Discussion Forum > AF 1 Improvement even more continued
I had some 5 successful days with dismissal, during which I followed the dismissal rule with no resistance, willingly dismissing any page on which nothing stood out upon first pass. I reviewed all pages several times, and I dimly remember it feeling great. Perhaps I exaggerate: it may have been 10 good days.
However, once I had a large number of dismissed pages, I began to feel strong resistance to reviewing them. I kept writing "review dismissals" on my list, but it rarely stood out, and then I only got through a fraction of the dismissed pages before rationalizing that I had "got the folder out" so I could rewrite the task (review dismissals) and move on.
When the dismissals had grown hopelessly faster than my rate of review, I informally abandoned the whole thing. By "informally," I mean that I did not intentionally change the rules, but I began to game the system in order to avoid ever having to dismiss a page. The two principal games have been (1) "get the folder out" on just one task to save the page, without really doing anything on the task, and (2) hover in the final pages of the list, resisting the return back to the beginning. The only downfall (for me) of the new start-on-yesterday's-page rule is that I've found it even easier to hover at the end of the list, of which I've been taking full advantage.
The impact? Has it sabotaged my system? Blocked up all sorts of important things? Not so badly, it turns out. When I finally do revert to the earliest active page, I find that I have completed the majority of outstanding items on the earlier pages, simply by following the rule that when something needs to be done now, I'll do it regardless of where it is in the list. I don't bother hunting them down to cross out; I know they're back in there somewhere. Turns out I'm better at recalling these things, when they become timely, than I'd have thought.
Really, I shouldn't be surprised. I usually find that the *act* of taking notes makes me remember something, without ever looking back at my notes, whereas if I do not write it down at all, I will forget. Naturally, this goes for things that don't contain much detail, so it is a simple matter of remembering the item vs. forgetting, not recalling layers of detail.
That's my status report on dismissal. I still would like to experience the wonderful-sounding, properly-functioning dismissal feature that some here are reporting, while zipping around and around the pages once per day, so I will make a fresh effort. However, AF has been a very valuable system for me, leading to many completed projects, even the way I've been hobbling it.
I will keep reading this thread for more inspiring tales of dismissal prowess!
However, once I had a large number of dismissed pages, I began to feel strong resistance to reviewing them. I kept writing "review dismissals" on my list, but it rarely stood out, and then I only got through a fraction of the dismissed pages before rationalizing that I had "got the folder out" so I could rewrite the task (review dismissals) and move on.
When the dismissals had grown hopelessly faster than my rate of review, I informally abandoned the whole thing. By "informally," I mean that I did not intentionally change the rules, but I began to game the system in order to avoid ever having to dismiss a page. The two principal games have been (1) "get the folder out" on just one task to save the page, without really doing anything on the task, and (2) hover in the final pages of the list, resisting the return back to the beginning. The only downfall (for me) of the new start-on-yesterday's-page rule is that I've found it even easier to hover at the end of the list, of which I've been taking full advantage.
The impact? Has it sabotaged my system? Blocked up all sorts of important things? Not so badly, it turns out. When I finally do revert to the earliest active page, I find that I have completed the majority of outstanding items on the earlier pages, simply by following the rule that when something needs to be done now, I'll do it regardless of where it is in the list. I don't bother hunting them down to cross out; I know they're back in there somewhere. Turns out I'm better at recalling these things, when they become timely, than I'd have thought.
Really, I shouldn't be surprised. I usually find that the *act* of taking notes makes me remember something, without ever looking back at my notes, whereas if I do not write it down at all, I will forget. Naturally, this goes for things that don't contain much detail, so it is a simple matter of remembering the item vs. forgetting, not recalling layers of detail.
That's my status report on dismissal. I still would like to experience the wonderful-sounding, properly-functioning dismissal feature that some here are reporting, while zipping around and around the pages once per day, so I will make a fresh effort. However, AF has been a very valuable system for me, leading to many completed projects, even the way I've been hobbling it.
I will keep reading this thread for more inspiring tales of dismissal prowess!
January 12, 2012 at 3:37 |
Bernie
Bernie
Again, from the previous thread (http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1693383 ), Mark said, "Second, your attention is not drawn to dismissed tasks because you don't look at the pages they are on".
I think there are quite a few people here that dismiss +individual tasks+ because they were vague ideas, need re-thinking, or just get in the way on the page that they still want to be active and stay in the active cycling routine. It is just not stressed, I believe, because it's an individual tweak and not in the rules.
I think there are quite a few people here that dismiss +individual tasks+ because they were vague ideas, need re-thinking, or just get in the way on the page that they still want to be active and stay in the active cycling routine. It is just not stressed, I believe, because it's an individual tweak and not in the rules.
January 12, 2012 at 5:52 |
BKK
BKK
Let me bring us back to what I said were the two purposes of dismissal:
1) to increase gradually the pressure to get a particular task done
2) to give a chance to consider why a task has failed to get done and to do something about it.
Number 2 seems to cover what BKK says about vague ideas, etc. It's always been my intention that tasks can be entered into AF in the way they first strike you (however vague) and can then get refined through the process of Autofocus.
But I think what is tending to get left out of this discussion is that AF is designed primarily to produce focus out of the mass of conflicting priorities, pipe dreams, vague ideas and overloading.
Therefore the main point of dismissal is NOT to produce a place to store tasks for that mythical time in the future when we have time to do them.
It is to get rid of tasks out of the system altogether. The reinstatement of tasks through the review process is intended to be a comparatively rare exception rather than the rule. Number 2 reads "to give a _chance_ to consider..."
1) to increase gradually the pressure to get a particular task done
2) to give a chance to consider why a task has failed to get done and to do something about it.
Number 2 seems to cover what BKK says about vague ideas, etc. It's always been my intention that tasks can be entered into AF in the way they first strike you (however vague) and can then get refined through the process of Autofocus.
