Discussion Forum > Dismissing the Dismissal Rule
Wooba - I wouldn't write it off so quickly - I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I think Mark has really hit on something by this suggestion.
In my AutoDIT system, I never dismissed TODAY, TOMORROW, or PROJECT pages. In fact, I usually didn't bother to dismiss the DATED pages, either, even though I ostensibly followed AF1 rules when processing those pages. Sometimes I just wanted to keep the page around a bit longer.
I came to believe the following:
- The most important features of AF1 are (1) the simplicity and near-zero overhead; (2) the catch-all nature of the system - no need to think where to write things, (3) the constant cycling, and (4) encouragement of constant "little and often" actions. These alone give you lots of focus on your active tasks -- like Mark has been saying, the currently developing "action threads".
- These features alone provide plenty of "percolation" and "distilling" of tasks. After awhile, I just FEEL like dismissing those older pages -- or outright deleting them. I don't want them around anymore. Usually I dismiss them because I am scared to delete them -- maybe I'd accidentally delete something I'll want later. But practically, I never even look at 99% of those dismissed pages ever again.
- VERY IMPORTANT: I don't like the system telling me what to do. I like having structure that encourages cycling and percolating. I DON'T like the system FORCING me to do ANYTHING. So I just decided to stop allowing it to DICTATE what I should do.
That's how I first came up with a TODAY page. There weren't any "rules" about it -- I just wanted a place to put tasks that I wanted to look at TODAY. At first, it was like a bookmark page that I'd advance through the list. Work a little on page 5, then work on the TODAY page. Then work a little on page 6, then work on the TODAY page. But eventually I landed on what I described in the AutoDIT post.
Mark commented that perhaps AutoDIT wasn't AUTO enough. But really, it was quite seamless and flowed very naturally. Things always had a place to go, and went there by themselves, in a sense. There really wasn't much conscious priortizing -- not really any, in fact. The whole things was driven by the structure of cycling and repetition; and how I FELT about each task.
Sorry for rambling so long -- but this all seemed very pertinent to the "dismissal of the dismissal rule" theme. I propose the following: let's keep basic structures and basic guidelines that we follow in our systems -- and keep trying to find the best structures and guidelines. But let's not allow the systems to FORCE us to do anything. The FORCE FACTOR is ultimately what causes us to resist the system overall, and then to give up on it, and go look for something new. The system is forcing us to do something that just doesn't seem right -- for example, taking some meaningless action on some meaningless task just to prevent the page from getting dismissed, because we are feeling some anxiety that we really don't understand about dismissing that whole page. So, let's get rid of the force factor altogether. Dismiss the page when dismissal "stands out" -- when it feels right, when you have that feeling, "this page has had enough already". If you're not ready to dismiss, then just let it sit there, as long as it needs to sit there, and cycle back to it after awhile. It will die of attrition in its own good time, assuming you are working on your "active threads".
In my AutoDIT system, I never dismissed TODAY, TOMORROW, or PROJECT pages. In fact, I usually didn't bother to dismiss the DATED pages, either, even though I ostensibly followed AF1 rules when processing those pages. Sometimes I just wanted to keep the page around a bit longer.
I came to believe the following:
- The most important features of AF1 are (1) the simplicity and near-zero overhead; (2) the catch-all nature of the system - no need to think where to write things, (3) the constant cycling, and (4) encouragement of constant "little and often" actions. These alone give you lots of focus on your active tasks -- like Mark has been saying, the currently developing "action threads".
- These features alone provide plenty of "percolation" and "distilling" of tasks. After awhile, I just FEEL like dismissing those older pages -- or outright deleting them. I don't want them around anymore. Usually I dismiss them because I am scared to delete them -- maybe I'd accidentally delete something I'll want later. But practically, I never even look at 99% of those dismissed pages ever again.
- VERY IMPORTANT: I don't like the system telling me what to do. I like having structure that encourages cycling and percolating. I DON'T like the system FORCING me to do ANYTHING. So I just decided to stop allowing it to DICTATE what I should do.
That's how I first came up with a TODAY page. There weren't any "rules" about it -- I just wanted a place to put tasks that I wanted to look at TODAY. At first, it was like a bookmark page that I'd advance through the list. Work a little on page 5, then work on the TODAY page. Then work a little on page 6, then work on the TODAY page. But eventually I landed on what I described in the AutoDIT post.
