ a good time management system. Alan made the point that a system will fail if one ‘neglects the system’. I wonder if our neglect of a system (which we know will be good for us) is actually a by-product of our self-sabotaging acts whereby the underlying driver is a subtle and unwitting self-neglect (as opposed to mere system-neglect)?
And if that’s true, then I fear that unless the historical (and more recent) causes of the self-neglect/self-sabotaging are confronted, then we will all continue on our quest for the perfect time management system because, we will – at a deeper level – always self-sabotage (regardless of how ingenious the system is, and regardless of its inbuilt design to counteract our self-sabotaging behaviours)?
All that said, the more a time management system is specifically designed to counteract our self-sabotaging behaviours, the better equipped we become to battle against these same behaviours (even if they remain a thorn in our flesh – to end with the Apostle).
So – as always – all strength, wisdom and gratitude to Mark.
Just thinking aloud.
September 14, 2011 at 22:34 |
neumatist
neumatist
neumatist:
I think another strong factor in all this is structure. I've remarked over the years that people will tend to behave differently according to what circumstances they are in. So to take an everyday example, people often behave quite differently at home to the way they behave at work. It can sometimes be very disconcerting to a spouse or other family member, who is used to person's behaviour at home, should they see that person at work because they seem to be a completely different person. Another example: regular readers of this Forum will have noticed how often people say that they are perfectly organised at work but totally disorganised at home (or vice versa).
The key is actually the structure. We all tend to take the path of least resistance, and what that path of least resistance is depends entirely on the structures surrounding us. In an office environment where structures tend to be relatively rigid a person will behave one way. In a home environment where structures are relatively relaxed a person will behave in another way. In the same way, working in an office is very different from working at home.
What I'm working up to saying is that all time management systems are attempts to provide structure. The better that structure is the better the system will guide the person using it. In other words the system should be making the path of least resistance lead in the right direction.
The phenomenon of sabotaging the system which you are reporting is really a case of the system failing to provide a path of least resistance which goes in the right direction. In fact what is happening is that because of some failure in the system the path of least resistance is to abandon the system.
I think another strong factor in all this is structure. I've remarked over the years that people will tend to behave differently according to what circumstances they are in. So to take an everyday example, people often behave quite differently at home to the way they behave at work. It can sometimes be very disconcerting to a spouse or other family member, who is used to person's behaviour at home, should they see that person at work because they seem to be a completely different person. Another example: regular readers of this Forum will have noticed how often people say that they are perfectly organised at work but totally disorganised at home (or vice versa).
The key is actually the structure. We all tend to take the path of least resistance, and what that path of least resistance is depends entirely on the structures surrounding us. In an office environment where structures tend to be relatively rigid a person will behave one way. In a home environment where structures are relatively relaxed a person will behave in another way. In the same way, working in an office is very different from working at home.
What I'm working up to saying is that all time management systems are attempts to provide structure. The better that structure is the better the system will guide the person using it. In other words the system should be making the path of least resistance lead in the right direction.
The phenomenon of sabotaging the system which you are reporting is really a case of the system failing to provide a path of least resistance which goes in the right direction. In fact what is happening is that because of some failure in the system the path of least resistance is to abandon the system.
September 14, 2011 at 22:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I couldn't agree more that 'structure' plays a critical role in our use of time; and I'd equally agree that a good time management system is one which provides a structure which counteracts our tendency to take the path of least resistance.
Where we might differ (and this might be my misunderstanding of your argument, or merely my own lesser understanding of the wider argument) is that I believe there are two levels which drive our tendency to take the path of least resistance:
There is a conscious or semi-conscious level which is quickly apparent to us with little reflection (eg. it's easier to let a 10 minute 'internet break' from work quickly become a 45 minute break, rather than get back to the reports that need writing - and this is primarily because we allow ourselves to become distracted by the more interesting task).
And then there is a more subtle and less conscious level which is not apparent unless considerable reflection is taken (eg. why have we developed the tendency to be more easily distracted than others? what does this say about us and what might we be able to do about this to improve this tendency?).
Again, I think a good time management system can go a long way to creating a structure which can improve one's efficiency (such as, in this example, minimising the risk of allowing oneself to become easily distracted), but I fear that time management systems are intrinsically limited unless they are set in the context of more fundamental change.
In search for an analogy, you may want to build a large brick house upon the plot of land where your ageing wooden house once stood; and this would certainly be an improvement. However, unless you have foundations which can support an even larger house, then you're actually at risk of building something that cannot be supported and is going to collapse. It's the foundations which need the work if you really want to build something impressive, not the actual structure of the house.
To stick with the biblical theme, if you build your house on the sand ...