But I think what is tending to get left out of this discussion is that AF is designed primarily to produce focus out of the mass of conflicting priorities, pipe dreams, vague ideas and overloading.
Therefore the main point of dismissal is NOT to produce a place to store tasks for that mythical time in the future when we have time to do them.
It is to get rid of tasks out of the system altogether. The reinstatement of tasks through the review process is intended to be a comparatively rare exception rather than the rule. Number 2 reads "to give a _chance_ to consider..."
January 12, 2012 at 9:45 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark -
Not only am I enjoying your steadfastness, but your helping me to better understand the purpose of AF & dismissal. And because I've picked up an ARC circa from Staples, I might be AF'ing in the not too distant future.
Thanks for the discussion.
Not only am I enjoying your steadfastness, but your helping me to better understand the purpose of AF & dismissal. And because I've picked up an ARC circa from Staples, I might be AF'ing in the not too distant future.
Thanks for the discussion.
January 12, 2012 at 15:50 |
avrum
avrum
Sarah:
<< I was working on a paper but every step I needed to take to complete the paper was entered as an item on the list. The page that contained the cat claws & invoices was actually only 3 days old, and I dismissed 14/25 items on that page >>
Thanks for the explanation, Sarah. That makes sense.
However I don't think I'd have done it that way. I'd have made a separate project list for the paper and worked off that. That way I wouldn't have had to mess up the rest of my list in order to concentrate on the paper.
<< I was working on a paper but every step I needed to take to complete the paper was entered as an item on the list. The page that contained the cat claws & invoices was actually only 3 days old, and I dismissed 14/25 items on that page >>
Thanks for the explanation, Sarah. That makes sense.
However I don't think I'd have done it that way. I'd have made a separate project list for the paper and worked off that. That way I wouldn't have had to mess up the rest of my list in order to concentrate on the paper.
January 12, 2012 at 17:20 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
If you altered the rules for dismissing, you also wouldn't mess up the rest of the list.
January 12, 2012 at 17:42 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark,
Yeah, I vacillate between separate project lists and just using the main list, depending on some unidentifiable process in my brain.
I think that this time I used the main list because I knew I was going to need breaks from my periods of extreme focus and by keeping them in the main list I had built-in break tasks.
(I realize this in retrospect... I don't think I could have articulated that at the time.)
Yeah, I vacillate between separate project lists and just using the main list, depending on some unidentifiable process in my brain.
I think that this time I used the main list because I knew I was going to need breaks from my periods of extreme focus and by keeping them in the main list I had built-in break tasks.
(I realize this in retrospect... I don't think I could have articulated that at the time.)
January 12, 2012 at 17:59 |
Sarah
Sarah
Alan:
<< If you altered the rules for dismissing, you also wouldn't mess up the rest of the list. >>
But you would mess up the effectiveness of the dismissal process.
<< If you altered the rules for dismissing, you also wouldn't mess up the rest of the list. >>
But you would mess up the effectiveness of the dismissal process.
January 12, 2012 at 20:01 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Sarah:
<< I think that this time I used the main list because I knew I was going to need breaks from my periods of extreme focus and by keeping them in the main list I had built-in break tasks. >>
I think I'd keep going back to the project list using the "if it needs doing now, do it" rule. That would mean I could use the main list in conjunction with it.
<< I think that this time I used the main list because I knew I was going to need breaks from my periods of extreme focus and by keeping them in the main list I had built-in break tasks. >>
I think I'd keep going back to the project list using the "if it needs doing now, do it" rule. That would mean I could use the main list in conjunction with it.
January 12, 2012 at 20:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
So you retract your earlier claim about making AF1 more effective by changing/removing that rule? Remember that thread you started?
January 12, 2012 at 20:06 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I'm using AF1 again. My first observation: If I use AF1, with the rules as intended, I'm not drifting all over the place. My monkey mind is less scattered. I'm sure I'll have more to say in the next few days.
January 12, 2012 at 20:39 |
avrum
avrum
Alan:
<< So you retract your earlier claim about making AF1 more effective by changing/removing that rule? >>
Oddly enough I don't remember saying that.
What I do remember saying is that removing the dismissal rule would change the balance between concentrating on what one has done and what one hasn't done.
Not quite the same thing.
Now for my next question:
What would be the effect of deleting pages on which no tasks stand out instead of dismissing them?
<< So you retract your earlier claim about making AF1 more effective by changing/removing that rule? >>
Oddly enough I don't remember saying that.
What I do remember saying is that removing the dismissal rule would change the balance between concentrating on what one has done and what one hasn't done.
Not quite the same thing.
Now for my next question:
What would be the effect of deleting pages on which no tasks stand out instead of dismissing them?
January 12, 2012 at 21:45 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<<What would be the effect of deleting pages on which no tasks stand out instead of dismissing them?>>
As an example, if there is a task like, "go through credit card statements and review recurring charges," you might see a couple of months later a significant charge on your credit card for a service that you really don't need or want anymore.
Even worse: "Call insurance agent about increasing life insurance policy." But by the time you need it, it's too late...
As an example, if there is a task like, "go through credit card statements and review recurring charges," you might see a couple of months later a significant charge on your credit card for a service that you really don't need or want anymore.
Even worse: "Call insurance agent about increasing life insurance policy." But by the time you need it, it's too late...
January 12, 2012 at 23:10 |
BKK
BKK
Mark wrote:
<<What would be the effect of deleting pages on which no tasks stand out instead of dismissing them?>>
I imagine this would put even more pressure on resistance-prone tasks. As the easy/fun tasks get done, and the what-was-I-thinking? tasks continue to sit untouched, those pesky tasks in the middle would reach a moment of truth. I am talking about the tasks I know I need to do but hadn't felt like doing on previous passes. When they're the only ones left, it's Do or Die!
