Discussion Forum > AF2ND: Maximizing "Little and Often"
+JMJ+
Here is the how I plow through high-resistance and/or difficult tasks using AF2ND. It uses the "Decremental Timebox" first introduced to the FV forum by GMBW over at this thread: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1842252
The main requirement for this method is that the task can be left to idle without any due harm or annoyance to anyone or anything.
You will need an adjustable timer with an alarm for this.
1. Determine the total time you need to tackle a difficult task, then look at the "Decremental Timebox → Real (=Full) Time Conversion Table" at the link above.
3. Using what you saw from the table, write the task at the end of your AF2ND list like this:
Task x(y/z)
x = the total time you need to do the task
y = time decrement you are in now
z = the time decrement at the end
For example: "Clean Bathroom 30(1/7)" ---> You need to clean your bathroom for around 30 minutes (28 minutes, actually); you are currently on your first decrement, which will last 1 minute; the seventh and last decrement later should last 7 minutes.
4. When this item is "standing out", get your timer and set it to the time decrement for now (in this case, 1 minute). Work on the task until the alarm goes off.
5. Delete and re-write the item, but this time with y+1.
For this example, the rewritten item is "Clean Bathroom 30(2/7)"
6. Repeat steps 4 & 5 until you end with the final time decrement, in this example 7 minutes. By the end, you should have worked on your task for the required amount of time.
-----
Please note that you cannot use this approach, or at least will be hard to do, with AF1, AF4, or FV. It is possible with DWM, DWM2, and the SFs, but it is obvious that this approach of "little and often" is almost tailor-made for AF2 and AF2ND.
Here is the how I plow through high-resistance and/or difficult tasks using AF2ND. It uses the "Decremental Timebox" first introduced to the FV forum by GMBW over at this thread: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1842252
The main requirement for this method is that the task can be left to idle without any due harm or annoyance to anyone or anything.
You will need an adjustable timer with an alarm for this.
1. Determine the total time you need to tackle a difficult task, then look at the "Decremental Timebox → Real (=Full) Time Conversion Table" at the link above.
3. Using what you saw from the table, write the task at the end of your AF2ND list like this:
Task x(y/z)
x = the total time you need to do the task
y = time decrement you are in now
z = the time decrement at the end
For example: "Clean Bathroom 30(1/7)" ---> You need to clean your bathroom for around 30 minutes (28 minutes, actually); you are currently on your first decrement, which will last 1 minute; the seventh and last decrement later should last 7 minutes.
4. When this item is "standing out", get your timer and set it to the time decrement for now (in this case, 1 minute). Work on the task until the alarm goes off.
5. Delete and re-write the item, but this time with y+1.
For this example, the rewritten item is "Clean Bathroom 30(2/7)"
6. Repeat steps 4 & 5 until you end with the final time decrement, in this example 7 minutes. By the end, you should have worked on your task for the required amount of time.
-----
Please note that you cannot use this approach, or at least will be hard to do, with AF1, AF4, or FV. It is possible with DWM, DWM2, and the SFs, but it is obvious that this approach of "little and often" is almost tailor-made for AF2 and AF2ND.
August 1, 2012 at 3:56 |
nuntym
nuntym
It sounds like your incrementing time intervals, not decrementing . . .
August 3, 2012 at 0:24 |
Jeff N
Jeff N
+JMJ+
Oops, you're right. My bad.
Oops, you're right. My bad.
August 3, 2012 at 18:37 |
nuntym
nuntym
The original source that GMBW linked to has an earlier article in the series about decremental timeboxing:
http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/timeboxing-trilogy-part-4-decremental-timeboxing
I'm not sure what to make of the value of incrementing vs. decrementing (or both).
http://www.alljapaneseallthetime.com/blog/timeboxing-trilogy-part-4-decremental-timeboxing
I'm not sure what to make of the value of incrementing vs. decrementing (or both).
August 20, 2012 at 21:07 |
Deven
Deven
Your AF2ND tweak to AF2 is very interesting. I may have to give it a try sometime. Here's what I'm doing right now, for reference:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1920391#post1930668
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1920391#post1930668
August 20, 2012 at 21:08 |
Deven
Deven
I thought about it last night, and decided that AF2ND is more promising than the approach I was working on, so I'm trying it out starting today. My initial impression is good, I'll see how it works in practice. I had 55 tasks on my list when I started the day.
August 21, 2012 at 15:26 |
Deven
Deven
After one day of AF2ND, I'm a little concerned that my high-priority tasks are currently buried in the middle of the list, but I'll give it a little longer before trying any tweaks. The count is now at 59, but I don't know if that's significant. It did feel like I was getting useful things done, at least.
August 22, 2012 at 14:42 |
Deven
Deven
+JMJ+
@Deven: "I'm a little concerned that my high-priority tasks are currently buried in the middle of the list."
Why is that a problem?
@Deven: "I'm a little concerned that my high-priority tasks are currently buried in the middle of the list."
Why is that a problem?
August 23, 2012 at 15:35 |
nuntym
nuntym
Because I want them to get appropriate attention without having to game the system. It doesn't matter if a high-priority task "stands out" if you don't get to it in the list!
I really love the idea of rewriting the oldest task to maintain a balance between old/neglected tasks and recent ones, and it also appeals to me on a simplicity basis. Unfortunately, it also helps to bury things faster into the middle of the list, especially if long-neglected tasks do "stand out" and need attention. Yes, everything will cycle around again, but not quickly enough for my taste. Mind you, I do believe that AF2ND still improves on both AF1 and AF2 here, but I want something better.
I'm starting to believe that there's just no substitute for a certain amount of intelligent manual prioritization, so I'm back to adding stars to prioritize tasks, yet again. I've tried similar tweaks to FV (to make Prioritized FV) and AF1 (for the variant I described in the above-referenced thread), and in my experience, it has been an improvement. People consistently complain about the added complexity this entails, but I think the misquote from Einstein applies here: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Removing all prioritization from the system seems to oversimply things to the point where priority tasks don't get appropriate attention, and that's a problem for me. (Obviously, I may be in the minority here.)
That being said, after a mere 2 days on AF2ND (and another slight bump to 60 tasks), I've tweaked the system already. (Sorry!) Basically, I treat priority (starred) tasks as a mostly-independent AF2ND list, listed on different index cards from the main list. I'm allowing for the possibility of multiple stars if necessary; this tweak is stackable. (But as always, minimizing the use of stars is preferable.)
For the task selection process, I start with the highest-priority list and follow AF2ND rules, rewriting the oldest task on that list and scanning the list from the bottom for the first task that "stands out". If nothing in the list "stands out", then I will cycle to the next (lower-priority) list and again rewrite the oldest task and continue. After actioning a task, I return to the highest-priority list and start again. Each priority level becomes its own AF2ND system, but the lower-priority lists are only processed when nothing is "standing out" on the higher-priority lists. The idea behind this is to always keep priority tasks front-and-center so they can't be forgotten, without forcing them to be actioned at any particular time.
I'm quite looking forward to using this AF2ND variant; I think it will work very well for me. Time will tell...
I really love the idea of rewriting the oldest task to maintain a balance between old/neglected tasks and recent ones, and it also appeals to me on a simplicity basis. Unfortunately, it also helps to bury things faster into the middle of the list, especially if long-neglected tasks do "stand out" and need attention. Yes, everything will cycle around again, but not quickly enough for my taste. Mind you, I do believe that AF2ND still improves on both AF1 and AF2 here, but I want something better.
