Discussion Forum > The current fad...
Yes, Alan just posted the same idea on a different thread, and I think you are both right.
January 26, 2012 at 16:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Of course. I started with no rules, and failed. If I went back to no rules, I would be more successful than I originally was, because I have better techniques. In fact, much of my habit would still be governed by rules that I've internalized. But I'm not heading there yet.
January 26, 2012 at 16:43 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Many people have described what a failure GTD was. I too found it deeply flawed, but it did ingrain in me many useful dispositions. When I read Mark's books, I was able to be much more successful with them in part because I was building on a foundation laid by GTD.
Mark has been using the muscle analogy in his recent blogs. In the paragaph above, I used the metaphor of a building's foundation. In both instances later learnings are made possible because of the existence of prior learnings.
My view is that rules are good and slackening them is not. I acknowledge the logical possibility that I could reach time management nirvana, where the rules are so internalized that I can go freestyle and improvise as I like. But I do not see that happening in my foreseeable future.
Until that time, the best way for me to build time management muscles and foundations is to follow the rules. Of course, I break the rules again and again. And when I do I gently remind myself that the rules are mine, I have committed to them for my own benefit, and that I can continue to improve by hewing to them more and more.
Mark has been using the muscle analogy in his recent blogs. In the paragaph above, I used the metaphor of a building's foundation. In both instances later learnings are made possible because of the existence of prior learnings.
My view is that rules are good and slackening them is not. I acknowledge the logical possibility that I could reach time management nirvana, where the rules are so internalized that I can go freestyle and improvise as I like. But I do not see that happening in my foreseeable future.
Until that time, the best way for me to build time management muscles and foundations is to follow the rules. Of course, I break the rules again and again. And when I do I gently remind myself that the rules are mine, I have committed to them for my own benefit, and that I can continue to improve by hewing to them more and more.
January 26, 2012 at 17:45 |
moises
moises
Learn the form, but seek the formless.
Learn it all, then forget it all.
Learn The way, then find your own way
http://blog.andrit.com/2010/02/learn-the-form-but-seek-the-formless-learn-it-all-then-forget-it-all-learn-the-way-then-find-your-own-way/
Learn it all, then forget it all.
Learn The way, then find your own way
http://blog.andrit.com/2010/02/learn-the-form-but-seek-the-formless-learn-it-all-then-forget-it-all-learn-the-way-then-find-your-own-way/
January 26, 2012 at 18:22 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
My biggest concern is that the Final Version is perfect... for those that have already built their foundation but will flounder and fail for those new to TM. Is there wisdom in keeping all of the AF versions alive as "stepping stones" towards time management nirvana? (I love the choice of words, moises.) Start at AF(1), graduate to AF2, then to DWM, then SF, then AF1 with relaxed rules, then to FV?
January 27, 2012 at 0:28 |
jFenter
jFenter
jFenter: In my experience, AF1 and SF had the most "personal training" value. Both of them really did teach me new and better habits. I didn't feel that same effect so much from AF2 (which I barely used at all) or DWM (which I used for many months).
I suppose this is one more requirement for the "perfect system": It must provide you with the "training" you happen to need most based on your time management maturity level; and it backs off just the right amount when the need for training declines. And if your habits ever start to fall to pieces, the system automatically puts the training wheels back on.
Mark, can you add that to the list of requirements? :-)
I suppose this is one more requirement for the "perfect system": It must provide you with the "training" you happen to need most based on your time management maturity level; and it backs off just the right amount when the need for training declines. And if your habits ever start to fall to pieces, the system automatically puts the training wheels back on.
Mark, can you add that to the list of requirements? :-)
January 27, 2012 at 2:23 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
The experiment is "relax the rules" and it seems that those doing this experiment are the ones that have been using AF variants for a long time. Like working out the "hard decision" muscle, I wonder if these years of AF usage have strengthened the experimenters enough that they can afford to relax on the rules. If someone came to the board having never used a (real) TM system before, would the lack of rules be a detriment?