I also imagine this would induce me to work fewer tasks per page. I would want to leave plenty of cushion for my next visit to the page, delaying the moment of truth for its less attractive tasks. This seems like a good thing: fewer tasks per page means more cycles through the list. However, I do feel a down side to it as well: more cycling chops up my attention. Some days I am focused on one or two big projects, and I stay on the last two pages of AF all day. Recently, I've had many days like this as I wrap up a backlog of projects.
In the big picture, I think all this would result in a faster pace of completion, less time elapsing between an item entered in AF and seeing that item completed. But it would come at the expense of more items dropped (for good) as those pages get deleted.
<<What would be the effect of deleting pages on which no tasks stand out instead of dismissing them?>>
I imagine this would put even more pressure on resistance-prone tasks. As the easy/fun tasks get done, and the what-was-I-thinking? tasks continue to sit untouched, those pesky tasks in the middle would reach a moment of truth. I am talking about the tasks I know I need to do but hadn't felt like doing on previous passes. When they're the only ones left, it's Do or Die!
I also imagine this would induce me to work fewer tasks per page. I would want to leave plenty of cushion for my next visit to the page, delaying the moment of truth for its less attractive tasks. This seems like a good thing: fewer tasks per page means more cycles through the list. However, I do feel a down side to it as well: more cycling chops up my attention. Some days I am focused on one or two big projects, and I stay on the last two pages of AF all day. Recently, I've had many days like this as I wrap up a backlog of projects.
In the big picture, I think all this would result in a faster pace of completion, less time elapsing between an item entered in AF and seeing that item completed. But it would come at the expense of more items dropped (for good) as those pages get deleted.
January 13, 2012 at 2:57 |
Bernie
Bernie
I've come to believe that all rules that FORCE you to do something will ultimately cause me to resist the system itself.
So, regardless of the intermediate effects, the ultimate result would be abandonment of the system -- whether by means of actually giving up and trying something new, or merely by breaking the rules, introducing tweaks, etc. And since this rule is more tyrannical than the dismissal rule, thus point would be reached even faster than usual.
I'm coming to really appreciate Bernie's motto - don't tell me what to do, just show me clearly how things stand. Provide me a structure to help me make effective decisions -- but don't make the decision for me.
So, regardless of the intermediate effects, the ultimate result would be abandonment of the system -- whether by means of actually giving up and trying something new, or merely by breaking the rules, introducing tweaks, etc. And since this rule is more tyrannical than the dismissal rule, thus point would be reached even faster than usual.
I'm coming to really appreciate Bernie's motto - don't tell me what to do, just show me clearly how things stand. Provide me a structure to help me make effective decisions -- but don't make the decision for me.
January 13, 2012 at 5:05 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I have to agree with Seraphim:
<<So, regardless of the intermediate effects, the ultimate result would be abandonment of the system.>>
I can feel the resistance already, and I've never even used that rule!
<<So, regardless of the intermediate effects, the ultimate result would be abandonment of the system.>>
I can feel the resistance already, and I've never even used that rule!
January 13, 2012 at 5:46 |
Bernie
Bernie
Mark, you wrote to Sarah:
<<I think I'd keep going back to the project list using the "if it needs doing now, do it" rule. That would mean I could use the main list in conjunction with it.>>
I am surprised, but encouraged, that you interpret the "needs doing now" rule so broadly. It validates my "free-floating C2" concept from earlier discussions, and it points the way to recapturing the benefits of SuperFocus without SF's inflexible compulsion and timing issues, within a strict AF system.
Namely, I would keep a spare page next to my AF notebook. On this page belong:
- today's scheduled commitments
- recurring tasks falling today
- one or two top projects to be worked on little-and-often throughout the day
(I.e., all items that will "need doing now" sometime today)
All day, I circulate around the spare page and my AF active page, picking off whatever stands out and flipping the AF page whenever none of its items stand out. We can use standard dismissal or experiment with optional dismissal, and we can start each day on yesterday's AF page or not, as long as we clearly state which AF rules we are following.
I submit that this follows strict AF rules while incorporating the standard off-list items that would normally be listed on a separate calendar or in Outlook reminders. The effect is to keep a small thread of urgent and current work in constant little-and-often focus, while slipping other items (from the AF pages) in between.
Its Achilles heel is the plasticity of "needs doing today," so I would be careful to limit those "top projects" to the bare minimum, hopefully just one at a time. This spare page is very similar to the TODAY pages mentioned by Seraphim and Alan, except I believe it requires no rule changes whatsoever. It is simply a single, paper-based way of tracking our standard off-list items. And guess what? It's a dashboard! At a glance, in one place, everything I need to know about today, next to my "background" options rolling by in the AF notebook.
Plus, for me, this addresses a huge source of resistance at the end of the list: I typically have a hot project with items listed on the final 1-3 pages, and as I roll off the end of the list, I am faced with the prospect of putting that project on hold until the next cycle. I don't wanna do that!! Yet, since the project has no specific deadline, I always felt I'd be cheating to invoke the "needs doing now" rule. Moving this project to my spare page, I would expect a nice improvement on the AF side.
What do you think?
<<I think I'd keep going back to the project list using the "if it needs doing now, do it" rule. That would mean I could use the main list in conjunction with it.>>
I am surprised, but encouraged, that you interpret the "needs doing now" rule so broadly. It validates my "free-floating C2" concept from earlier discussions, and it points the way to recapturing the benefits of SuperFocus without SF's inflexible compulsion and timing issues, within a strict AF system.
Namely, I would keep a spare page next to my AF notebook. On this page belong:
- today's scheduled commitments
- recurring tasks falling today
- one or two top projects to be worked on little-and-often throughout the day
(I.e., all items that will "need doing now" sometime today)
All day, I circulate around the spare page and my AF active page, picking off whatever stands out and flipping the AF page whenever none of its items stand out. We can use standard dismissal or experiment with optional dismissal, and we can start each day on yesterday's AF page or not, as long as we clearly state which AF rules we are following.