I'm starting to believe that there's just no substitute for a certain amount of intelligent manual prioritization, so I'm back to adding stars to prioritize tasks, yet again. I've tried similar tweaks to FV (to make Prioritized FV) and AF1 (for the variant I described in the above-referenced thread), and in my experience, it has been an improvement. People consistently complain about the added complexity this entails, but I think the misquote from Einstein applies here: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Removing all prioritization from the system seems to oversimply things to the point where priority tasks don't get appropriate attention, and that's a problem for me. (Obviously, I may be in the minority here.)
That being said, after a mere 2 days on AF2ND (and another slight bump to 60 tasks), I've tweaked the system already. (Sorry!) Basically, I treat priority (starred) tasks as a mostly-independent AF2ND list, listed on different index cards from the main list. I'm allowing for the possibility of multiple stars if necessary; this tweak is stackable. (But as always, minimizing the use of stars is preferable.)
For the task selection process, I start with the highest-priority list and follow AF2ND rules, rewriting the oldest task on that list and scanning the list from the bottom for the first task that "stands out". If nothing in the list "stands out", then I will cycle to the next (lower-priority) list and again rewrite the oldest task and continue. After actioning a task, I return to the highest-priority list and start again. Each priority level becomes its own AF2ND system, but the lower-priority lists are only processed when nothing is "standing out" on the higher-priority lists. The idea behind this is to always keep priority tasks front-and-center so they can't be forgotten, without forcing them to be actioned at any particular time.
I'm quite looking forward to using this AF2ND variant; I think it will work very well for me. Time will tell...
August 23, 2012 at 20:55 |
Deven
Deven
+JMJ+
Naah, it's ok. I just found myself having no problem going to the high-priority tasks is all, even if they are right smack in the middle of the list. As I said before, "such items stick out like sore thumbs in the mind's eye. AF2 will never let you forget those unfinished tasks that you left to idle minutes or hours ago." Which is why I was wondering why you had problems with it, since you DID notice those high priority tasks in the middle of the list, as you said.
Maybe it's the use of index cards, as they naturally break up your list, so you see your list not as a single list (which is ESSENTIAL for AF2, and not so much for Mark's other systems) but as a series of lists, making your search for tasks harder.
May I suggest using instead a 3x5 notebook instead? This is what I use for AF2ND, actually.
Good luck with your tweak.
Naah, it's ok. I just found myself having no problem going to the high-priority tasks is all, even if they are right smack in the middle of the list. As I said before, "such items stick out like sore thumbs in the mind's eye. AF2 will never let you forget those unfinished tasks that you left to idle minutes or hours ago." Which is why I was wondering why you had problems with it, since you DID notice those high priority tasks in the middle of the list, as you said.
Maybe it's the use of index cards, as they naturally break up your list, so you see your list not as a single list (which is ESSENTIAL for AF2, and not so much for Mark's other systems) but as a series of lists, making your search for tasks harder.
May I suggest using instead a 3x5 notebook instead? This is what I use for AF2ND, actually.
Good luck with your tweak.
August 24, 2012 at 0:34 |
nuntym
nuntym
Until I come up with a better name, I'll call my variation "AF2ND+" to distinguish it.
AF2 does remind you of what you just did, but unless you keep working on the priority tasks over and over again, they won't stay near the end of the list long with AF2ND because old tasks keep getting recycled. As I said, I love your tweak to help balance the old tasks against the new/urgent ones, but I soon found that the high-priority tasks had 20+ new tasks after them, simply because AF2ND kept grabbing old tasks that were waiting for attention.
I don't think the use of index cards has anything to do with it, because in AF2: "Pages are no longer treated as units. The new system is not affected by the length of page used." Unlike AF1, pages aren't supposed to be reviewed, you just start at the end of the list and look for the most recent task that "stands out". Although I'm aware that the high-priority tasks are there in the list somewhere, that doesn't change the fact that something I run into before them DOES "stand out" and therefore should be actioned according to the rules of the system.
Now, I've heard arguments like "you know something more important is coming up later, so you should skip over the earlier stuff until you get to it" -- this is what I consider to be "gaming the system". Simply pretending that items don't stand out because you're eager to get to something you know is elsewhere in the list strikes me as disingenuous. Besides, if it's a high-resistance high-priority task (as discussed at length in the FV forum), you won't want to do that anyhow.
The idea behind the AF2ND+ tweak is to make the prioritization explicit and keep those priority tasks up front by design. (Using index cards is decidedly helpful here, because it's easy to add new cards in the middle as needed.) It forces you to consider the high-priority tasks first, even if you don't end up doing them first. For high-resistance tasks, it may also help break down the resistance better, if only because you get sick of seeing that task. :)
On a separate note, I would argue that if you are eager to do a particular task that is somewhere randomly in the middle of an AF2-style list, it's perfectly valid to jump to the middle of the list and do that task next. One might argue that you're violating the AF2 processing rules by not contemplating each item in turn from the end of the list, but I would argue that this is functionally equivalent to writing a duplicate copy of the task at the end of the list (since you can add anything without filtering or evaluation) and then selecting it because it "stands out", then later deleting the original task in the middle of the list because it's now irrelevant as a duplicate.
Given that much of the value in any time management system lies in achieving a "mind like water" as David Allen calls it, any task that still calls to you in the back of your mind despite putting it into a trusted time management system is obviously "standing out" in a big way and likely deserves such treatment if it's something your mind can't let go of. Note that doing this WOULD be a violation of the AF1 processing rules, but then you can always invoke the "common sense" rule in that case.
AF2 does remind you of what you just did, but unless you keep working on the priority tasks over and over again, they won't stay near the end of the list long with AF2ND because old tasks keep getting recycled. As I said, I love your tweak to help balance the old tasks against the new/urgent ones, but I soon found that the high-priority tasks had 20+ new tasks after them, simply because AF2ND kept grabbing old tasks that were waiting for attention.
I don't think the use of index cards has anything to do with it, because in AF2: "Pages are no longer treated as units. The new system is not affected by the length of page used." Unlike AF1, pages aren't supposed to be reviewed, you just start at the end of the list and look for the most recent task that "stands out". Although I'm aware that the high-priority tasks are there in the list somewhere, that doesn't change the fact that something I run into before them DOES "stand out" and therefore should be actioned according to the rules of the system.
Now, I've heard arguments like "you know something more important is coming up later, so you should skip over the earlier stuff until you get to it" -- this is what I consider to be "gaming the system". Simply pretending that items don't stand out because you're eager to get to something you know is elsewhere in the list strikes me as disingenuous. Besides, if it's a high-resistance high-priority task (as discussed at length in the FV forum), you won't want to do that anyhow.
The idea behind the AF2ND+ tweak is to make the prioritization explicit and keep those priority tasks up front by design. (Using index cards is decidedly helpful here, because it's easy to add new cards in the middle as needed.) It forces you to consider the high-priority tasks first, even if you don't end up doing them first. For high-resistance tasks, it may also help break down the resistance better, if only because you get sick of seeing that task. :)
On a separate note, I would argue that if you are eager to do a particular task that is somewhere randomly in the middle of an AF2-style list, it's perfectly valid to jump to the middle of the list and do that task next. One might argue that you're violating the AF2 processing rules by not contemplating each item in turn from the end of the list, but I would argue that this is functionally equivalent to writing a duplicate copy of the task at the end of the list (since you can add anything without filtering or evaluation) and then selecting it because it "stands out", then later deleting the original task in the middle of the list because it's now irrelevant as a duplicate.
Given that much of the value in any time management system lies in achieving a "mind like water" as David Allen calls it, any task that still calls to you in the back of your mind despite putting it into a trusted time management system is obviously "standing out" in a big way and likely deserves such treatment if it's something your mind can't let go of. Note that doing this WOULD be a violation of the AF1 processing rules, but then you can always invoke the "common sense" rule in that case.