Mark commented that perhaps AutoDIT wasn't AUTO enough. But really, it was quite seamless and flowed very naturally. Things always had a place to go, and went there by themselves, in a sense. There really wasn't much conscious priortizing -- not really any, in fact. The whole things was driven by the structure of cycling and repetition; and how I FELT about each task.
Sorry for rambling so long -- but this all seemed very pertinent to the "dismissal of the dismissal rule" theme. I propose the following: let's keep basic structures and basic guidelines that we follow in our systems -- and keep trying to find the best structures and guidelines. But let's not allow the systems to FORCE us to do anything. The FORCE FACTOR is ultimately what causes us to resist the system overall, and then to give up on it, and go look for something new. The system is forcing us to do something that just doesn't seem right -- for example, taking some meaningless action on some meaningless task just to prevent the page from getting dismissed, because we are feeling some anxiety that we really don't understand about dismissing that whole page. So, let's get rid of the force factor altogether. Dismiss the page when dismissal "stands out" -- when it feels right, when you have that feeling, "this page has had enough already". If you're not ready to dismiss, then just let it sit there, as long as it needs to sit there, and cycle back to it after awhile. It will die of attrition in its own good time, assuming you are working on your "active threads".
January 6, 2012 at 3:28 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
+JMJ+
Another solution (and actually could be seen as still following the rules of AF1) would be to use the principles of the "Plus or Minus" tweak: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1677406
We all know that there are tasks that "stand out" not because they feel "ready to be done" but because they feel "yucky". The solution would be then to "act" on the "yucky" item by re-writing it at the end of the list into task or tasks that are less "yucky". Use this with the "consolidation" idea that Mark mentioned, http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1690127?currentPage=2#item1693171 (maybe re-write the remaining items in a page when their number reaches a certain point, for example five tasks remaining in a page), and you would never need the dismissal process.
Theoretically, at least.
Although, I do remember a member here a few years ago (I think it was 2mc) who actually advocated ditching the dismissal process of AF1 back then.
Another solution (and actually could be seen as still following the rules of AF1) would be to use the principles of the "Plus or Minus" tweak: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1677406
We all know that there are tasks that "stand out" not because they feel "ready to be done" but because they feel "yucky". The solution would be then to "act" on the "yucky" item by re-writing it at the end of the list into task or tasks that are less "yucky". Use this with the "consolidation" idea that Mark mentioned, http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1690127?currentPage=2#item1693171 (maybe re-write the remaining items in a page when their number reaches a certain point, for example five tasks remaining in a page), and you would never need the dismissal process.
Theoretically, at least.
Although, I do remember a member here a few years ago (I think it was 2mc) who actually advocated ditching the dismissal process of AF1 back then.
January 6, 2012 at 4:12 |
nuntym
nuntym
Even if you rewrite yucky tasks, you'd still have stuff that needs to be deleted - such as stuff that seemed like a good idea at first, but later you decide not to act on it.
January 6, 2012 at 4:24 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
+JMJ+
Seraphim: <<So, let's get rid of the force factor altogether.>>
Well, that convinced me, I'm going to use "AF1 without dismissal" a whirl today and see what happens. I'll add the things I mentioned above ("plus or minus", "consolidation") as well as the "today/tomorrow" notation I mentioned in http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1690127#item1691238 and maybe the re-writing tweak, http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1690127#item1692829 , since the "action thread" thingie is also very interesting. And of course, the "starting from the page started yesterday" that started all this madness is included.
Note that there is none of the "forcing to do a task" in any of the tweaks I mentioned except for the "re-writing in different words."
<<Even if you rewrite yucky tasks, you'd still have stuff that needs to be deleted - such as stuff that seemed like a good idea at first, but later you decide not to act on it. >>
Ooops, forgot to mention that too, but yes that is another possible action with yucky tasks.
Seraphim: <<So, let's get rid of the force factor altogether.>>
Well, that convinced me, I'm going to use "AF1 without dismissal" a whirl today and see what happens. I'll add the things I mentioned above ("plus or minus", "consolidation") as well as the "today/tomorrow" notation I mentioned in http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1690127#item1691238 and maybe the re-writing tweak, http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1690127#item1692829 , since the "action thread" thingie is also very interesting. And of course, the "starting from the page started yesterday" that started all this madness is included.
