Discussion Forum > DWM vs SF: putting time in the picture
My contribution
Principles in action
- SF: Standing out principle, little and often principle, rule based dismissal
- DWM2: Standing out, little and often, time based dismissal
Effect on rejection-procastination
It seems to me that the first most noticeable effect of any AF-DWM system is the user ability of handling "resistance to work" and "rejection". Standing out principle and little an often have a lot to do with it. Both SF and DWM share the same principles and therefore are good for it. Though it has been pointed out by SF users in this forum that column 2 should be limited to a few tasks in order to keep the good feelings.
Working in "pull mode"
Once rejection-procrastination is under control, working on the pull is perhaps the most valuable contribution of Mark's systems.
- SF bases this effect on the standing out and little and often principle
- DWM introduces, besides those two, the time factor. It has been said that time works here "as a whip". I would add for DWM that you focus more on the standing out feeling. That might probably be because you always have the whole list as an open option. The fact of cycling on the same page (SF) limits your options (too much use of column 2 even more). SF sometimes forces the user to do things in a moderate pull mode feeling while DWM is always open to the best choice in terms of "pulling".
Cycling through the tasks
DWM in my experience does it faster (1 or 2 daily rounds for SF vs. 3 to 5 for DWM). It just happens.
Thinking about this I would say
1. The working speed might be higher.
2. Easier to move on as there is a single list as opposed to many pages.
3. Dismissal doesn't imply a choice.
*Note that AF-DWM systems in general encourage you to keep a high cycling speed through the list. Well trained users do it. What I mean is that DWM has this feature in its blood and AF-SF leaves it as a user's homework.
Resistance and enticement
For DWM, resistant tasks are in fact addressed in better spirits.
Dismissal
SF dismissal process is based on multiple decisions and comparison.
DWM's is based on multiple decisions in a period of time theretofore skips the comparison stage making it smoother.
Focus
SF system leads you through the dismissal process to focus on your most relevant tasks.
DWM2 system has a slight but valuable psychological addition. There are two different groups of tasks mixed in one list: those which haven't yet been actioned and those which have; the former to be eventually dismissed after a month, the later after seven days. This fact makes you be constantly focus on what you are already doing, yet, when you feel ready for it, it is easy to move tasks to the faster group.
Number of tasks-projects achieved
Could SF and DWM2 differ on this point? I don't know. I just want to mention the amazing paradoxical effect of all these AF systems: the more you focus on your feelings the more jobs get finished, even unpleasant ones. Final achievement seems related to enticement more than planning and it seems to me that this point is better achieved when working with DWM.
Principles in action
- SF: Standing out principle, little and often principle, rule based dismissal
- DWM2: Standing out, little and often, time based dismissal
Effect on rejection-procastination
It seems to me that the first most noticeable effect of any AF-DWM system is the user ability of handling "resistance to work" and "rejection". Standing out principle and little an often have a lot to do with it. Both SF and DWM share the same principles and therefore are good for it. Though it has been pointed out by SF users in this forum that column 2 should be limited to a few tasks in order to keep the good feelings.
Working in "pull mode"
Once rejection-procrastination is under control, working on the pull is perhaps the most valuable contribution of Mark's systems.
- SF bases this effect on the standing out and little and often principle
- DWM introduces, besides those two, the time factor. It has been said that time works here "as a whip". I would add for DWM that you focus more on the standing out feeling. That might probably be because you always have the whole list as an open option. The fact of cycling on the same page (SF) limits your options (too much use of column 2 even more). SF sometimes forces the user to do things in a moderate pull mode feeling while DWM is always open to the best choice in terms of "pulling".
Cycling through the tasks
DWM in my experience does it faster (1 or 2 daily rounds for SF vs. 3 to 5 for DWM). It just happens.
Thinking about this I would say
1. The working speed might be higher.
2. Easier to move on as there is a single list as opposed to many pages.
3. Dismissal doesn't imply a choice.
*Note that AF-DWM systems in general encourage you to keep a high cycling speed through the list. Well trained users do it. What I mean is that DWM has this feature in its blood and AF-SF leaves it as a user's homework.
Resistance and enticement
For DWM, resistant tasks are in fact addressed in better spirits.
Dismissal
SF dismissal process is based on multiple decisions and comparison.
DWM's is based on multiple decisions in a period of time theretofore skips the comparison stage making it smoother.