August 24, 2012 at 15:56 |
Deven
Deven
Deven,
You might be happier with Agile Results. It focuses more on a small number of desired outcomes than laundry-lists of tasks.
http://gettingresults.com/wiki/Getting_Results_the_Agile_Way_Table_of_Contents
I've been on it for two weeks and like it. I'm less distracted, and have more confidence I'm choosing the right things. The lesser-priority things I want to do are waiting properly.
As expected, I'm changing it a bit. As I plan each day, I review my big list. My favourites from that then get narrowed down to three things. Yesterday, the only commitment I didn't meet was an end-of-day delivery. The advice on planning your year is great.
You might be happier with Agile Results. It focuses more on a small number of desired outcomes than laundry-lists of tasks.
http://gettingresults.com/wiki/Getting_Results_the_Agile_Way_Table_of_Contents
I've been on it for two weeks and like it. I'm less distracted, and have more confidence I'm choosing the right things. The lesser-priority things I want to do are waiting properly.
As expected, I'm changing it a bit. As I plan each day, I review my big list. My favourites from that then get narrowed down to three things. Yesterday, the only commitment I didn't meet was an end-of-day delivery. The advice on planning your year is great.
August 25, 2012 at 15:07 |
Cricket
Cricket
Thanks for the link, Cricket. I scanned it briefly. I'm not ready to read through it just yet, but I did add it to my AF2ND+ list for later review! :)
August 27, 2012 at 14:31 |
Deven
Deven
+JMJ+
So how's your tweak going, Deven? :)
Before this forum went to limbo a couple of weeks ago I tried your idea, incorporating a way to prioritize some items, but still using non-detachable pages, thus I had to use tagging. I'm still using it now, it's nice. Thanks for the idea :)
So how's your tweak going, Deven? :)
Before this forum went to limbo a couple of weeks ago I tried your idea, incorporating a way to prioritize some items, but still using non-detachable pages, thus I had to use tagging. I'm still using it now, it's nice. Thanks for the idea :)
September 14, 2012 at 7:07 |
nuntym
nuntym
I'm still happy with the tweak, and have no interest in discarding it, nor in tweaking any further at this point. I'm still struggling to stay on-line and moving forward, but that's been an issue for any system I've tried. :)
So are you effectively using AF2ND+ now, or not quite?
So are you effectively using AF2ND+ now, or not quite?
September 18, 2012 at 22:00 |
Deven
Deven
That was supposed to say "on-list", not "on-line". Oops.
As for implementing AF2ND+ with non-detachable pages, it seems simple enough. Don't mix priority levels on the same page and start new pages as necessary, allowing them to be interleaved. It's not as nice as sortable pages (on index cards or in a loose-leaf notebook), but it's functionally equivalent.
Example:
Page 1: normal tasks
Page 2: priority tasks (*)
Page 3: normal tasks
Page 4: normal tasks
Page 5: priority tasks (*)
Page 6: normal tasks
With this set of pages, you would start with the highest priority level (which you'd have to know is one star), and rewrite the oldest task on page 2 to the bottom of page 5, then scan upward from the bottom of page 5 looking for a task that "stands out". If you reach the top of page 5, continue from the bottom of page 2. If you reach the top of page 2, rewrite the oldest task on page 1 onto the bottom of page 6, then scan upward from the bottom of page 6, continuing with page 4, page 3 then page 1 if necessary.
This is functionally equivalent to the way I do it with index cards, but I like the index cards better, personally. Have you ever tried using index cards for this, by any chance?
As for implementing AF2ND+ with non-detachable pages, it seems simple enough. Don't mix priority levels on the same page and start new pages as necessary, allowing them to be interleaved. It's not as nice as sortable pages (on index cards or in a loose-leaf notebook), but it's functionally equivalent.
Example:
Page 1: normal tasks
Page 2: priority tasks (*)
Page 3: normal tasks
Page 4: normal tasks
Page 5: priority tasks (*)
Page 6: normal tasks
With this set of pages, you would start with the highest priority level (which you'd have to know is one star), and rewrite the oldest task on page 2 to the bottom of page 5, then scan upward from the bottom of page 5 looking for a task that "stands out". If you reach the top of page 5, continue from the bottom of page 2. If you reach the top of page 2, rewrite the oldest task on page 1 onto the bottom of page 6, then scan upward from the bottom of page 6, continuing with page 4, page 3 then page 1 if necessary.
This is functionally equivalent to the way I do it with index cards, but I like the index cards better, personally. Have you ever tried using index cards for this, by any chance?
September 19, 2012 at 16:32 |
Deven
Deven
+JMJ+
I went back to the original AF2ND, AF2ND+ is an added complexity I don't need. Sorry.
I went back to the original AF2ND, AF2ND+ is an added complexity I don't need. Sorry.
September 20, 2012 at 18:42 |
nuntym
nuntym
That's fine, you should use whatever works best for you. I find that I have the need to keep a few tasks on the "front burner", but if AF2ND already works well for you, why add the complexity?
October 8, 2012 at 13:46 |
Deven
Deven
Okay, it's been a few more months. I'm still using AF2ND+, with mixed results. When I focus on using the list and keep up with it, it seems to be effective, but I still have a persistent problem with setting the list aside and working without it, which is a problem I've had with every system I've tried. Perhaps the prioritization tweak to make AF2ND+ is causing some sort of resistance to the list because I'm always stuck focusing on priority tasks without making any progress on others.
I think I'm going to experiment with the original AF2ND to see if it works better for me.
Is anyone else using either AF2ND or AF2ND+?
I think I'm going to experiment with the original AF2ND to see if it works better for me.
Is anyone else using either AF2ND or AF2ND+?
January 11, 2013 at 18:40 |
Deven
Deven
Deven,
Try re-evaluating the priority of some of the things you aren't making progress on. The lack of progress is bothering you, so maybe it really is a priority.
I like making pretty things that need skill and attention. Most of them just gather dust, and you can buy a lot of socks for $25 (hand-painted merino yarn) and 10 hours of knitting. But making them makes me happy. They refresh me. They give me a sense of accomplishment. They activate all my senses. They intrigue and interest me. They make me slow down. Spending a bit of time each week making pretty little things is a priority for me.
The danger is re-activating too many projects at once. I have a box full of UFOs (unfinished objects), and it grows over the winter thanks to my needlecraft guild. The priority is "enjoy working on a pretty little thing", which includes the joy and pride of finishing it, not "make progress on and finish every single one of them."
Try re-evaluating the priority of some of the things you aren't making progress on. The lack of progress is bothering you, so maybe it really is a priority.
I like making pretty things that need skill and attention. Most of them just gather dust, and you can buy a lot of socks for $25 (hand-painted merino yarn) and 10 hours of knitting. But making them makes me happy. They refresh me. They give me a sense of accomplishment. They activate all my senses. They intrigue and interest me. They make me slow down. Spending a bit of time each week making pretty little things is a priority for me.
The danger is re-activating too many projects at once. I have a box full of UFOs (unfinished objects), and it grows over the winter thanks to my needlecraft guild. The priority is "enjoy working on a pretty little thing", which includes the joy and pride of finishing it, not "make progress on and finish every single one of them."
January 11, 2013 at 21:24 |
Cricket
Cricket
Okay, I've been back on the original AF2ND for 2 weeks now, and I've been happier with it. Using AF2ND+, I sort of felt "trapped" on the priority sub-list and never made any progress on the main list, which generated resistance. However, I have retained my stars from AF2ND+ while processing the list as an AF2ND list, and I was finding that priority tasks were getting buried again, and I still don't like that.