Note that there is none of the "forcing to do a task" in any of the tweaks I mentioned except for the "re-writing in different words."
<<Even if you rewrite yucky tasks, you'd still have stuff that needs to be deleted - such as stuff that seemed like a good idea at first, but later you decide not to act on it. >>
Ooops, forgot to mention that too, but yes that is another possible action with yucky tasks.
January 6, 2012 at 4:31 |
nuntym
nuntym
I'm not so easily persuaded, because I've tried it. After a month there gets to be too long of a list, and there's no easy way to catch up. I want a rule that is lighter than AF1, more flexible, but firmly and mechanically keeps things under control.
Random idea: alternate a round of doing with a round of deleting.
Random idea: alternate a round of doing with a round of deleting.
January 6, 2012 at 4:45 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Well i obviously like removing the dismissal rule since i suggested it my new rules. I think the strength of af was the complete capture and simplicity. In my opinion dismissal was an impediment to progress. I like the idea of dismissing individual tasks not entire pages. At some point your notebook will fill up and that creates a review opportunity to dismiss lots of items before starting over. Looking foward to hearing other's thoughts
Gerry
Gerry
January 6, 2012 at 6:06 |
Gerry
Gerry
I think that the proposal is that we simply remove the dismissal rule, so the only requirement is that we look at one page at a time and then go on to look at the next page, right?
I am instinctively drawn to this. But for now, I'll keep dismissal for emergencies, when the list has grown out of control or I'm going to be unavailable for some reason. Not necessarily a whole page at a time, though: just any tasks I don't think I'll get to in the next few days.
I'll try no "traditional full page" dismissal.
I am instinctively drawn to this. But for now, I'll keep dismissal for emergencies, when the list has grown out of control or I'm going to be unavailable for some reason. Not necessarily a whole page at a time, though: just any tasks I don't think I'll get to in the next few days.
I'll try no "traditional full page" dismissal.
January 6, 2012 at 7:16 |
Will
Will
Alan:
<< I'm not so easily persuaded, because I've tried it. After a month there gets to be too long of a list, and there's no easy way to catch up. >>
Can you tell us a bit more about your experience of this?
I'm particularly interested in why the list got so long. Do you mean that it got an excessive number of pages or an excessive number of tasks or both?
What prevented you from weeding the tasks that were obviously not going anywhere?
Did you try consolidating or relocating tasks?
<< I'm not so easily persuaded, because I've tried it. After a month there gets to be too long of a list, and there's no easy way to catch up. >>
Can you tell us a bit more about your experience of this?
I'm particularly interested in why the list got so long. Do you mean that it got an excessive number of pages or an excessive number of tasks or both?
What prevented you from weeding the tasks that were obviously not going anywhere?
Did you try consolidating or relocating tasks?
January 6, 2012 at 10:49 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
First, the rule was like mom insisting that I eat my vegetables. I hated it, but it was good for me. Two years of this has developed a better attitude towards tasks I don't want to do, and less procrastination. But that's not my full answer.
Now, having improved in this regard, I still found that I would go round and round picking things I felt most ready to do, skipping over some pages, and dwelling on the newer pages. Over time the number of pages went up, about one every two days, and the number of tasks five every day. Eventually the list got so slow that I would take a couple days to *see* all the pages, by which time I decided this wasn't good and I backlogged the older pages. I still haven't cleared them all.
What prevented weeding? Simply that it wasn't on the agenda. But Sporadic deletion didn't do enough. I did not try consolidating. That might have made scanning old stuff faster, but still there's a five task growth. Also, small pages tend to be easier to kill than large.
Now, having improved in this regard, I still found that I would go round and round picking things I felt most ready to do, skipping over some pages, and dwelling on the newer pages. Over time the number of pages went up, about one every two days, and the number of tasks five every day. Eventually the list got so slow that I would take a couple days to *see* all the pages, by which time I decided this wasn't good and I backlogged the older pages. I still haven't cleared them all.