Where we might differ (and this might be my misunderstanding of your argument, or merely my own lesser understanding of the wider argument) is that I believe there are two levels which drive our tendency to take the path of least resistance:
There is a conscious or semi-conscious level which is quickly apparent to us with little reflection (eg. it's easier to let a 10 minute 'internet break' from work quickly become a 45 minute break, rather than get back to the reports that need writing - and this is primarily because we allow ourselves to become distracted by the more interesting task).
And then there is a more subtle and less conscious level which is not apparent unless considerable reflection is taken (eg. why have we developed the tendency to be more easily distracted than others? what does this say about us and what might we be able to do about this to improve this tendency?).
Again, I think a good time management system can go a long way to creating a structure which can improve one's efficiency (such as, in this example, minimising the risk of allowing oneself to become easily distracted), but I fear that time management systems are intrinsically limited unless they are set in the context of more fundamental change.
In search for an analogy, you may want to build a large brick house upon the plot of land where your ageing wooden house once stood; and this would certainly be an improvement. However, unless you have foundations which can support an even larger house, then you're actually at risk of building something that cannot be supported and is going to collapse. It's the foundations which need the work if you really want to build something impressive, not the actual structure of the house.
To stick with the biblical theme, if you build your house on the sand ...
September 15, 2011 at 22:40 |
neumatist
neumatist
neumatist:
<< I'd equally agree that a good time management system is one which provides a structure which counteracts our tendency to take the path of least resistance.>>
No, you've misunderstood me. A good time management system doesn't _counteract_ our tendency to take the path of least resistance. It _provides_ a path of least resistance for us to take.
I've given the example before of the difference between a swamp and a river. Both consist of water. In the case of the swamp the path of least resistance is to stay where it is. In the case of a river the path of least resistance is to head towards the sea.
Both consist of water being water. The difference is in the structure surrounding the water.
<< I'd equally agree that a good time management system is one which provides a structure which counteracts our tendency to take the path of least resistance.>>
No, you've misunderstood me. A good time management system doesn't _counteract_ our tendency to take the path of least resistance. It _provides_ a path of least resistance for us to take.
I've given the example before of the difference between a swamp and a river. Both consist of water. In the case of the swamp the path of least resistance is to stay where it is. In the case of a river the path of least resistance is to head towards the sea.
Both consist of water being water. The difference is in the structure surrounding the water.
September 16, 2011 at 0:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
neumatist:
I understand your understanding of two levels of competing with structure. However, from my point of thinking about people, you take too psychoanalyst/historic approach: that type - we resist or ignore TM rules, because we ignored some parent rules when we were children etc etc. It can be of course true from developmental perspective, at least partly. But it is not so important for that person situation at the moment. What he/she needs to find is HIS/HER OWN way, how to work effectively, how to reach the goals, how to be in balance and how and to what matter put structure on himself etc, irrespective on the fact if he/she was obedient, gifted, spoiled, or ADHD child.
I fully agree with Mark metaphor about river. Everybody has different "water" inside. Somebody needs to build a dam and regulated water channel (very structured people), somebody needs only free-flowing to the sea (goal) - and they both need different level of structure (banks, regulations of the flow...). E.g. forcing van Gogh or Mozart to use micromanaging GTD would stem probably in anything else than in that amount of work they did... Another example is when somebody lives in so structured environment, that his additional need for inner structure rules is thus pretty low (because everything is already regulated externally), so his TM can be really simple.
Opposite issue is "house without foundations" as you wrote. That is of course true and you cannot build much on that. But these foundations are in my opinion things which must be built by other methods than by plain time management systems (things like vision, meaning, life orientation, spiritual growth, finding your passions and call, knowledge of yourself etc.)
I understand your understanding of two levels of competing with structure. However, from my point of thinking about people, you take too psychoanalyst/historic approach: that type - we resist or ignore TM rules, because we ignored some parent rules when we were children etc etc. It can be of course true from developmental perspective, at least partly. But it is not so important for that person situation at the moment. What he/she needs to find is HIS/HER OWN way, how to work effectively, how to reach the goals, how to be in balance and how and to what matter put structure on himself etc, irrespective on the fact if he/she was obedient, gifted, spoiled, or ADHD child.
I fully agree with Mark metaphor about river. Everybody has different "water" inside. Somebody needs to build a dam and regulated water channel (very structured people), somebody needs only free-flowing to the sea (goal) - and they both need different level of structure (banks, regulations of the flow...). E.g. forcing van Gogh or Mozart to use micromanaging GTD would stem probably in anything else than in that amount of work they did... Another example is when somebody lives in so structured environment, that his additional need for inner structure rules is thus pretty low (because everything is already regulated externally), so his TM can be really simple.
Opposite issue is "house without foundations" as you wrote. That is of course true and you cannot build much on that. But these foundations are in my opinion things which must be built by other methods than by plain time management systems (things like vision, meaning, life orientation, spiritual growth, finding your passions and call, knowledge of yourself etc.)