Starting today, I'm trying a much simpler prioritization tweak. Instead of the approach with AF2ND+ where I effectively made a separate priority AF2ND list, I am keeping one long list again, and following the AF2ND processing rules with the addition of one new daily process. At the start of the day, I scan the entire list, starting with the oldest tasks. Any given task can be reprioritized at this time, adding or removing stars. I then rewrite all prioritized tasks at the end of the list, starting with the single-starred tasks, then double-starred, etc. For the rest of the day, the list is processed according to AF2ND rules.
Here's the rationale behind this tweak:
(1) There is still no substitute for manual prioritization. When you need it, you need it. (But when you don't need it, the system remains identical to AF2ND.)
(2) This is a much simpler tweak than AF2ND+ and avoids complicating the processing rules.
(3) Rewriting all the priority tasks every day prevents them from getting buried in the middle of the list.
(4) It also serves as a mental review of all priority tasks, which are necessarily brought to mind as a consequence of rewriting them. (This may reduce resistance to working on them later in the day?)
(5) It also encourages focusing on fewer priority tasks, since the more priority tasks there are, the longer it takes to rewrite them every day.
I guess I'll call this one "AF2NDP" for "Autofocus 2, No Dismissal, Prioritized". That way, if I have future tweaks, I can continue numbering with "AF2NDP2", in case nuntym ever wants to make "AF2ND2"...
Time will tell if this tweak works any better than the last one. I'll report back sooner or later!
Starting today, I'm trying a much simpler prioritization tweak. Instead of the approach with AF2ND+ where I effectively made a separate priority AF2ND list, I am keeping one long list again, and following the AF2ND processing rules with the addition of one new daily process. At the start of the day, I scan the entire list, starting with the oldest tasks. Any given task can be reprioritized at this time, adding or removing stars. I then rewrite all prioritized tasks at the end of the list, starting with the single-starred tasks, then double-starred, etc. For the rest of the day, the list is processed according to AF2ND rules.
Here's the rationale behind this tweak:
(1) There is still no substitute for manual prioritization. When you need it, you need it. (But when you don't need it, the system remains identical to AF2ND.)
(2) This is a much simpler tweak than AF2ND+ and avoids complicating the processing rules.
(3) Rewriting all the priority tasks every day prevents them from getting buried in the middle of the list.
(4) It also serves as a mental review of all priority tasks, which are necessarily brought to mind as a consequence of rewriting them. (This may reduce resistance to working on them later in the day?)
(5) It also encourages focusing on fewer priority tasks, since the more priority tasks there are, the longer it takes to rewrite them every day.
I guess I'll call this one "AF2NDP" for "Autofocus 2, No Dismissal, Prioritized". That way, if I have future tweaks, I can continue numbering with "AF2NDP2", in case nuntym ever wants to make "AF2ND2"...
Time will tell if this tweak works any better than the last one. I'll report back sooner or later!
January 25, 2013 at 17:43 |
Deven
Deven
Cricket, thanks for the thought, but it wasn't that these old tasks were a priority, but rather that I was tired of seeing the same card over and over and over again without changes. At least with AF2ND or AF2NDP, the oldest cards go away as tasks get rewritten, whether or not they're done. Somehow that feels like progress, or something. :)
January 25, 2013 at 19:02 |
Deven
Deven
I've not read into this thread before, and I must say that I very much like the idea of AF2ND as originally proposed by nuntym.
I think one of the things I've noticed with my ceaseless experimenting over the ages is that any method of prioritization always seems in the end to result in increased resistance, which will build up to the extend that the list is avoided or, worse, abandoned.
The art of constructing an algorithm for processing a list is that the mind must be allowed to access the tasks it wants to access, but at the same time must be subtly encouraged to want the right things. AF2 was good in many ways but the problem was that stuff got progressively more unlikely to get done. nuntym's solution is a good way to overcome that.
Are there other ways of achieving the same result in AF2?
I think one of the things I've noticed with my ceaseless experimenting over the ages is that any method of prioritization always seems in the end to result in increased resistance, which will build up to the extend that the list is avoided or, worse, abandoned.
The art of constructing an algorithm for processing a list is that the mind must be allowed to access the tasks it wants to access, but at the same time must be subtly encouraged to want the right things. AF2 was good in many ways but the problem was that stuff got progressively more unlikely to get done. nuntym's solution is a good way to overcome that.
Are there other ways of achieving the same result in AF2?
January 25, 2013 at 19:03 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I've been thinking about ways to answer my own question in my last post, and one thing that occurred to me is that one could achieve a similar (though not identical) effect with considerably less writing. Instead of starting from the end of the list and working backwards, you start from the first task on the list and work backwards from there (i.e. circulating back to the end of the list). Each time you select a new task, you take your start point one task further up the list.
So for example you have:
Task A
Task B
Task C
Task D
Task E
You take Task A as your start point and then consider tasks in the order A, E, D, C, B.
The next pass you take Task B as your start point and consider the tasks in the order B, A, E, D, C.
So for example you have:
Task A
Task B
Task C
Task D
Task E
You take Task A as your start point and then consider tasks in the order A, E, D, C, B.
The next pass you take Task B as your start point and consider the tasks in the order B, A, E, D, C.
January 25, 2013 at 19:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, thanks for weighing in. I've always wondered what your opinion would be; I do consider nuntym's original AF2ND proposal to be excellent, and I definitely hear what you're saying about prioritization tending to generate resistance. That's exactly the problem I found with my AF2ND+ experiment, and why I'm trying a different approach with AF2NDP. I hope that by forcing initial attention on the priority tasks just once a day will avoid the resistance problem, but I'll see what happens in practice. Do you believe it's equally doomed as other prioritization methods?
January 25, 2013 at 19:32 |
Deven
Deven
Mark, your suggestion to wrap around the end of the list seems similar to AF2ND's rewriting in effect -- certainly it gives some attention to older tasks that can be too easily forgotten with AF2. It's a bit different in that old tasks don't get recycled and interspersed with new tasks, as they do when you work a task in AF2 or with AF2ND's automatic rewriting of the oldest tasks. Also, it requires keeping track of a moving target for the starting point, which might be tricky without something like a sticky arrow. AF2ND seems like a simpler solution (to me), despite the additional rewriting. Also, I find that rewriting the oldest tasks makes the list feel "fresher" instead of visiting "stale" pages over and over again. (I literally had active pages from 2011!)
All of your Autofocus variants require rewriting tasks after working on them -- someone might suggest that it's easier to just leave the task where it is on the list until it's done, instead of rewriting it. I don't recall, but didn't you say there was a psychological benefit to rewriting the task? Would the same apply to the additional rewriting AF2ND entails?
All of your Autofocus variants require rewriting tasks after working on them -- someone might suggest that it's easier to just leave the task where it is on the list until it's done, instead of rewriting it. I don't recall, but didn't you say there was a psychological benefit to rewriting the task? Would the same apply to the additional rewriting AF2ND entails?
January 25, 2013 at 19:42 |
Deven
Deven
Deven:
I'm making suggestions without having tried the system - always a dangerous thing to do. So you may well be right in what you say, though I think that the psychological benefits of rewriting apply only to tasks you have done. I've experimented with several systems which have featured rewriting tasks you haven't done - and they've all been unsuccessful.
I like your idea of rewriting the priority items though and will be interested to see how that works. My advice would be to keep the number as low as possible - you might even want to use a shorter period than a day e.g. My priorities for this morning/next two hours are . . .