What prevented weeding? Simply that it wasn't on the agenda. But Sporadic deletion didn't do enough. I did not try consolidating. That might have made scanning old stuff faster, but still there's a five task growth. Also, small pages tend to be easier to kill than large.
January 6, 2012 at 13:18 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Thanks, Alan. That's very enlightening.
Follow up question:
Did you use "reverse standing-out" at all when deleting tasks?
Follow up question:
Did you use "reverse standing-out" at all when deleting tasks?
January 6, 2012 at 16:18 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
+JMJ+
One day of using "AF1 w/o dismissal" revealed some very interesting observations.
1) Without dismissal, <all other rules become optional>. And that is a good thing.
The dismissal process of AF1, as I have posted many times before here, is the ONLY thing that enforces the one-page at-a-time process of AF1. Remove dismissal, and nothing but the rules themselves dictate what you must do. But if dismissal is removed, then the rules have less grip on the user as long as the user knows where he stopped. Therefore, one potentially has lots more flexibility in processing the list. But, I think the most dramatic effect of this consequence is that THE PROBLEM OF AF1 WITH URGENT TASKS ARE SOLVED! There is now NOTHING to stop you from jumping around the list...and that does not even break the rules! Remember "DOs and DONT" #2?
2) Without the threat of dismissal, <I can process the list much faster than before>. I was surprised with the speed I got on going around the list: once every two-three hours. Woah....
One day of using "AF1 w/o dismissal" revealed some very interesting observations.
1) Without dismissal, <all other rules become optional>. And that is a good thing.
The dismissal process of AF1, as I have posted many times before here, is the ONLY thing that enforces the one-page at-a-time process of AF1. Remove dismissal, and nothing but the rules themselves dictate what you must do. But if dismissal is removed, then the rules have less grip on the user as long as the user knows where he stopped. Therefore, one potentially has lots more flexibility in processing the list. But, I think the most dramatic effect of this consequence is that THE PROBLEM OF AF1 WITH URGENT TASKS ARE SOLVED! There is now NOTHING to stop you from jumping around the list...and that does not even break the rules! Remember "DOs and DONT" #2?
2) Without the threat of dismissal, <I can process the list much faster than before>. I was surprised with the speed I got on going around the list: once every two-three hours. Woah....
January 6, 2012 at 16:31 |
nuntym
nuntym
Mark: At the time, I didn't have a notion of reverse-standing-out. Mostly it was if a task had become irrelevant, or if a page had only one or two items and I wanted to get rid of the page.
January 6, 2012 at 16:46 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
nuntym: If you go as far as you say, "NOTHING to stop you from jumping around the list", then what you have is just an ordinary todo list.
January 6, 2012 at 16:48 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
nyntym write: "1) Without dismissal, <all other rules become optional>. And that is a good thing."
I disagree. You can still process the list one page at a time... but if you come to a page where nothing stands out, you just move on to the next one. Yes, if there is a task really drawing your attention towards the end of the list, you might be more likely to skip several pages in a row, but you're still engaging with the tasks in more-or-less the order they were entered on the list, whether you act on them or not.
I disagree. You can still process the list one page at a time... but if you come to a page where nothing stands out, you just move on to the next one. Yes, if there is a task really drawing your attention towards the end of the list, you might be more likely to skip several pages in a row, but you're still engaging with the tasks in more-or-less the order they were entered on the list, whether you act on them or not.
January 6, 2012 at 17:16 |
Sarah
Sarah
Mark said the focus should be "more on what one is doing than on what one has not done". I agree, but we still need to focus on what hasn't been done once in a while. Most of the time when working AF1, especially with the "begin each day at the first task entered yesterday" tweak, we are focused on "what one is doing", because we spend the majority of our time on the recent stuff. Dismissal doesn't enter into it.
Occasionally, we cycle the list and visit the older pages. Some of those pages will have plenty of tasks still active, so Dismissal won't be an issue. One or two pages may have a small number of tasks facing Dismissal, or we can work a little bit on a task to keep the page alive. When dismissal is necessary, it freshens the list, reduces it, revitalizes it a bit.
The more I think about this, the more I think Mark must be joking.
For me, until someone proves otherwise, I will stick with the Dismissal Rule, probably the most powerful task management rule ever invented.
Anyone else?