I submit that this follows strict AF rules while incorporating the standard off-list items that would normally be listed on a separate calendar or in Outlook reminders. The effect is to keep a small thread of urgent and current work in constant little-and-often focus, while slipping other items (from the AF pages) in between.
Its Achilles heel is the plasticity of "needs doing today," so I would be careful to limit those "top projects" to the bare minimum, hopefully just one at a time. This spare page is very similar to the TODAY pages mentioned by Seraphim and Alan, except I believe it requires no rule changes whatsoever. It is simply a single, paper-based way of tracking our standard off-list items. And guess what? It's a dashboard! At a glance, in one place, everything I need to know about today, next to my "background" options rolling by in the AF notebook.
Plus, for me, this addresses a huge source of resistance at the end of the list: I typically have a hot project with items listed on the final 1-3 pages, and as I roll off the end of the list, I am faced with the prospect of putting that project on hold until the next cycle. I don't wanna do that!! Yet, since the project has no specific deadline, I always felt I'd be cheating to invoke the "needs doing now" rule. Moving this project to my spare page, I would expect a nice improvement on the AF side.
What do you think?
January 13, 2012 at 6:02 |
Bernie
Bernie
BKK:
<< As an example, if there is a task like, "go through credit card statements and review recurring charges," you might see a couple of months later a significant charge on your credit card for a service that you really don't need or want anymore. Even worse: "Call insurance agent about increasing life insurance policy." But by the time you need it, it's too late... >>
Those are good examples because they lie in that annoying territory where a task needs to be done, but there's no real urgency about it. They are difficult to handle from a time management perspective because both the pain and the gain lie a long way in the future.
So it gets to the crunch point on your AF1 page. These are the only two tasks left on the page and you don't feel like doing them.
Are you more likely to get them done by:
a) Telling yourself that if you don't get moving on them now you will strike them off the list for good.
or
b) Dismissing them for later review so that you can continue procrastinating on them for as long as it takes.
I think I know the answer to that.
<< As an example, if there is a task like, "go through credit card statements and review recurring charges," you might see a couple of months later a significant charge on your credit card for a service that you really don't need or want anymore. Even worse: "Call insurance agent about increasing life insurance policy." But by the time you need it, it's too late... >>
Those are good examples because they lie in that annoying territory where a task needs to be done, but there's no real urgency about it. They are difficult to handle from a time management perspective because both the pain and the gain lie a long way in the future.
So it gets to the crunch point on your AF1 page. These are the only two tasks left on the page and you don't feel like doing them.
Are you more likely to get them done by:
a) Telling yourself that if you don't get moving on them now you will strike them off the list for good.
or
b) Dismissing them for later review so that you can continue procrastinating on them for as long as it takes.
I think I know the answer to that.
January 13, 2012 at 8:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Bernie:
<< I also imagine this would induce me to work fewer tasks per page. I would want to leave plenty of cushion for my next visit to the page.... Some days I am focused on one or two big projects, and I stay on the last two pages of AF all day. Recently, I've had many days like this as I wrap up a backlog of projects. >>
When you are working on the last two pages of AF all day, presumably you are still leaving plenty of cushion on the other pages.
<< In the big picture, I think all this would result in a faster pace of completion, less time elapsing between an item entered in AF and seeing that item completed. But it would come at the expense of more items dropped (for good) as those pages get deleted. >>
But isn't that a good thing? Most of us enter far too much on our lists. The sooner we bring the list down to what we can really accomplish the better, surely?
<< I also imagine this would induce me to work fewer tasks per page. I would want to leave plenty of cushion for my next visit to the page.... Some days I am focused on one or two big projects, and I stay on the last two pages of AF all day. Recently, I've had many days like this as I wrap up a backlog of projects. >>
When you are working on the last two pages of AF all day, presumably you are still leaving plenty of cushion on the other pages.
<< In the big picture, I think all this would result in a faster pace of completion, less time elapsing between an item entered in AF and seeing that item completed. But it would come at the expense of more items dropped (for good) as those pages get deleted. >>
But isn't that a good thing? Most of us enter far too much on our lists. The sooner we bring the list down to what we can really accomplish the better, surely?
January 13, 2012 at 9:23 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< I've come to believe that all rules that FORCE you to do something will ultimately cause me to resist the system itself. >>
But this rule wouldn't force you to do anything. It would just face you with the choice: do it or don't do it.
<< So, regardless of the intermediate effects, the ultimate result would be abandonment of the system -- whether by means of actually giving up and trying something new, or merely by breaking the rules, introducing tweaks, etc. And since this rule is more tyrannical than the dismissal rule, thus point would be reached even faster than usual. >>
To quote a distinguished commenter on this Forum:
'... the DWM dismissal is more effective for me, since it forces dismissal after a certain period of time, and tends to keep my total number of tasks pretty constant. I get a much better sense of my total workload and what I can really handle. Again, separating out the main work from the maintenance/miscellany helps a lot. If a main work item falls off the DWM waterfall, this is a red flag to me that there is something seriously wrong -- either my workload is too big, or I'm spending too much time on the AF forum, or something like that, and I can take corrective action. But if a miscellaneous someday/maybe falls off the waterfall, I just say "goodbye" and move on.'
<< I'm coming to really appreciate Bernie's motto - don't tell me what to do, just show me clearly how things stand. Provide me a structure to help me make effective decisions -- but don't make the decision for me. >>
But wouldn't providing a clear structure be the great advantage of this rule? It would give you a clear choice:
Do it vs. Don't do it
rather than:
Do it vs. Continue procrastinating indefinitely
Isn't that a framework for more effective decisions?