I'm making suggestions without having tried the system - always a dangerous thing to do. So you may well be right in what you say, though I think that the psychological benefits of rewriting apply only to tasks you have done. I've experimented with several systems which have featured rewriting tasks you haven't done - and they've all been unsuccessful.
I like your idea of rewriting the priority items though and will be interested to see how that works. My advice would be to keep the number as low as possible - you might even want to use a shorter period than a day e.g. My priorities for this morning/next two hours are . . .
January 25, 2013 at 20:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
One of the things I've noticed about rewriting tasks you're NOT doing is that it does at least force you to think about the task, if only for the few seconds that you're rewriting it. Perhaps that helps plant a seed that can grow in your subconscious, softening you up to work on it? I don't know.
That being said, I've actually found AF2ND's extra rewriting to be enjoyable, because it cleans up the list and feels like it gives some momentum to the processing, even if it really doesn't.
The idea behind rewriting the priority items once a day was to put an upper bound for how far they can drift toward the middle of the list, but I think the work required to rewrite them does naturally discourage having an overly long list of priorities.
I'm tending to use a double-star for more immediate today/tomorrow tasks, which is why the rewriting process is to rewrite those AFTER the single-star priorities, so they'll be considered earlier when working the list backward from the end.
However, I always hold my breath for a few weeks with any tweak to these systems. It's so easy for ideas that seem promising in theory to turn out to be disappointing in practice... (As if you didn't know!)
One of the things I've noticed about rewriting tasks you're NOT doing is that it does at least force you to think about the task, if only for the few seconds that you're rewriting it. Perhaps that helps plant a seed that can grow in your subconscious, softening you up to work on it? I don't know.
That being said, I've actually found AF2ND's extra rewriting to be enjoyable, because it cleans up the list and feels like it gives some momentum to the processing, even if it really doesn't.
The idea behind rewriting the priority items once a day was to put an upper bound for how far they can drift toward the middle of the list, but I think the work required to rewrite them does naturally discourage having an overly long list of priorities.
I'm tending to use a double-star for more immediate today/tomorrow tasks, which is why the rewriting process is to rewrite those AFTER the single-star priorities, so they'll be considered earlier when working the list backward from the end.
However, I always hold my breath for a few weeks with any tweak to these systems. It's so easy for ideas that seem promising in theory to turn out to be disappointing in practice... (As if you didn't know!)
January 25, 2013 at 20:37 |
Deven
Deven
+JMJ+
Hey Deven and Mark!
I am really glad, Deven, that you've found AF2ND to be very effective, to the point that for months you've used it and tried to find ways of improving it. And I'm really glad too, Mark, that you like its idea and have joined the discussion.
<<So you may well be right in what you say, though I think that the psychological benefits of rewriting apply only to tasks you have done. I've experimented with several systems which have featured rewriting tasks you haven't done - and they've all been unsuccessful.>>
I concur with Deven on this, Mark: the rewriting of older tasks in AF2ND actually has quite a few benefits:
(1) It really cleans up the list. If you can imagine how the list would look like after days of erasing and rewriting the oldest items on the list, you might see in your imagination that the list will become aesthetically cleaner than other systems because of how it creeps along the pages, leaving behind pages full of crossed out items. Even better, each and every time you have to delete an older item is an opportunity to review its relevance and decide right then and there to either erase it for good from the list, keep it in a "Someday/Maybe" list, or rewrite it. I found this latter effect to be better than dismissal.
(2) There is a psychological illusion of progress as one keeps on erasing and rewriting stuff, and as Deven noted it can give one a boost in confidence. However, I found this effect to have a double edge: if this illusion of progress along the list is not accompanied by an actual progress of having important things done but only by having trivial things done, then there comes an psychological dissonance which will result in increasing resistance to using the list, which in my case resulted to a disgust of my own list and eventually changing to another system.
Forgive me, Deven, but I speculate that it is that adverse outcome that you want to avoid by trying to include priorities in AF2ND, right?
But anyways, that adverse outcome is the reason I eventually made POSCER (another thread here in the Discussion Forum), which is a priority-intensive system based on the POSEC method that I found in Wikipedia. I am still using it, but like you said, Mark, I am finding increasing resistance in using it to the point that there have been days that I have not even touched the list. However, I learned a lot from using it, and from that experience I have an idea for you, Deven, that may help in prioritization.
I propose just a simple change in how you <<choose a task>>: have two modes in determining which task will stand out.
Starting from the end of the list, choose a task that "stands out" when you ask yourself this question: "What do I NEED to do right now?" There may or may not be such a task that will stand out. If there is, do it. But if not, go back to the end of the list again and, this time, choose a task that "stands out" with the question "What do I WANT to do right now?"
As you can see, this simple change in processing the list will highlight in your mind's eye the priority tasks and other more important tasks even if they are in the middle of the list (maybe to the point that you don't need to mark them...maybe), and yet will not trap you in your priorities.
I think I'm gonna try this :)
Hey Deven and Mark!
I am really glad, Deven, that you've found AF2ND to be very effective, to the point that for months you've used it and tried to find ways of improving it. And I'm really glad too, Mark, that you like its idea and have joined the discussion.
<<So you may well be right in what you say, though I think that the psychological benefits of rewriting apply only to tasks you have done. I've experimented with several systems which have featured rewriting tasks you haven't done - and they've all been unsuccessful.>>
I concur with Deven on this, Mark: the rewriting of older tasks in AF2ND actually has quite a few benefits:
(1) It really cleans up the list. If you can imagine how the list would look like after days of erasing and rewriting the oldest items on the list, you might see in your imagination that the list will become aesthetically cleaner than other systems because of how it creeps along the pages, leaving behind pages full of crossed out items. Even better, each and every time you have to delete an older item is an opportunity to review its relevance and decide right then and there to either erase it for good from the list, keep it in a "Someday/Maybe" list, or rewrite it. I found this latter effect to be better than dismissal.
(2) There is a psychological illusion of progress as one keeps on erasing and rewriting stuff, and as Deven noted it can give one a boost in confidence. However, I found this effect to have a double edge: if this illusion of progress along the list is not accompanied by an actual progress of having important things done but only by having trivial things done, then there comes an psychological dissonance which will result in increasing resistance to using the list, which in my case resulted to a disgust of my own list and eventually changing to another system.
Forgive me, Deven, but I speculate that it is that adverse outcome that you want to avoid by trying to include priorities in AF2ND, right?
But anyways, that adverse outcome is the reason I eventually made POSCER (another thread here in the Discussion Forum), which is a priority-intensive system based on the POSEC method that I found in Wikipedia. I am still using it, but like you said, Mark, I am finding increasing resistance in using it to the point that there have been days that I have not even touched the list. However, I learned a lot from using it, and from that experience I have an idea for you, Deven, that may help in prioritization.
I propose just a simple change in how you <<choose a task>>: have two modes in determining which task will stand out.
Starting from the end of the list, choose a task that "stands out" when you ask yourself this question: "What do I NEED to do right now?" There may or may not be such a task that will stand out. If there is, do it. But if not, go back to the end of the list again and, this time, choose a task that "stands out" with the question "What do I WANT to do right now?"
As you can see, this simple change in processing the list will highlight in your mind's eye the priority tasks and other more important tasks even if they are in the middle of the list (maybe to the point that you don't need to mark them...maybe), and yet will not trap you in your priorities.
I think I'm gonna try this :)
January 26, 2013 at 2:51 |
nuntym
nuntym
The tweak I've been using - Once I've come to a task that stands out and dotted it I continue back until I come to another task to be done next. Do them both. Rewrite a task as per AF2ND rules. Repeat.
This means I get a little further back into the list than I might. I also rewrite only half the tasks that I would in nuntym's rules.