Focus
SF system leads you through the dismissal process to focus on your most relevant tasks.
DWM2 system has a slight but valuable psychological addition. There are two different groups of tasks mixed in one list: those which haven't yet been actioned and those which have; the former to be eventually dismissed after a month, the later after seven days. This fact makes you be constantly focus on what you are already doing, yet, when you feel ready for it, it is easy to move tasks to the faster group.
Number of tasks-projects achieved
Could SF and DWM2 differ on this point? I don't know. I just want to mention the amazing paradoxical effect of all these AF systems: the more you focus on your feelings the more jobs get finished, even unpleasant ones. Final achievement seems related to enticement more than planning and it seems to me that this point is better achieved when working with DWM.
October 28, 2011 at 14:42 |
paco_pepe
paco_pepe
@paco_pepe,
Very interesting comparison. I myself used to be DWM2 fan before switching to SF. I have been with SF for a while now. I have been thinking about making the switch back to DWM2 because for my case, it seems like the timed dismissal could make more sense. At least I am going to restart DWM2 using a notebook.
Can you provide some color on your system setup and the specifics of your workflow and mechanics? Thanks
GC
Very interesting comparison. I myself used to be DWM2 fan before switching to SF. I have been with SF for a while now. I have been thinking about making the switch back to DWM2 because for my case, it seems like the timed dismissal could make more sense. At least I am going to restart DWM2 using a notebook.
Can you provide some color on your system setup and the specifics of your workflow and mechanics? Thanks
GC
December 6, 2011 at 21:08 |
Greenchutney
Greenchutney
@GC
>Can you provide some color on your system setup and the specifics of your workflow and mechanics?
This may give a good idea of it
• I work my DWM2 on paper: Small "notebook", aproximatly A7, 28 lines, two colums. So that when it is open I see 4 colums (two on left side page and two on the right)
• I add or get rid of pages when needed
• 1-4 words per task
• Keep notebook and pen in my pocket
• I have got one list for different situations; that is well handled by DWM2
• A small red sticker (2cm x 1cm) points more or less the last actioned task
• I have got 30 to 50 active tasks
• 3 or 5 tasks dismissed per week
• 3 or 4 cycles per day
>Can you provide some color on your system setup and the specifics of your workflow and mechanics?
This may give a good idea of it
• I work my DWM2 on paper: Small "notebook", aproximatly A7, 28 lines, two colums. So that when it is open I see 4 colums (two on left side page and two on the right)
• I add or get rid of pages when needed
• 1-4 words per task
• Keep notebook and pen in my pocket
• I have got one list for different situations; that is well handled by DWM2
• A small red sticker (2cm x 1cm) points more or less the last actioned task
• I have got 30 to 50 active tasks
• 3 or 5 tasks dismissed per week
• 3 or 4 cycles per day
December 9, 2011 at 15:03 |
paco_pepe
paco_pepe
Thanks paco_pepe. Can you explain why 2 columns? This is nothing to do with SF I assume. Do you keep home/work in the same list or separate them out?
GC
GC
December 10, 2011 at 21:42 |
Greenchutney
Greenchutney
I would imagine it's because DWM doesn't have a fixed number of tasks per page. Therefore you may need two columns to fit them all in.
December 11, 2011 at 11:33 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
@GC adn Mark
>Can you explain why 2 columns? This is nothing to do with SF I assume.
That is right. It has nothing to do with SF. As Mark has pointed out "DWM doesn't have a fixed number of tasks per page". It is just a *one* long list. For other AF systems the concept of page is important as the dismissal process is based on it. In my case I just like that presentation. Perhaps a two columns presentation allows you to see more tasks in a go.
>Can you explain why 2 columns? This is nothing to do with SF I assume.
That is right. It has nothing to do with SF. As Mark has pointed out "DWM doesn't have a fixed number of tasks per page". It is just a *one* long list. For other AF systems the concept of page is important as the dismissal process is based on it. In my case I just like that presentation. Perhaps a two columns presentation allows you to see more tasks in a go.
December 12, 2011 at 3:24 |
paco_pepe
paco_pepe
Long after most people migrated to SF, I still did DWM for months. Once I joined the majority doing SF, I added a DWM rule to SF: any page more than 7 days old must have all of its component tasks dismissed. This rule works well for me.