<< I've come to believe that all rules that FORCE you to do something will ultimately cause me to resist the system itself. >>
But this rule wouldn't force you to do anything. It would just face you with the choice: do it or don't do it.
<< So, regardless of the intermediate effects, the ultimate result would be abandonment of the system -- whether by means of actually giving up and trying something new, or merely by breaking the rules, introducing tweaks, etc. And since this rule is more tyrannical than the dismissal rule, thus point would be reached even faster than usual. >>
To quote a distinguished commenter on this Forum:
'... the DWM dismissal is more effective for me, since it forces dismissal after a certain period of time, and tends to keep my total number of tasks pretty constant. I get a much better sense of my total workload and what I can really handle. Again, separating out the main work from the maintenance/miscellany helps a lot. If a main work item falls off the DWM waterfall, this is a red flag to me that there is something seriously wrong -- either my workload is too big, or I'm spending too much time on the AF forum, or something like that, and I can take corrective action. But if a miscellaneous someday/maybe falls off the waterfall, I just say "goodbye" and move on.'
<< I'm coming to really appreciate Bernie's motto - don't tell me what to do, just show me clearly how things stand. Provide me a structure to help me make effective decisions -- but don't make the decision for me. >>
But wouldn't providing a clear structure be the great advantage of this rule? It would give you a clear choice:
Do it vs. Don't do it
rather than:
Do it vs. Continue procrastinating indefinitely
Isn't that a framework for more effective decisions?
January 13, 2012 at 9:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Bernie:
<< I can feel the resistance already, and I've never even used that rule! >>
Well, since you've never used the rule the resistance is so far only in your imagination.
<< I can feel the resistance already, and I've never even used that rule! >>
Well, since you've never used the rule the resistance is so far only in your imagination.
January 13, 2012 at 9:31 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Bernie:
<< I am surprised, but encouraged, that you interpret the "needs doing now" rule so broadly. >>
I'm glad you are encouraged, but I don't see why you think I am interpreting the rule "broadly".
<< It validates my "free-floating C2" concept >>
Validation doesn't come from me. Validation comes from your concept working in practice. If it works for you, great. If it works for other people as well, even greater.
<< I am surprised, but encouraged, that you interpret the "needs doing now" rule so broadly. >>
I'm glad you are encouraged, but I don't see why you think I am interpreting the rule "broadly".
<< It validates my "free-floating C2" concept >>
Validation doesn't come from me. Validation comes from your concept working in practice. If it works for you, great. If it works for other people as well, even greater.
January 13, 2012 at 9:36 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
"Are you more likely to get them done by:
a) Telling yourself that if you don't get moving on them now you will strike them off the list for good.
or
b) Dismissing them for later review so that you can continue procrastinating on them for as long as it takes."
(a) of course, but it comes at a heavy price: I may end up languishing on that task for 15 minutes trying to figure how to move on it, when now isn't the ideal time or mindset to tackle it. This slows down work on other things by more than 15 minutes because it saps the energy and flow out of me.
If you ask instead "am I more likely to get more,better accomplished by (a) or (b), I would answer (b).
a) Telling yourself that if you don't get moving on them now you will strike them off the list for good.
or
b) Dismissing them for later review so that you can continue procrastinating on them for as long as it takes."
(a) of course, but it comes at a heavy price: I may end up languishing on that task for 15 minutes trying to figure how to move on it, when now isn't the ideal time or mindset to tackle it. This slows down work on other things by more than 15 minutes because it saps the energy and flow out of me.
If you ask instead "am I more likely to get more,better accomplished by (a) or (b), I would answer (b).
January 13, 2012 at 15:07 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
I don't think you are giving enough weight to the fact that rules for dismissal/deletion (or the lack of them) affect tasks at every stage of their life on the list, not just when they are on the point of being dismissed/deleted.
If you have a deletion, rather than a dismissal, rule it is going to affect how tasks "stand out" because it is one of the factors which your subconscious takes into account. You have increased the "risk factor" that important tasks will be deleted and that causes your subconscious to act in a way which minimizes that risk.
I don't think you are giving enough weight to the fact that rules for dismissal/deletion (or the lack of them) affect tasks at every stage of their life on the list, not just when they are on the point of being dismissed/deleted.
If you have a deletion, rather than a dismissal, rule it is going to affect how tasks "stand out" because it is one of the factors which your subconscious takes into account. You have increased the "risk factor" that important tasks will be deleted and that causes your subconscious to act in a way which minimizes that risk.
January 13, 2012 at 15:46 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Absolutely. And that subconscious adjustment also clutters the mind to make it harder to focus efficiently on the more critical items. I strongly feel that the dismissal rule is better when gentler - much gentler.
January 13, 2012 at 16:38 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
<< And that subconscious adjustment also clutters the mind to make it harder to focus efficiently on the more critical items. >>
If it's subconscious then it's not cluttering the mind.
As for focusing on "the more critical items", this is precisely the problem with this type of task. It's never going to become critical. Increasing the risk factor gives the task the motivation that it is otherwise lacking.
<< And that subconscious adjustment also clutters the mind to make it harder to focus efficiently on the more critical items. >>
If it's subconscious then it's not cluttering the mind.
As for focusing on "the more critical items", this is precisely the problem with this type of task. It's never going to become critical. Increasing the risk factor gives the task the motivation that it is otherwise lacking.
January 13, 2012 at 16:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
The actor Sir Antony Hopkins has just released an album of classical music he composed himself. He attributes his creativity to NOT setting goals...
January 13, 2012 at 17:11 |
michael
michael
michael:
I might reserve judgement on that one until after I've heard the music!
I might reserve judgement on that one until after I've heard the music!
January 13, 2012 at 17:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Well, something is cluttering it. :-) I agree these are difficult items, but I think they are far in the minority. By ignoring them until they are the only ones left (all others actioned or deletede), you get a much easier and less frequent problem of how to deal with the few.