Very relaxing way of working really.
This means I get a little further back into the list than I might. I also rewrite only half the tasks that I would in nuntym's rules.
Very relaxing way of working really.
January 26, 2013 at 17:37 |
Caibre65
Caibre65
Thanks to all for some good suggestions. I am sufficiently intrigued by the discussion to want to try out my own tweak on AF2ND.
All as originally suggested by nuntym except that I'm going to write any task that I particularly want or need to do soon at the end of the list *regardless* of whether it is already on the list. This will not happen as the result of a daily review, but as needed throughout the day.
Any resulting duplicates will get cleared up as I progress through the first items.
If this fails, I might have a go at Caibre65's method.
Wish me luck!
All as originally suggested by nuntym except that I'm going to write any task that I particularly want or need to do soon at the end of the list *regardless* of whether it is already on the list. This will not happen as the result of a daily review, but as needed throughout the day.
Any resulting duplicates will get cleared up as I progress through the first items.
If this fails, I might have a go at Caibre65's method.
Wish me luck!
January 26, 2013 at 19:19 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Well, I didn't last long at my trial of my own tweak of AF2ND. What I found was that writing at the end of the list the things I wanted to do soon resulted in the AF2 aspects of the system being ignored. I never went deeper than 4 or 5 tasks into the system.
I then tried AF2ND on its own, as originally described by nuntym. But again I didn't find this worked well for me. The problem was that the tasks I was rewriting were so interspersed with new stuff that they disappeared as fast as they appeared and might just as well have been left at the beginning of the list.
So then I decided to give my original proposal a try:
"Instead of starting from the end of the list and working backwards, you start from the first task on the list and work backwards from there (i.e. circulating back to the end of the list). Each time you select a new task, you take your start point one task further up the list."
Two points of procedure:
1) I mark the start point by putting an underscore in front of the relevant task, e.g. _Email. This works well. No need for any sticky arrows. It's easy to see which the current mark is because every active task before it will also have a underscore, e.g.
_Email
_Check Diary
_Take over World
Arrange Paperclips
Push Pencils.
(Obviously the tasks should be aligned, but the comment box won't accept leading spaces)
2) I do not move the start point forward if the last task done comes from above the start point. The reason for this is that if I move the start point every time I do a task, the number of unactioned tasks above the start point can never get any smaller.
It's early days yet, but this seems to fit my style of working much better.
I then tried AF2ND on its own, as originally described by nuntym. But again I didn't find this worked well for me. The problem was that the tasks I was rewriting were so interspersed with new stuff that they disappeared as fast as they appeared and might just as well have been left at the beginning of the list.
So then I decided to give my original proposal a try:
"Instead of starting from the end of the list and working backwards, you start from the first task on the list and work backwards from there (i.e. circulating back to the end of the list). Each time you select a new task, you take your start point one task further up the list."
Two points of procedure:
1) I mark the start point by putting an underscore in front of the relevant task, e.g. _Email. This works well. No need for any sticky arrows. It's easy to see which the current mark is because every active task before it will also have a underscore, e.g.
_Email
_Check Diary
_Take over World
Arrange Paperclips
Push Pencils.
(Obviously the tasks should be aligned, but the comment box won't accept leading spaces)
2) I do not move the start point forward if the last task done comes from above the start point. The reason for this is that if I move the start point every time I do a task, the number of unactioned tasks above the start point can never get any smaller.
It's early days yet, but this seems to fit my style of working much better.
January 27, 2013 at 8:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I would suggest to try Af2nd with the dismissal process as described by AndreasE in his DSAF. It works fairly well for me.
January 27, 2013 at 9:11 |
Nick61
Nick61
Nick61:
I've considered testing out DSAF, but I'm put off by the fact that for the first two weeks I would be just circulating round a list without any particular system at all. I can run up an awfully long list in two weeks!
I need something that will start biting right away.
I'm also extremely encouraged by my trial described above. So far my list looks exactly like it would under AF2ND in that the first 12 tasks have all been crossed out. The difference is that I have actually taken action on them, rather than just rewriting them.
Updates:
12.04
I'm sufficiently excited by this to want to publish updates during the day. So far I have 57 active tasks on my list (I'm building it up gradually rather than transfering my previous list as a whole - this avoids swamping the new system). Seven of these are above the current start line. Of these seven, four can't be done until tomorrow. The remaining 50 tasks are below the start line.
Above the start line I have actioned 23 tasks (not all were above the start line when they were actioned of course) and 10 below the start line.
So of the first 30 tasks on the list since I started it first thing this morning, 23 have been actioned, four can't be done until tomorrow, which leaves only three not yet actioned for today.
13.49
Of the first 35 tasks on list, 29 have been actioned, six are unactioned of which four can't be done until tomorrow.
16.26
Of the first 49 tasks on list, 37 have been actioned, twelve are unactioned of which six can't be done until tomorrow.
I've considered testing out DSAF, but I'm put off by the fact that for the first two weeks I would be just circulating round a list without any particular system at all. I can run up an awfully long list in two weeks!
I need something that will start biting right away.
I'm also extremely encouraged by my trial described above. So far my list looks exactly like it would under AF2ND in that the first 12 tasks have all been crossed out. The difference is that I have actually taken action on them, rather than just rewriting them.
Updates:
12.04
I'm sufficiently excited by this to want to publish updates during the day. So far I have 57 active tasks on my list (I'm building it up gradually rather than transfering my previous list as a whole - this avoids swamping the new system). Seven of these are above the current start line. Of these seven, four can't be done until tomorrow. The remaining 50 tasks are below the start line.
Above the start line I have actioned 23 tasks (not all were above the start line when they were actioned of course) and 10 below the start line.
So of the first 30 tasks on the list since I started it first thing this morning, 23 have been actioned, four can't be done until tomorrow, which leaves only three not yet actioned for today.
13.49
Of the first 35 tasks on list, 29 have been actioned, six are unactioned of which four can't be done until tomorrow.
16.26
Of the first 49 tasks on list, 37 have been actioned, twelve are unactioned of which six can't be done until tomorrow.
January 27, 2013 at 10:20 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
+JMJ+
Ah, nice one Mark! I was wondering how your tweak would not overrun the end of the list and thus making the marking redundant. Now with that second part of the rule that you posted, there now theoretically is a psychological tension between doing the older tasks and the newer tasks which was not in AF2ND before, because you don't want the underscores to overrun the end of the list.
I like it! I'll try it too.
Is there a name for this?:
And oooh it seems FV is not the Final Version anymore ;)
Ah, nice one Mark! I was wondering how your tweak would not overrun the end of the list and thus making the marking redundant. Now with that second part of the rule that you posted, there now theoretically is a psychological tension between doing the older tasks and the newer tasks which was not in AF2ND before, because you don't want the underscores to overrun the end of the list.
I like it! I'll try it too.
Is there a name for this?:
And oooh it seems FV is not the Final Version anymore ;)
January 27, 2013 at 16:29 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
Yes, the "older" tasks form a little world of their own, which seems to have a different psychological feel to it from the rest of the list. They are not that old of course, as I only started the list this morning.
At the moment, I've only got six tasks in the "old" part of the list which I could do today. They are in fact some of the most important bits of work I've got. But I don't feel that I'm resisting them as such - it's just that they are a bit "heavy" for a Sunday afternoon. I am pretty confident that on Monday I will zoom through them.
I haven't given it a name yet. Any ideas?
Yes, the "older" tasks form a little world of their own, which seems to have a different psychological feel to it from the rest of the list. They are not that old of course, as I only started the list this morning.