September 16, 2011 at 20:57 |
Daneb
Daneb
Daneb:
<< I fully agree with Mark metaphor about river. Everybody has different "water" inside. >>
Well no actually. The point of the metaphor is that the water is exactly the same water in both the swamp and the river.
<< I fully agree with Mark metaphor about river. Everybody has different "water" inside. >>
Well no actually. The point of the metaphor is that the water is exactly the same water in both the swamp and the river.
September 16, 2011 at 21:33 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Let me try. A system, broadly defined, processes input to produce output. Different systems produce differing results for the same input.
People are systems. Their environment is the input.
Their behavior follows the psychological easiest course in response to their input.
Mark proposes time management systems as a tool used by people. The system alters behavior by adapting the flow of information by which people decide what to do. The new flow pattern should make right choices ( http://www.markforster.net/blog/2009/6/3/acting-in-ones-own-best-interests.html ) easier.
People are systems. Their environment is the input.
Their behavior follows the psychological easiest course in response to their input.
Mark proposes time management systems as a tool used by people. The system alters behavior by adapting the flow of information by which people decide what to do. The new flow pattern should make right choices ( http://www.markforster.net/blog/2009/6/3/acting-in-ones-own-best-interests.html ) easier.
September 16, 2011 at 23:24 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Some alternative ways of putting it:
If you're not progressing towards your goals, it's not because you're an inadequate person - it's because the way your life is structured is leading you away from them.
Structure your life so that it's easier to do the right thing than the wrong thing.
If things are going wrong, don't spend time blaming yourself - strengthen the structure.
If you're not progressing towards your goals, it's not because you're an inadequate person - it's because the way your life is structured is leading you away from them.
Structure your life so that it's easier to do the right thing than the wrong thing.
If things are going wrong, don't spend time blaming yourself - strengthen the structure.
September 16, 2011 at 23:35 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think we’ve become somewhat entangled in our metaphors here.
That said, seeing that a river is fluid and changeable, I can see why it is a more effective metaphor in this context than my earlier 'house/foundations'.
And apologies for my earlier misunderstanding. Yes, there is an important difference between a system which counteracts the path of least resistance, and a system which actually is that path of least resistance. If anything, this difference is what I find so enticing with the AF/DWM/SF/FV systems and what sets them apart as distinctive.
<< The phenomenon of sabotaging the system which you are reporting is really a case of the system failing to provide a path of least resistance which goes in the right direction. In fact what is happening is that because of some failure in the system the path of least resistance is to abandon the system. >>
<< If things are going wrong, don't spend time blaming yourself - strengthen the structure. >>
For the most part, I agree with these two statements; but perhaps we differ on an additional caveat:
Even when the structure is a good one (ie. provides the path of least resistance), any given individual has the subtle and unconsciously driven potential to choose a path of greater resistance. To keep to the river metaphor, even when the surrounding structures are built so that the river naturally leads to the sea, we occasionally choose to tread water or even swim upstream for a period of time.
On these occasions, strengthening the structure will inevitably help lead us back towards the sea (and so should therefore be encouraged), but if we are to have a better chance of avoiding another 'treading water' episode further downstream, then perhaps we need to look within ourselves as well as strengthening the structure?
<< If things are going wrong, don't spend time blaming yourself - strengthen the structure. >>
In response, then: Yes, strengthen the structure; but concurrently take the time to explore and revise how you have previously responded to the structure up until this point.
That said, seeing that a river is fluid and changeable, I can see why it is a more effective metaphor in this context than my earlier 'house/foundations'.
And apologies for my earlier misunderstanding. Yes, there is an important difference between a system which counteracts the path of least resistance, and a system which actually is that path of least resistance. If anything, this difference is what I find so enticing with the AF/DWM/SF/FV systems and what sets them apart as distinctive.
<< The phenomenon of sabotaging the system which you are reporting is really a case of the system failing to provide a path of least resistance which goes in the right direction. In fact what is happening is that because of some failure in the system the path of least resistance is to abandon the system. >>
<< If things are going wrong, don't spend time blaming yourself - strengthen the structure. >>
For the most part, I agree with these two statements; but perhaps we differ on an additional caveat:
Even when the structure is a good one (ie. provides the path of least resistance), any given individual has the subtle and unconsciously driven potential to choose a path of greater resistance. To keep to the river metaphor, even when the surrounding structures are built so that the river naturally leads to the sea, we occasionally choose to tread water or even swim upstream for a period of time.
On these occasions, strengthening the structure will inevitably help lead us back towards the sea (and so should therefore be encouraged), but if we are to have a better chance of avoiding another 'treading water' episode further downstream, then perhaps we need to look within ourselves as well as strengthening the structure?