For another tack, I think also the difficulty of these tasks lies in the lack of systems that makes them feel difficult. I'm not clear on this idea, but I have a feeling there are ways to be more generally prepared to tackle such tasks. Once you've achieved that, they become easy and the procrastination issue goes away. (Somehow)
For another tack, I think also the difficulty of these tasks lies in the lack of systems that makes them feel difficult. I'm not clear on this idea, but I have a feeling there are ways to be more generally prepared to tackle such tasks. Once you've achieved that, they become easy and the procrastination issue goes away. (Somehow)
January 13, 2012 at 17:38 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
It feels to me like a delete-instead-of-dismiss rule would apply some needed pressure early on and have a positive effect on getting things done (a negetive effect on procrastination). I'm going to try it.
January 13, 2012 at 20:34 |
Zane
Zane
Zane,
Thats where I went with it. Marks clarification that a dismissed page is no longer looked at as much made dismissal seem more palatable, but it also seems ok to keeo things on the list until you delete or do them. At some point you would fill a book and start over so you could prune the list.
Gerry
Thats where I went with it. Marks clarification that a dismissed page is no longer looked at as much made dismissal seem more palatable, but it also seems ok to keeo things on the list until you delete or do them. At some point you would fill a book and start over so you could prune the list.
Gerry
January 13, 2012 at 21:08 |
Gerry
Gerry
Mark Forster wrote:
<< << I've come to believe that all rules that FORCE you to do something will ultimately cause me to resist the system itself. >>
But this rule wouldn't force you to do anything. It would just face you with the choice: do it or don't do it. >>
It forces me to choose, when perhaps I am not yet ready to choose.
<< To quote a distinguished commenter on this Forum: >>
<< '... the DWM dismissal is more effective for me, since it forces dismissal after a certain period of time, and tends to keep my total number of tasks pretty constant. I get a much better sense of my total workload and what I can really handle. >>
Very well stated. Who wrote that, anyway? LOL
I was comparing DWM dismissal to AF1 dismissal. I almost never dismissed anything in the original AF1, because I never had the opportunity -- I was always chasing the end of the list. My list of tasks was always growing (more and more out of control!).
With DWM, it stabilized at some point.
But also note the thing I wrote immediately following:
<< Again, separating out the main work from the maintenance/miscellany helps a lot. >>
I was keeping more than one DWM list -- making a conscious, pre-determined distinction between "main work" and "maintenance/miscellany". If I remember right, I was time-blocking periods for the latter, to ensure I kept it to a strictly limited timeframe, and allowing me to focus on the "main work" the rest of the time.
Each of those different DWM lists would reach a kind of equilibrium. This system still had its problems, but this equilibrium was a big improvement over AF1.
<< If a main work item falls off the DWM waterfall, this is a red flag to me that there is something seriously wrong -- either my workload is too big, or I'm spending too much time on the AF forum, or something like that, and I can take corrective action. >>
Yes, I clearly remember that I'd make all the "expired" items on my "main work" list appear in bold red, to force me to review and re-evaluate my commitments.
And this is actually an example of the kind of thing I am advocating now : Show me clearly where there's a problem, but don't use a forced mechanical rule to deal with it. Let ME make the decision how to deal with it.
<< But if a miscellaneous someday/maybe falls off the waterfall, I just say "goodbye" and move on.' >>
Yeah, it doesn't matter so much if that stuff gets deleted. But you have to remember, I had already pre-sorted it. If you have all your tasks mixed together, with no pre-sorting, as for standard AF1 or DWM (or AutoDIT), this can be somewhat more dangerous and disconcerting.
This example actually proves my point. I am no longer using DWM. I really did like it, but really did develop resistance to it. I didn't know why at the time. I know I missed the intuition of the "standing out" effect and the frequent cycling over closed lists, which is much stronger in AF1 than in DWM. When you released SF, it really captured my imagination and I jumped at the chance to try a system that preserved those strengths of AF1 while promising to address some of the weaknesses.
I think I get the best results when I am faithful to the rules of a system, and don't allow myself to make exceptions. It's easier to develop the habit of working the system, and helps me really TRUST your system. But sometimes, trying to follow the rules faithfully triggers repeated problems -- such as occasionally being faced with dismissal before I am ready to dismiss, and gaming the system in some way to prevent the dismissal from happening. If the system never FORCES me to act a certain way, then the system won't have these issues. (It may certainly have OTHER issues, but not the one of forcing me to do something my own common sense tells me is the wrong thing to do.)
In regard to repeated inaction, I'd prefer a system that CLARIFIES THE CONSEQUENCES of my inaction, rather than one that FORCES me to deal with it by means of a mechanical rule.
<< << I've come to believe that all rules that FORCE you to do something will ultimately cause me to resist the system itself. >>
But this rule wouldn't force you to do anything. It would just face you with the choice: do it or don't do it. >>
It forces me to choose, when perhaps I am not yet ready to choose.
<< To quote a distinguished commenter on this Forum: >>
<< '... the DWM dismissal is more effective for me, since it forces dismissal after a certain period of time, and tends to keep my total number of tasks pretty constant. I get a much better sense of my total workload and what I can really handle. >>
Very well stated. Who wrote that, anyway? LOL
I was comparing DWM dismissal to AF1 dismissal. I almost never dismissed anything in the original AF1, because I never had the opportunity -- I was always chasing the end of the list. My list of tasks was always growing (more and more out of control!).
With DWM, it stabilized at some point.
But also note the thing I wrote immediately following:
<< Again, separating out the main work from the maintenance/miscellany helps a lot. >>
I was keeping more than one DWM list -- making a conscious, pre-determined distinction between "main work" and "maintenance/miscellany". If I remember right, I was time-blocking periods for the latter, to ensure I kept it to a strictly limited timeframe, and allowing me to focus on the "main work" the rest of the time.