At the moment, I've only got six tasks in the "old" part of the list which I could do today. They are in fact some of the most important bits of work I've got. But I don't feel that I'm resisting them as such - it's just that they are a bit "heavy" for a Sunday afternoon. I am pretty confident that on Monday I will zoom through them.
I haven't given it a name yet. Any ideas?
January 27, 2013 at 16:38 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
+JMJ+
AF2R? It seems fitting with AF4R that you also made.
But naah, maybe it's too early to say if it will work. Why not AF2x (experimental) just til you've perfected it?
AF2R? It seems fitting with AF4R that you also made.
But naah, maybe it's too early to say if it will work. Why not AF2x (experimental) just til you've perfected it?
January 27, 2013 at 17:06 |
nuntym
nuntym
Update
20.39
This is my final update for the day, though I'll probably do some more work on the list sporadically before I go to bed.
I've now got 17 unactioned tasks above the start line, of which 6 cannot be done until tomorrow, and 40 actioned tasks.
There are 104 unactioned tasks below the start line. and 30 actioned tasks.
20.39
This is my final update for the day, though I'll probably do some more work on the list sporadically before I go to bed.
I've now got 17 unactioned tasks above the start line, of which 6 cannot be done until tomorrow, and 40 actioned tasks.
There are 104 unactioned tasks below the start line. and 30 actioned tasks.
January 27, 2013 at 20:47 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, I'm happy to hear you're experimenting with this, I'm curious how it will work for you.
The reason I suggested a sticky arrow was to deal with the situation of wrapping around -- if your starting point gets back to the top of the list again and everything left still has underscores, then what?
Regarding AF2ND as nuntym originally described, having the old tasks interspersed with new ones definitely gives the system a different feel, but it's not clear if this is an advantage or a disadvantage. We may have a difference of opinion on this; is it a matter of preference?
I haven't tried your idea of the moving starting point, but I'm going to give AF2NDP longer before changing again...
As for names, is it better to name things right away or wait a while to see how they pan out?
The reason I suggested a sticky arrow was to deal with the situation of wrapping around -- if your starting point gets back to the top of the list again and everything left still has underscores, then what?
Regarding AF2ND as nuntym originally described, having the old tasks interspersed with new ones definitely gives the system a different feel, but it's not clear if this is an advantage or a disadvantage. We may have a difference of opinion on this; is it a matter of preference?
I haven't tried your idea of the moving starting point, but I'm going to give AF2NDP longer before changing again...
As for names, is it better to name things right away or wait a while to see how they pan out?
January 28, 2013 at 15:36 |
Deven
Deven
Mark, I wonder what your results might be if you were to take your entire list (including previously-dismissed tasks that haven't been deleted) and start processing it all as an AF2ND list, instead of growing a new one? I think the behavior of the system with old tasks is one of the most interesting aspects of it, especially as it replaces the dismissal mechanism with individual review...
January 28, 2013 at 15:39 |
Deven
Deven
Nuntym, the adverse outcome I'm trying to avoid is for priority tasks to be neglected as they float into the middle of the list. I don't experience the high-velocity processing that Mark seems to, so that area could take time to get to. AF2ND+ wasn't bad, but it seemed to generate resistance by forcing too much constant attention on the priority tasks. AF2NDP is an attempt to achieve a better balance, but it's too early to judge the effect.
January 28, 2013 at 15:43 |
Deven
Deven
After my flying start two days ago, I've since run into problems. First, I started resisting the "above the line" part of the list because I felt considerable pressure to keep it as short as possible. And secondly, the division of the list into what amounts to two halves, makes it even more difficult than before to keep track of what is in the AF2 list.
So I've decided to stop testing it. I'll be interested to see whether nuntym can make it work.
So I've decided to stop testing it. I'll be interested to see whether nuntym can make it work.
January 29, 2013 at 18:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven:
<< The reason I suggested a sticky arrow was to deal with the situation of wrapping around -- if your starting point gets back to the top of the list again and everything left still has underscores, then what? >>
That situation is not possible if you are using the procedure I described, in which you only advance the underscored items when a task is actioned below the line.
<< The reason I suggested a sticky arrow was to deal with the situation of wrapping around -- if your starting point gets back to the top of the list again and everything left still has underscores, then what? >>
That situation is not possible if you are using the procedure I described, in which you only advance the underscored items when a task is actioned below the line.
January 29, 2013 at 18:34 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Interesting that you felt pressure to keep the "above the line" part as short as possible. AF2ND as nuntym originally described shouldn't cause that, since it just recycles old tasks as if they're new again. If you found that was burying the old items too fast as they're interspersed with new items, is there perhaps a better way to achieve a similar result without that problem? Rewriting the old tasks as new at a different time or frequency perhaps?
My understanding was that the original AF2 was great in a lot of ways, especially for urgent tasks, but that it tended to neglect the oldest tasks on the list because you always start from the end and scan backwards, and generally never reach the start of the list. AF2ND seems to avoid that problem, doesn't it? It may not focus a lot of attention on those old tasks, but it does regularly cycle through them and prevent them from being forgotten completely, and perhaps that occasional level of attention is appropriate if there's a good reason those tasks have been neglected?
My understanding was that the original AF2 was great in a lot of ways, especially for urgent tasks, but that it tended to neglect the oldest tasks on the list because you always start from the end and scan backwards, and generally never reach the start of the list. AF2ND seems to avoid that problem, doesn't it? It may not focus a lot of attention on those old tasks, but it does regularly cycle through them and prevent them from being forgotten completely, and perhaps that occasional level of attention is appropriate if there's a good reason those tasks have been neglected?
January 29, 2013 at 19:27 |
Deven
Deven
+JMJ+
Because of my work, I can only work on my list every other day, so it is only just now that I experienced the resistance Mark was saying.
But I think we missed a simple solution that would retain the structure and feel of AF2ND yet allow one to distinguish between the old and new items, yet theoretically have little resistance due to psychological tension: just mark the oldest items that were rewritten, say with a dash (-).
Because of my work, I can only work on my list every other day, so it is only just now that I experienced the resistance Mark was saying.
But I think we missed a simple solution that would retain the structure and feel of AF2ND yet allow one to distinguish between the old and new items, yet theoretically have little resistance due to psychological tension: just mark the oldest items that were rewritten, say with a dash (-).
February 2, 2013 at 16:12 |
nuntym
nuntym
I'm ready to report on AF2NDP, and of course, to replace it with AF2NDP2. :)
I have two separate lists, one for work and one for home. Right now, my work list has 57 items total, of which 6 have a single star and 3 have a double star. That's not too bad to rewrite once a day for AF2NDP, and after 7 working days using the system (having been out of the office for 4 days), it was working quite well for that list and not generating any resistance.
My home list has been mostly unused for many months because I haven't been in the habit of working a list at home, but I wanted to try AF2NDP at home to compare it in that context. After aggressively paring down the number of priority items on my home list from about 30-40 priority items down to about 15-20 priority items, I started using AF2NDP at home on Saturday, January 26, the day after I started using it at work.
I followed the system at home as faithfully as I could, rewriting all my priority items on days when I was using the system, and trying to use the system most days. (I think I missed a day or two.) I got sick on Monday, February 4 and stopped working the list for the rest of the week. Although I still used AF2NDP at work through Friday, February 8, my last time using AF2NDP at home was on February 3, when I rewrote 12 single-starred items and 3 double-starred items.
Especially because I keep my home list on a folded stack of 3x5 cards in my pocket, I found that AF2NDP was becoming too cumbersome to use at home, because the thickness of that stack was increasing more quickly due to the number of priority tasks I was rewriting and then mixing with old tasks from AF2ND's rewriting rule. My stack now contains three cards started during this time which contain only 7 tasks between them, when each card can hold 10 tasks -- these three are mostly crossed-out from the daily rewriting.