<< If things are going wrong, don't spend time blaming yourself - strengthen the structure. >>
In response, then: Yes, strengthen the structure; but concurrently take the time to explore and revise how you have previously responded to the structure up until this point.
September 17, 2011 at 13:22 |
neumatist
neumatist
+JMJ+
I hadn't able to thank Zeloc and Alan for their kind and positive criticisms for my long post earlier, so let me first address that: Thank you! ^___^
Since I last posted that, I found a small way of living that ideal, of giving yourself no excuse, option, nor escape from doing what you are supposed to do, and it is just a question upon looking at your task list: "What is my duty now as a ________?"
It is apparent that the requirement to asking this question is to have a firm grasp on your own identity, on who you really are and what your responsibilities. And if you do have that requirement, then asking this question will be very powerful, because it puts you and what principles you hold on to on the line, and thus to escape this task is akin to putting dirt on your own name. It is MUCH more powerful than just asking "Which task I am psychologically ready to do?" which, in my experience (sorry Mark F.), is just an excuse to be indecisive.
Now the blank there is for which identity you are going to use. Yes, we all have multiple identities, for (as an example), I am a human person, a man, a Christian, a patient technician, a friend, a fiance, and a son. You could also use, for example, your family name if your family has a motto or ideal. OR (if you are like me) I just often ask "What is my duty now?" without the qualifier, as I have a pretty good grip on my own identity ^___^
God bless.
I hadn't able to thank Zeloc and Alan for their kind and positive criticisms for my long post earlier, so let me first address that: Thank you! ^___^
Since I last posted that, I found a small way of living that ideal, of giving yourself no excuse, option, nor escape from doing what you are supposed to do, and it is just a question upon looking at your task list: "What is my duty now as a ________?"
It is apparent that the requirement to asking this question is to have a firm grasp on your own identity, on who you really are and what your responsibilities. And if you do have that requirement, then asking this question will be very powerful, because it puts you and what principles you hold on to on the line, and thus to escape this task is akin to putting dirt on your own name. It is MUCH more powerful than just asking "Which task I am psychologically ready to do?" which, in my experience (sorry Mark F.), is just an excuse to be indecisive.
Now the blank there is for which identity you are going to use. Yes, we all have multiple identities, for (as an example), I am a human person, a man, a Christian, a patient technician, a friend, a fiance, and a son. You could also use, for example, your family name if your family has a motto or ideal. OR (if you are like me) I just often ask "What is my duty now?" without the qualifier, as I have a pretty good grip on my own identity ^___^
God bless.
September 18, 2011 at 1:55 |
nuntym
nuntym
+JMJ+
About the river metaphor, I find that, as long as you know what you are doing is right, then all your energies, resources, and everything else will flow along. It is the difference between cutting a channel through the ground for the river to flow through, and looking for a high place to release the water and let it cut its own channel ^___^
God bless!
About the river metaphor, I find that, as long as you know what you are doing is right, then all your energies, resources, and everything else will flow along. It is the difference between cutting a channel through the ground for the river to flow through, and looking for a high place to release the water and let it cut its own channel ^___^
God bless!
September 18, 2011 at 2:00 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
<< it is just a question upon looking at your task list: "What is my duty now as a ________? >>
This is a road I have been down often (though not with that exact question admittedly). The trouble with it is that I have never found that the clarity one gets at the beginning lasts very long. Before long one either finds that the answer is something one is just not prepared to do, or alternatively one becomes aware that the answers one is getting have become just routine, trivial things endlessly repeated.
So my experience has been that this type of question is a very good thing to use occasionally, but overuse will dull its edge.
<< it is just a question upon looking at your task list: "What is my duty now as a ________? >>
This is a road I have been down often (though not with that exact question admittedly). The trouble with it is that I have never found that the clarity one gets at the beginning lasts very long. Before long one either finds that the answer is something one is just not prepared to do, or alternatively one becomes aware that the answers one is getting have become just routine, trivial things endlessly repeated.
So my experience has been that this type of question is a very good thing to use occasionally, but overuse will dull its edge.
September 18, 2011 at 8:49 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym:
<< It is the difference between cutting a channel through the ground for the river to flow through, and looking for a high place to release the water and let it cut its own channel >>
But don't forget that an unchannelled water course is how swamps are formed.
<< It is the difference between cutting a channel through the ground for the river to flow through, and looking for a high place to release the water and let it cut its own channel >>
But don't forget that an unchannelled water course is how swamps are formed.
September 18, 2011 at 8:50 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
+JMJ+
@Mark: <<This is a road I have been down often (though not with that exact question admittedly). The trouble with it is that I have never found that the clarity one gets at the beginning lasts very long. Before long one either finds that the answer is something one is just not prepared to do, or alternatively one becomes aware that the answers one is getting have become just routine, trivial things endlessly repeated.