Each of those different DWM lists would reach a kind of equilibrium. This system still had its problems, but this equilibrium was a big improvement over AF1.
<< If a main work item falls off the DWM waterfall, this is a red flag to me that there is something seriously wrong -- either my workload is too big, or I'm spending too much time on the AF forum, or something like that, and I can take corrective action. >>
Yes, I clearly remember that I'd make all the "expired" items on my "main work" list appear in bold red, to force me to review and re-evaluate my commitments.
And this is actually an example of the kind of thing I am advocating now : Show me clearly where there's a problem, but don't use a forced mechanical rule to deal with it. Let ME make the decision how to deal with it.
<< But if a miscellaneous someday/maybe falls off the waterfall, I just say "goodbye" and move on.' >>
Yeah, it doesn't matter so much if that stuff gets deleted. But you have to remember, I had already pre-sorted it. If you have all your tasks mixed together, with no pre-sorting, as for standard AF1 or DWM (or AutoDIT), this can be somewhat more dangerous and disconcerting.
This example actually proves my point. I am no longer using DWM. I really did like it, but really did develop resistance to it. I didn't know why at the time. I know I missed the intuition of the "standing out" effect and the frequent cycling over closed lists, which is much stronger in AF1 than in DWM. When you released SF, it really captured my imagination and I jumped at the chance to try a system that preserved those strengths of AF1 while promising to address some of the weaknesses.
I think I get the best results when I am faithful to the rules of a system, and don't allow myself to make exceptions. It's easier to develop the habit of working the system, and helps me really TRUST your system. But sometimes, trying to follow the rules faithfully triggers repeated problems -- such as occasionally being faced with dismissal before I am ready to dismiss, and gaming the system in some way to prevent the dismissal from happening. If the system never FORCES me to act a certain way, then the system won't have these issues. (It may certainly have OTHER issues, but not the one of forcing me to do something my own common sense tells me is the wrong thing to do.)
In regard to repeated inaction, I'd prefer a system that CLARIFIES THE CONSEQUENCES of my inaction, rather than one that FORCES me to deal with it by means of a mechanical rule.
January 14, 2012 at 1:32 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
Your comments illustrate the difficulty of understanding the dynamics of someone else's system without actually trying it out!
<< In regard to repeated inaction, I'd prefer a system that CLARIFIES THE CONSEQUENCES of my inaction, rather than one that FORCES me to deal with it by means of a mechanical rule. >>
Thanks for that. It's given me an idea.
Your comments illustrate the difficulty of understanding the dynamics of someone else's system without actually trying it out!
<< In regard to repeated inaction, I'd prefer a system that CLARIFIES THE CONSEQUENCES of my inaction, rather than one that FORCES me to deal with it by means of a mechanical rule. >>
Thanks for that. It's given me an idea.
January 14, 2012 at 9:57 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim
"In regard to repeated inaction, I'd prefer a system that CLARIFIES THE CONSEQUENCES of my inaction, rather than one that FORCES me to deal with it by means of a mechanical rule"
YES may be the real question about TASKS is to answer to this question which may eliminate most of the tasks on the flow rather to ask the OPPOSIT QUESTION which would be "What do I have to do to succeed about this"
I have noticed than when I go on holidays the days before I am very efficient and fast in my job and I do the most valuable tasks. Why ??? just because I wont be able to do anything about my stuff so I have to succeed first.
Sometimes it is better to ask to yourself "what would be the consequence, not to do this or that" because you suddenly realize that what you wanted to do just before was not so important than that....
"In regard to repeated inaction, I'd prefer a system that CLARIFIES THE CONSEQUENCES of my inaction, rather than one that FORCES me to deal with it by means of a mechanical rule"
YES may be the real question about TASKS is to answer to this question which may eliminate most of the tasks on the flow rather to ask the OPPOSIT QUESTION which would be "What do I have to do to succeed about this"
I have noticed than when I go on holidays the days before I am very efficient and fast in my job and I do the most valuable tasks. Why ??? just because I wont be able to do anything about my stuff so I have to succeed first.
Sometimes it is better to ask to yourself "what would be the consequence, not to do this or that" because you suddenly realize that what you wanted to do just before was not so important than that....
January 14, 2012 at 11:53 |
FocusGuy.
FocusGuy.
Jupiter has given me an example situation which would make me procrastinate over a decision to delete a task rather than have the escape to dismiss....
...Say I'm going on holiday for a few days starting tomorrow. I've worked off some standing out tasks over the last few pages. I'm generally working on the last page as I think of things that I need to wrap up and I get to 3pm feeling in a pretty good state about the last page. Ok, I think, let's go to the first page in the list. The last task remaining is "Call my son's teacher about extra help for this term"...The task could be done now. It's a personal one. It's not really appropriate right now while I'm trying to wrap up work but my boss is pretty cool about making the occassional call regarding personal things. But other tasks in the list are calling to me as being more appropriate right now. It's definitely standing out as a "I really don't want to delete this because it's important"....so what to do?? Just delete it? I'm saying I failed to do this task that is important to somebody in my life?
It's probably not the best example ever but I wanted to jump in with this thought to see if someone else can relate tho this feeling and perhaps express it with a better example :-)
...Say I'm going on holiday for a few days starting tomorrow. I've worked off some standing out tasks over the last few pages. I'm generally working on the last page as I think of things that I need to wrap up and I get to 3pm feeling in a pretty good state about the last page. Ok, I think, let's go to the first page in the list. The last task remaining is "Call my son's teacher about extra help for this term"...The task could be done now. It's a personal one. It's not really appropriate right now while I'm trying to wrap up work but my boss is pretty cool about making the occassional call regarding personal things. But other tasks in the list are calling to me as being more appropriate right now. It's definitely standing out as a "I really don't want to delete this because it's important"....so what to do?? Just delete it? I'm saying I failed to do this task that is important to somebody in my life?