On Saturday, February 9, as I was heading to bed, I decided to brain-dump new tasks onto my list and realized that Sunday was going to be a very busy day, requiring triple stars for the many tasks that I really wanted to finish on Sunday. In addition to the 12 single-starred items and 3 double-starred items that I last rewrote on February 3, I added 7 more single-starred items (for a total of 19 single-starred tasks), 2 more double-starred items (for a total of 5 double-starred tasks) and 9 triple-starred items -- 33 priority tasks in all. This was much more than I wanted to rewrite the next day under AF2NDP, so I started brainstorming yet again, and devised a different tweak which I shall henceforth refer to as AF2NDP2. (Yes, the name is getting ridiculous, but at least I can keep track this way.)
Here are the rules for AF2NDP2:
(1) Start with nuntym's AF2ND rules.
(2) Items may be tagged with one or more stars to indicate higher priority. (The number of stars on any item may be freely changed at any time.)
(3) Just one additional processing rule: after rewriting the oldest item on the list (per AF2ND rules), ALSO rewrite the oldest item at the highest priority level in use, IF there are any starred items in the list.
That's it. Nice and simple, and as with several other priority tweaks I've devised, it devolves back to the base system whenever there are no priority items in the list.
Yesterday (Sunday, February 10) was an acid test for this new system, and it performed beautifully. It was a very busy day, but AF2NDP2 kept me focused and on track for the entire day, when it would have been very easy to lose track of things and drop several of the balls I was juggling for the day. I found it easy to work the system and to stay on-list. (This has always been an issue for me.) This new priority tweak did a perfect job of maintaining focus on the top priorities without generating any resistance whatsoever. The only problem I had was that I tried to do too much and exceeded my available time, but that problem is out of scope for Autofocus systems. At the end of the day, my home list had 63 items total, 24 of which were single-starred and 8 of which were double-starred -- all of the triple-starred tasks were completed.
As always, time will tell if this tweak holds up any better than the others. Nevertheless, I'm quite pleased with the debut of AF2NDP2 and find it much improved over AF2NDP.
I have two separate lists, one for work and one for home. Right now, my work list has 57 items total, of which 6 have a single star and 3 have a double star. That's not too bad to rewrite once a day for AF2NDP, and after 7 working days using the system (having been out of the office for 4 days), it was working quite well for that list and not generating any resistance.
My home list has been mostly unused for many months because I haven't been in the habit of working a list at home, but I wanted to try AF2NDP at home to compare it in that context. After aggressively paring down the number of priority items on my home list from about 30-40 priority items down to about 15-20 priority items, I started using AF2NDP at home on Saturday, January 26, the day after I started using it at work.
I followed the system at home as faithfully as I could, rewriting all my priority items on days when I was using the system, and trying to use the system most days. (I think I missed a day or two.) I got sick on Monday, February 4 and stopped working the list for the rest of the week. Although I still used AF2NDP at work through Friday, February 8, my last time using AF2NDP at home was on February 3, when I rewrote 12 single-starred items and 3 double-starred items.
Especially because I keep my home list on a folded stack of 3x5 cards in my pocket, I found that AF2NDP was becoming too cumbersome to use at home, because the thickness of that stack was increasing more quickly due to the number of priority tasks I was rewriting and then mixing with old tasks from AF2ND's rewriting rule. My stack now contains three cards started during this time which contain only 7 tasks between them, when each card can hold 10 tasks -- these three are mostly crossed-out from the daily rewriting.
On Saturday, February 9, as I was heading to bed, I decided to brain-dump new tasks onto my list and realized that Sunday was going to be a very busy day, requiring triple stars for the many tasks that I really wanted to finish on Sunday. In addition to the 12 single-starred items and 3 double-starred items that I last rewrote on February 3, I added 7 more single-starred items (for a total of 19 single-starred tasks), 2 more double-starred items (for a total of 5 double-starred tasks) and 9 triple-starred items -- 33 priority tasks in all. This was much more than I wanted to rewrite the next day under AF2NDP, so I started brainstorming yet again, and devised a different tweak which I shall henceforth refer to as AF2NDP2. (Yes, the name is getting ridiculous, but at least I can keep track this way.)
Here are the rules for AF2NDP2:
(1) Start with nuntym's AF2ND rules.
(2) Items may be tagged with one or more stars to indicate higher priority. (The number of stars on any item may be freely changed at any time.)
(3) Just one additional processing rule: after rewriting the oldest item on the list (per AF2ND rules), ALSO rewrite the oldest item at the highest priority level in use, IF there are any starred items in the list.
That's it. Nice and simple, and as with several other priority tweaks I've devised, it devolves back to the base system whenever there are no priority items in the list.
Yesterday (Sunday, February 10) was an acid test for this new system, and it performed beautifully. It was a very busy day, but AF2NDP2 kept me focused and on track for the entire day, when it would have been very easy to lose track of things and drop several of the balls I was juggling for the day. I found it easy to work the system and to stay on-list. (This has always been an issue for me.) This new priority tweak did a perfect job of maintaining focus on the top priorities without generating any resistance whatsoever. The only problem I had was that I tried to do too much and exceeded my available time, but that problem is out of scope for Autofocus systems. At the end of the day, my home list had 63 items total, 24 of which were single-starred and 8 of which were double-starred -- all of the triple-starred tasks were completed.
As always, time will tell if this tweak holds up any better than the others. Nevertheless, I'm quite pleased with the debut of AF2NDP2 and find it much improved over AF2NDP.
February 11, 2013 at 17:41 |
Deven
Deven
Implementation note: I am using 3x5 index cards instead of a notebook for this, keeping the newest card on the top of the stack and the oldest on the bottom. To help find the oldest priority task to rewrite for AF2NDP2 rules, I've decided to mark each card with the same number of stars as the highest-priority task on the card, and update that mark as necessary. That way, I can just scan the stack for the oldest card with the most stars, rewrite the task, and update the stars on the card if nothing else remains at that priority level. It's a time-saver, but entirely optional.
February 12, 2013 at 16:28 |
Deven
Deven
AF2NDP2 works well for me, but I'm now experimenting with AF2NDP3:
* Start with nuntym's AF2ND rules.
* Add or remove stars at will to prioritize tasks.
* When selecting a new task to work on, rewrite the oldest task in the list (per AF2ND rules) and then ALSO rewrite the oldest single-starred task, the oldest double-starred task, etc.
* After rewriting the old tasks, scan backwards from the end of the list for a task that "stands out" to work on (as in AF2).
* Start with nuntym's AF2ND rules.
* Add or remove stars at will to prioritize tasks.
* When selecting a new task to work on, rewrite the oldest task in the list (per AF2ND rules) and then ALSO rewrite the oldest single-starred task, the oldest double-starred task, etc.
* After rewriting the old tasks, scan backwards from the end of the list for a task that "stands out" to work on (as in AF2).
February 19, 2013 at 20:08 |
Deven
Deven
Sorry, I made a mistake in describing AF2NDP3 -- I meant to rewrite the oldest unstarred task first, then single-starred, double-starred, etc. In the case where the oldest task on the list is starred, this does differ from AF2ND rules.
February 26, 2013 at 18:51 |
Deven
Deven
This is the tweaked AF2 that I have mentioned in Deven's thread "Resisting the core mechanism of FV" in the FV Forum. I call it AutoFocus 2, No Dismissal (AF2ND).
Original Posts:
First Post -- http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1900291#item1905099
Steps -- http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1900291#item1907485
Features -- http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1900291#item1908103