So my experience has been that this type of question is a very good thing to use occasionally, but overuse will dull its edge.>>
I don't know, Mark. From what I am seeing as I use it, I just need to re-identify myself.
For example, if I find myself bogging down, I just take a deep breath, close my eyes, and ask myself, without looking at my list, "Now, what is my duty?" And I realize my duty is to myself: I am a human being who needs rest sometimes, and therefore I go, making the needed mark on my list, then sometimes looking at my list for an idea to do, sometimes doing whatever. And at the end of the rest time I then ask myself, "Now, what is my duty?" and what usually comes back is, "Glory," upon which I look into my list again, looking for glory.
----
<<But don't forget that an unchannelled water course is how swamps are formed. >>
Not when the slope is steep enough and the starting point high enough ^___^
But of course when you get to a flat piece of land you channel the water until you get to another big drop.
God bless!
@Mark: <<This is a road I have been down often (though not with that exact question admittedly). The trouble with it is that I have never found that the clarity one gets at the beginning lasts very long. Before long one either finds that the answer is something one is just not prepared to do, or alternatively one becomes aware that the answers one is getting have become just routine, trivial things endlessly repeated.
So my experience has been that this type of question is a very good thing to use occasionally, but overuse will dull its edge.>>
I don't know, Mark. From what I am seeing as I use it, I just need to re-identify myself.
For example, if I find myself bogging down, I just take a deep breath, close my eyes, and ask myself, without looking at my list, "Now, what is my duty?" And I realize my duty is to myself: I am a human being who needs rest sometimes, and therefore I go, making the needed mark on my list, then sometimes looking at my list for an idea to do, sometimes doing whatever. And at the end of the rest time I then ask myself, "Now, what is my duty?" and what usually comes back is, "Glory," upon which I look into my list again, looking for glory.
----
<<But don't forget that an unchannelled water course is how swamps are formed. >>
Not when the slope is steep enough and the starting point high enough ^___^
But of course when you get to a flat piece of land you channel the water until you get to another big drop.
God bless!
September 18, 2011 at 9:11 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
Well, I sincerely hope it works better for you than it does for me!
AMDG
Well, I sincerely hope it works better for you than it does for me!
AMDG
September 18, 2011 at 9:47 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
+JMJ+
Thanks! And you DID get the gist of what I was hinting at!
Dang Mark, you're so smart!
AMDG
Thanks! And you DID get the gist of what I was hinting at!
Dang Mark, you're so smart!
AMDG
September 18, 2011 at 15:42 |
nuntym
nuntym
>>>
I hadn't able to thank Zeloc and Alan for their kind and positive criticisms for my long post earlier, so let me first address that: Thank you! ^___^
Since I last posted that, I found a small way of living that ideal, of giving yourself no excuse, option, nor escape from doing what you are supposed to do, and it is just a question upon looking at your task list: "What is my duty now as a ________?"
It is apparent that the requirement to asking this question is to have a firm grasp on your own identity, on who you really are and what your responsibilities. And if you do have that requirement, then asking this question will be very powerful, because it puts you and what principles you hold on to on the line, and thus to escape this task is akin to putting dirt on your own name. It is MUCH more powerful than just asking "Which task I am psychologically ready to do?" which, in my experience (sorry Mark F.), is just an excuse to be indecisive.
Now the blank there is for which identity you are going to use. Yes, we all have multiple identities, for (as an example), I am a human person, a man, a Christian, a patient technician, a friend, a fiance, and a son. You could also use, for example, your family name if your family has a motto or ideal. OR (if you are like me) I just often ask "What is my duty now?" without the qualifier, as I have a pretty good grip on my own identity ^___^
God bless. <<< nuntym
Nuntym, thanks for the thanks, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are on what I posted. Your idea is interesting, but I feel similar to Mark in that I think it might become pedestrian and am not sure that it will last.
I personally believe that without having the situation you described, which is to cut off all chance of failure, success will not be obtained, no matter how good the system is, because no system can produce this quality. In addition, in most situations and for most goals it would seem this quality cannot be produced, but the next best alternative is to be accountable to another person, which creates the point of no return, and then aim for a task or a system. I think that having accountability to another person is tantamount to what you have described.
I hadn't able to thank Zeloc and Alan for their kind and positive criticisms for my long post earlier, so let me first address that: Thank you! ^___^
Since I last posted that, I found a small way of living that ideal, of giving yourself no excuse, option, nor escape from doing what you are supposed to do, and it is just a question upon looking at your task list: "What is my duty now as a ________?"