It's probably not the best example ever but I wanted to jump in with this thought to see if someone else can relate tho this feeling and perhaps express it with a better example :-)
January 14, 2012 at 12:19 |
Spike
Spike
Spike, I propose constructing a list of "when I return" tasks.
January 14, 2012 at 13:53 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Spike:
Usually when I'm going on holiday next day I make a list of "things I've got to do before I leave" and work off that rather than whatever system I'm using at the moment.
Usually when I'm going on holiday next day I make a list of "things I've got to do before I leave" and work off that rather than whatever system I'm using at the moment.
January 14, 2012 at 17:23 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I knew it would be a poor example :-)
Thank you Mark and Alan for your replies. I think the guidelines are good and are the sorts of things that have been spoken about on the forum as coping strategies for various situations.
However, I was trying to demonstrate why I would come up against resistance to deleting a task rather than dismissing.
What I understood from this thread Mark is that you were saying why not replace the rule of dismissal with deletion. I'm probably going to mis represent you here but what I read about your adventures in productivity is that you have generally started a new list when you are trying out a new system and that you generally find things that are in a backlog list get remembered anyway and added into the new list system you are experimenting with....I'm sure I read a thread where you said it was difficult to keep adding in a backlog from a previous system. This supports just deleting tasks will work.
Anyway...I'm currently kind of in the camp that says "present me a dashboard so I can choose what I want to do when presented with the list of things" however, I also have a large backlog of tasks and review tasks that aren't getting any sort of care and feeding even though my mind is saying "there's something in there that you still need to do although not urgently" I usually am painfully aware of the consequences of my inaction (especially in relation to tasks related to promises i have made to my wife, kids, parents :-) )
So...maybe I am moving my loyalty to the camp that says "just delete it". It kind of feels a bit like the Dice Man. If I throw all my thoughts, ideas and ambitions into the list and then let it help me delete those that don't stand out as much as the others I wonder who I might turn out to be :-) And maybe I will remember to add a task saying "Call my Son's teacher about...."
Is this the bit of the system you were experimenting with for the "Final Version" where (I think) you said something about the system...(ok I'm struggling now for the words)..."self cleaning" or "self regulating" - I'll have to look it up now...Anyway...Delete...Dismiss...Delete...Dismiss hmmmmmmmmmm
Thank you Mark and Alan for your replies. I think the guidelines are good and are the sorts of things that have been spoken about on the forum as coping strategies for various situations.
However, I was trying to demonstrate why I would come up against resistance to deleting a task rather than dismissing.
What I understood from this thread Mark is that you were saying why not replace the rule of dismissal with deletion. I'm probably going to mis represent you here but what I read about your adventures in productivity is that you have generally started a new list when you are trying out a new system and that you generally find things that are in a backlog list get remembered anyway and added into the new list system you are experimenting with....I'm sure I read a thread where you said it was difficult to keep adding in a backlog from a previous system. This supports just deleting tasks will work.
Anyway...I'm currently kind of in the camp that says "present me a dashboard so I can choose what I want to do when presented with the list of things" however, I also have a large backlog of tasks and review tasks that aren't getting any sort of care and feeding even though my mind is saying "there's something in there that you still need to do although not urgently" I usually am painfully aware of the consequences of my inaction (especially in relation to tasks related to promises i have made to my wife, kids, parents :-) )
So...maybe I am moving my loyalty to the camp that says "just delete it". It kind of feels a bit like the Dice Man. If I throw all my thoughts, ideas and ambitions into the list and then let it help me delete those that don't stand out as much as the others I wonder who I might turn out to be :-) And maybe I will remember to add a task saying "Call my Son's teacher about...."
Is this the bit of the system you were experimenting with for the "Final Version" where (I think) you said something about the system...(ok I'm struggling now for the words)..."self cleaning" or "self regulating" - I'll have to look it up now...Anyway...Delete...Dismiss...Delete...Dismiss hmmmmmmmmmm
January 15, 2012 at 11:12 |
Spike
Spike
'However, once I had a large number of dismissed pages, I began to feel strong resistance to reviewing them. I kept writing "review dismissals" on my list, but it rarely stood out, and then I only got through a fraction of the dismissed pages before rationalizing that I had "got the folder out" so I could rewrite the task (review dismissals) and move on.'
Maybe have a way to review each dismissed page at a bigger and bigger interval, but add anything time dependent to a calender or tickler.
So you don't review every dismissed page every time, only new ones and ones that have reached a due date, say 1,3,6 months from the last review.
Maybe have a way to review each dismissed page at a bigger and bigger interval, but add anything time dependent to a calender or tickler.
So you don't review every dismissed page every time, only new ones and ones that have reached a due date, say 1,3,6 months from the last review.
January 15, 2012 at 13:06 |
smileypete
smileypete
Of pages more than two weeks old, I review one or two such pages at a time. It may take a while to get through them all, but I don't resist this unless something urgent is happening.
I don't have anything 6 months old. Who does?
I don't have anything 6 months old. Who does?
January 15, 2012 at 14:13 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
"I'm not sure I quite understand this example. If you were only doing one thing on Friday, why were you circulating through the list? "
I was working on a paper but every step I needed to take to complete the paper was entered as an item on the list. The page that contained the cat claws & invoices was actually only 3 days old, and I dismissed 14/25 items on that page - because none of them had to do with the paper. I knew I'd get back to the ones that were really important this week, and I have, by and large.
It's an extreme example, for sure, but I think it illustrates the "I'm not going to do this RIGHT NOW" aspect of dismissal. And never fear, nobody's getting clawed to death around here... the cat's claws got trimmed over the weekend. :^)