December 14, 2011 at 17:46 |
moises
moises
"any page more than 7 days old must have all of its component tasks dismissed. This rule works well for me. "
I'm still impressed with Mark's observations and implementation of the 7 & 31 day rule. However, like all systems, without obedience & self-discipline, your (my) resistance will:
"...perjure, fabricate, falsify; seduce, bully, cajole. Resistance is protean. It will assume any form, if that’s what it takes to deceive you. It will reason with you like a lawyer or jam a nine-millimeter in your face like a stickup man. Resistance is always lying and always full of shit." - Steven Pressfield, War of Art
And then you're off searching for a better system.
I've said this before, if I had programming skills, I'd create a no-hack software whereby DWM rules must be obeyed. If a customer complained, I'd suggest they check out Omnifocus or Wunderlist. The purpose of the software is to remove willpower, and diminish the honeymoon (of starting a new system/prod. software) effect vis-a-vis the tendency to hack at the system as a means of procrastination. Alas, I can't program, and enough studies suggest that relying on willpower is a poor strategy.
I'm still impressed with Mark's observations and implementation of the 7 & 31 day rule. However, like all systems, without obedience & self-discipline, your (my) resistance will:
"...perjure, fabricate, falsify; seduce, bully, cajole. Resistance is protean. It will assume any form, if that’s what it takes to deceive you. It will reason with you like a lawyer or jam a nine-millimeter in your face like a stickup man. Resistance is always lying and always full of shit." - Steven Pressfield, War of Art
And then you're off searching for a better system.
I've said this before, if I had programming skills, I'd create a no-hack software whereby DWM rules must be obeyed. If a customer complained, I'd suggest they check out Omnifocus or Wunderlist. The purpose of the software is to remove willpower, and diminish the honeymoon (of starting a new system/prod. software) effect vis-a-vis the tendency to hack at the system as a means of procrastination. Alas, I can't program, and enough studies suggest that relying on willpower is a poor strategy.
December 14, 2011 at 18:13 |
avrum
avrum
<<studies suggest that relying on willpower is a poor strategy>>
Even the devil can quote studies!
Heidi Grant Halvorson references studies that demonstrate that willpower is like a muscle: it gets stronger the more it is exercised. My subjective experience confirms this.
Likewise, like a muscle, willpower can be exhausted by overuse. Don't try to lose weight when you are also in the process of quitting smoking.
SF, DWM, AF, paper, electronic or whatever, they are all disciplines. My goal (again, following Halvorson) is to get better. I might not stick with my system perfectly all the time, but the more I use the system the better I get at using the system.
The issue, by the way, is not the software. It cannot "remove willpower." I can always ignore it when it tells me what to do next. It takes great willpower to follow consistently what the system--electronic or paper--spits out.
Even the devil can quote studies!
Heidi Grant Halvorson references studies that demonstrate that willpower is like a muscle: it gets stronger the more it is exercised. My subjective experience confirms this.
Likewise, like a muscle, willpower can be exhausted by overuse. Don't try to lose weight when you are also in the process of quitting smoking.
SF, DWM, AF, paper, electronic or whatever, they are all disciplines. My goal (again, following Halvorson) is to get better. I might not stick with my system perfectly all the time, but the more I use the system the better I get at using the system.
The issue, by the way, is not the software. It cannot "remove willpower." I can always ignore it when it tells me what to do next. It takes great willpower to follow consistently what the system--electronic or paper--spits out.
December 14, 2011 at 20:28 |
moises
moises
One wants something like the methods people use to make sure they get out of bed in the morning - a series of alarm clocks for instance progressively further and further away from the bed, so you actually have to get out of bed to turn them off.
Still not infallible though!
Still not infallible though!
December 15, 2011 at 10:19 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Perhaps it is time to bring this to an open discussion in the forum.
Is there any one else with long or moderate experience in both SF and DWM2? Have you experienced any difference between them?
If so, I'll be happy to read your comments.
Note:
rules for SF
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2011/2/10/rules-for-superfocus.html
dwm rules
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2010/2/1/dit2-af5-who-cares-what-its-called-this-is-what-im-working-o.html
dwm2 rules (check down in the thread: 27 October 2010, 11:34)
http://www.markforster.net/blog/2010/10/26/my-favourite-time-management-system.html#comment10307721