It is apparent that the requirement to asking this question is to have a firm grasp on your own identity, on who you really are and what your responsibilities. And if you do have that requirement, then asking this question will be very powerful, because it puts you and what principles you hold on to on the line, and thus to escape this task is akin to putting dirt on your own name. It is MUCH more powerful than just asking "Which task I am psychologically ready to do?" which, in my experience (sorry Mark F.), is just an excuse to be indecisive.
Now the blank there is for which identity you are going to use. Yes, we all have multiple identities, for (as an example), I am a human person, a man, a Christian, a patient technician, a friend, a fiance, and a son. You could also use, for example, your family name if your family has a motto or ideal. OR (if you are like me) I just often ask "What is my duty now?" without the qualifier, as I have a pretty good grip on my own identity ^___^
God bless. <<< nuntym
Nuntym, thanks for the thanks, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are on what I posted. Your idea is interesting, but I feel similar to Mark in that I think it might become pedestrian and am not sure that it will last.
I personally believe that without having the situation you described, which is to cut off all chance of failure, success will not be obtained, no matter how good the system is, because no system can produce this quality. In addition, in most situations and for most goals it would seem this quality cannot be produced, but the next best alternative is to be accountable to another person, which creates the point of no return, and then aim for a task or a system. I think that having accountability to another person is tantamount to what you have described.
September 21, 2011 at 2:21 |
Zeloc
Zeloc
+JMJ+
Sorry Zeloc for the absence, the last week had been quite hectic for me.
<<Nuntym, thanks for the thanks, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are on what I posted. >>
Yes, I think an accountability group is the best way to put new good habits on fast. It works for Alcoholics Anonymous and other similar programs for different kinds of addictions, so I cannot see why having such for getting new time management habits will not work.
Go for it! ^___^
<<Your idea is interesting, but I feel similar to Mark in that I think it might become pedestrian and am not sure that it will last.>>
It is not that it will not last, but I have found it is quite slow and sometimes frustrating. Nevertheless I have persevered with it because I have quite a good vision of who am I:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 908: "That man is rightly called a king who makes his own body an obedient subject and, by governing himself with suitable rigor, refuses to let his passions breed rebellion in his soul, for he exercises a kind of royal power over himself. And because he knows how to rule his own person as king, so too does he sit as its judge. He will not let himself be imprisoned by sin, or thrown headlong into wickedness." http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/908.htm
Do you not know? We are Princes of the Universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEJ8lpCQbyw
And the thing is, if we do not become kings and lord over our own selves, then the Lord cannot be our God, for
__"On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." Revelations 19:16
God bless.
Sorry Zeloc for the absence, the last week had been quite hectic for me.
<<Nuntym, thanks for the thanks, but I'm wondering what your thoughts are on what I posted. >>
Yes, I think an accountability group is the best way to put new good habits on fast. It works for Alcoholics Anonymous and other similar programs for different kinds of addictions, so I cannot see why having such for getting new time management habits will not work.
Go for it! ^___^
<<Your idea is interesting, but I feel similar to Mark in that I think it might become pedestrian and am not sure that it will last.>>
It is not that it will not last, but I have found it is quite slow and sometimes frustrating. Nevertheless I have persevered with it because I have quite a good vision of who am I:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 908: "That man is rightly called a king who makes his own body an obedient subject and, by governing himself with suitable rigor, refuses to let his passions breed rebellion in his soul, for he exercises a kind of royal power over himself. And because he knows how to rule his own person as king, so too does he sit as its judge. He will not let himself be imprisoned by sin, or thrown headlong into wickedness." http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/908.htm
Do you not know? We are Princes of the Universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEJ8lpCQbyw
And the thing is, if we do not become kings and lord over our own selves, then the Lord cannot be our God, for
__"On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." Revelations 19:16
God bless.
September 26, 2011 at 15:48 |
nuntym
nuntym
Interesting, and I kind of sort of agree. But I'll contradict the last claim: Being king of kings doesn't preclude God from being also king of peasants.
Now as for Procrastinators Anonymous, that's a dubious proposition. I guess it would have to be "recovering procrastinators" who organize it, but then it will be hard to get people to join. They'd all put it off! :-) If you could get people together, I bet then it may work.
Now as for Procrastinators Anonymous, that's a dubious proposition. I guess it would have to be "recovering procrastinators" who organize it, but then it will be hard to get people to join. They'd all put it off! :-) If you could get people together, I bet then it may work.
September 26, 2011 at 17:24 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Maybe the work of B J Fogg would add insights: http://behaviormodel.org/
he claims behaviour change comes when there is high motivation, high simplicity and ease of taking action, with the presence of a "trigger"
It's all the rage since the "Nudge" theories of influencing behaviour became popular
he claims behaviour change comes when there is high motivation, high simplicity and ease of taking action, with the presence of a "trigger"
It's all the rage since the "Nudge" theories of influencing behaviour became popular
September 26, 2011 at 20:15 |
michael
michael
Re: self-sabotage
perhaps a paradoxical intention added as a repeating task (http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/eklonsky-/division12/treatments/insomnia_paradoxical.html)
eg "abandon time management" or "stop using autofocus" as a daily task
The theory is that "the act of trying to directly control a fear or compulsion triggers a type of anticipatory anxiety which actually has the effect of bolstering the fear or compulsion. "
perhaps a paradoxical intention added as a repeating task (http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/eklonsky-/division12/treatments/insomnia_paradoxical.html)
eg "abandon time management" or "stop using autofocus" as a daily task
The theory is that "the act of trying to directly control a fear or compulsion triggers a type of anticipatory anxiety which actually has the effect of bolstering the fear or compulsion. "
September 26, 2011 at 22:58 |
michael
michael
+JMJ+
@Alan: Of course the Lord is king of peasants too! But the point is, even peasants are lords and kings of themselves, and to forfeit their kingship is to forfeit the Kingdom to Come: "Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much....You wicked and slothful servant! " Matthew 25:21,23,26
<<Now as for Procrastinators Anonymous...>>
Now that you worded it THAT way, I am forced to agree with you!
God bless.
@Alan: Of course the Lord is king of peasants too! But the point is, even peasants are lords and kings of themselves, and to forfeit their kingship is to forfeit the Kingdom to Come: "Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much....You wicked and slothful servant! " Matthew 25:21,23,26
<<Now as for Procrastinators Anonymous...>>
Now that you worded it THAT way, I am forced to agree with you!
God bless.
September 27, 2011 at 4:19 |
nuntym
nuntym
September 27, 2011 at 12:50 |
Nicole
Nicole
This is interesting, a magic bullet for procrastination:
"I should create an association - didn't matter what it was - but whenever I sat down to work I should do this thing. For example, whenever I sat down to work I might wear a particular shirt. She said when she sat down to write she always put a particular barrette in her hair. Somehow doing this would put you in "the zone" and you'd magically start working. This made no sense to me at all - until, by accident, I experienced it."
http://procrastinators-anonymous.org/node/3036
"I should create an association - didn't matter what it was - but whenever I sat down to work I should do this thing. For example, whenever I sat down to work I might wear a particular shirt. She said when she sat down to write she always put a particular barrette in her hair. Somehow doing this would put you in "the zone" and you'd magically start working. This made no sense to me at all - until, by accident, I experienced it."
http://procrastinators-anonymous.org/node/3036
September 27, 2011 at 22:34 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I read the same thing. I think the Milkdrop viz for Winamp might be mine. There was also something on that site about how procrastinators tend to work in long, uninterrupted spurts. ("Time bingeing?") I definitely see that in myself, expect it for myself, and use it as an excuse not to start... "I need four hours to devote to that, but I have a meeting in two."
September 28, 2011 at 15:21 |
jFenter
jFenter
<< http://procrastinators-anonymous.org/node/3036 >>
This reminds me of an old Ally McBeal episode in which her therapist tells her that Ally needs a personal anthem that she could sing in her head to get her going again when she is down and depressed.
It went:
I've been down this road
Walking the line that's painted by pride
And i have made mistakes in my life that i just can't hide.
But I believe I'm ready
for what love has to bring
I've got myself together
Now i'm ready to sing.
I've been searching my soul tonight
I know there's so much more to life
Now I know I can shine a light
to find my way back home.
(by Vonda Shepard)
This reminds me of an old Ally McBeal episode in which her therapist tells her that Ally needs a personal anthem that she could sing in her head to get her going again when she is down and depressed.
It went:
I've been down this road
Walking the line that's painted by pride
And i have made mistakes in my life that i just can't hide.
But I believe I'm ready
for what love has to bring
I've got myself together
Now i'm ready to sing.
I've been searching my soul tonight
I know there's so much more to life
Now I know I can shine a light
to find my way back home.
(by Vonda Shepard)
September 28, 2011 at 16:37 |
Rainer
Rainer
jFenter,
<< There was also something on that site about how procrastinators tend to work in long, uninterrupted spurts. ("Time bingeing?") I definitely see that in myself, expect it for myself, and use it as an excuse not to start... "I need four hours to devote to that, but I have a meeting in two.">>
Bingo! I'm still trying to recover from the very same affliction. Every time I catch myself at it, I make another start at "little & often."
<< There was also something on that site about how procrastinators tend to work in long, uninterrupted spurts. ("Time bingeing?") I definitely see that in myself, expect it for myself, and use it as an excuse not to start... "I need four hours to devote to that, but I have a meeting in two.">>
Bingo! I'm still trying to recover from the very same affliction. Every time I catch myself at it, I make another start at "little & often."
September 29, 2011 at 4:30 |
Bernie
Bernie
According to The Procrastination Equation, this is often caused by a tendency to value immediate rewards over distant. Therefore as the distant goal becomes near, the desirability ranking suddenly flips and you find the motivation for the task you were avoiding in its recent urgency.
There are many approaches to changing this situation. You could set intermediate milestones for example. You could also try to value following the AF principles more highly, expecting consequent benefits.
There are many approaches to changing this situation. You could set intermediate milestones for example. You could also try to value following the AF principles more highly, expecting consequent benefits.
September 29, 2011 at 12:24 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Another way to look at it is that a body with large mass has considerable intertia and is therefore difficult to start, but when it gets moving the inertia becomes momentum and therefore is difficult to stop.
September 29, 2011 at 13:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
"Inertia" is how I always looked at it before and it what kept me from starting. I knew that if I started, I'd "get rolling" and wouldn't stop.
Unfortunately, I suffer from the exact opposite that Alan hypothesizes. It's just me personally, I know, but I tend to have a hard time finishing projects. (It might be the "perfectionism" that the procrastination site mentions.) I'm much better at starting stuff. Yet, I find obstacles in starting, which is why I have such a hard time being productive. (Which is why I came to this site in the first place.)
Just as a side note: I *have* gotten better. ;)
Unfortunately, I suffer from the exact opposite that Alan hypothesizes. It's just me personally, I know, but I tend to have a hard time finishing projects. (It might be the "perfectionism" that the procrastination site mentions.) I'm much better at starting stuff. Yet, I find obstacles in starting, which is why I have such a hard time being productive. (Which is why I came to this site in the first place.)
Just as a side note: I *have* gotten better. ;)
September 29, 2011 at 15:47 |
jFenter
jFenter
The paragraph I wrote above applies when there is a hard deadline and significant incentive not to miss the deadline. Personal projects don't work that way unless you have strong motivation to achieve your goal by a given time, and strongly motivated not to quit. I'll read some more about what to do in that situation.
September 29, 2011 at 16:18 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
+JMJ+
@jFenter: <<It's just me personally, I know, but I tend to have a hard time finishing projects. (It might be the "perfectionism" that the procrastination site mentions.) I'm much better at starting stuff. Yet, I find obstacles in starting, which is why I have such a hard time being productive. (Which is why I came to this site in the first place.)>>
That ain't a disadvantage, that's a potential advantage! Nunc Coepi! http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1588944
@jFenter: <<It's just me personally, I know, but I tend to have a hard time finishing projects. (It might be the "perfectionism" that the procrastination site mentions.) I'm much better at starting stuff. Yet, I find obstacles in starting, which is why I have such a hard time being productive. (Which is why I came to this site in the first place.)>>
That ain't a disadvantage, that's a potential advantage! Nunc Coepi! http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1588944
October 2, 2011 at 17:53 |
nuntym
nuntym
I’ve been mulling over my anticipation of another of Mark’s system. On the one hand, my anticipation is steadily building (as if I was a child at the beginning of December looking forward to Christmas); but on the other hand, I have to admit to a dose of scepticism that it might prove to be another system that I start enthusiastically but which soon fizzles out (as if my parents bought me the Christmas present I had longed for, but after several days, it didn’t prove to be as good as I had hoped).
I’m entirely convinced that the problem is mine – and not a problem of the ‘system’ on offer. I believe that different time management systems (and Mark’s in particular) can go a long way to improving one’s efficiency, and I also believe that different systems probably work better depending on one’s personality and on one’s life/work circumstances. However, all that said, I’m pretty sure that if I had the dedication/drive/motivation/longevity/commitment to stick with any of Mark’s systems in the long term – and not let my commitment slip – then I’m sure I would work far more efficiently than I do. So why don’t I keep doing what I know would work in my favour? (some of you might be citing the apostle Paul here …)
As a therapist, I continuously come across people who ‘self-sabotage’ – by not doing something that would be good for them, or by doing something that is not good for them. This can be applied at the obvious and conscious level, eg. I don’t keep to a nutritional diet and I don’t exercise, despite knowing it is unquestionably good for me physically, socially, cognitively and emotionally; to the less obvious and (arguably) unconscious level, eg. dragging out the discharge of one of my clients (which actually makes more work in the long run, but I do this because I am fearful they might be disappointed in the therapy, so I keep them on to avoid that sense of failing/disappointing them).
So, here’s my question:
Whilst I am holding out hope for further improvements to my efficiency with the advent of the Final Version, am I – like most of the rest of us reading this forum – destined to fail in our attempts to maximise the system because we are likely to sabotage our use of it?
And if this is the case, then is our eternal quest for the ‘right system’ actually a case of avoiding what we really need to confront: the reason why each of us employs ‘self-sabotaging’ behaviours which stop us from thriving more than we do?