Discussion Forum > Little and Often
Mark has written about this quite a bit:
- http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2006/8/14/little-and-often.html
- http://markforster.squarespace.com/display/Search?searchQuery=%22little+and+often%22&moduleId=1292867&moduleFilter=&categoryFilter=JournalEntry%2CPage&startAt=0
And here is a new article (new for me at least!): http://flowingmotion.jojordan.org/2010/05/04/little-and-often-the-secret-of-beating-writers-block-procrastination-etc-etc-and-so-on/
- http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2006/8/14/little-and-often.html
- http://markforster.squarespace.com/display/Search?searchQuery=%22little+and+often%22&moduleId=1292867&moduleFilter=&categoryFilter=JournalEntry%2CPage&startAt=0
And here is a new article (new for me at least!): http://flowingmotion.jojordan.org/2010/05/04/little-and-often-the-secret-of-beating-writers-block-procrastination-etc-etc-and-so-on/
September 20, 2012 at 2:20 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
1. Little and often is better than the alternative.
2. This is because it makes it easy(ier) to overcome resistance to working on a task. By working on a task we are more likely to get it completed earlier. Completing a task earlier is usually better than not completing it or completing it later. Therefore L&O is usually better than the alternative.
1. Little and often is worse than the alternative.
2. This is because human beings crave a sense of completion. L&O requires that we resist this all-too-human craving. This can make us uncomfortable. Being uncomfortable is worse than being comfortable. Therefore L&O is worse than the alternative.
2. This is because it makes it easy(ier) to overcome resistance to working on a task. By working on a task we are more likely to get it completed earlier. Completing a task earlier is usually better than not completing it or completing it later. Therefore L&O is usually better than the alternative.
1. Little and often is worse than the alternative.
2. This is because human beings crave a sense of completion. L&O requires that we resist this all-too-human craving. This can make us uncomfortable. Being uncomfortable is worse than being comfortable. Therefore L&O is worse than the alternative.
September 20, 2012 at 14:29 |
moises
moises
That Jo Jordan link, Seraphim, was fascinating.
Reading it, I wondered if there were unnamed sources.
First, Jordan tags it as GTD. So, Jordan is somewhat familiar with the popular time management literature. Did Jordan get this from Mark Forster and not give him proper attribution? It is theoretically possible that someone else decided to call it L&O, just as it is theoretically possible that a bunch of monkeys with keyboards could write Hamlet.
Second, there is another author, Robert Boice, who emphasizes L&O in his books. But he does not call it L&O. He stresses the importance of those short bits of time, even five minutes, where one can jot down notes and make progress. Boice has done research showing that professors who work in frequent, short bursts publish much more than their binge-writing peers.
So, this Jordan article has the L&O terminology of Mark Forster along with the L&O data of Robert Boice. Was there no attribution because Jordan developed these concepts independently of Mark and Boice?
Reading it, I wondered if there were unnamed sources.
First, Jordan tags it as GTD. So, Jordan is somewhat familiar with the popular time management literature. Did Jordan get this from Mark Forster and not give him proper attribution? It is theoretically possible that someone else decided to call it L&O, just as it is theoretically possible that a bunch of monkeys with keyboards could write Hamlet.
Second, there is another author, Robert Boice, who emphasizes L&O in his books. But he does not call it L&O. He stresses the importance of those short bits of time, even five minutes, where one can jot down notes and make progress. Boice has done research showing that professors who work in frequent, short bursts publish much more than their binge-writing peers.
So, this Jordan article has the L&O terminology of Mark Forster along with the L&O data of Robert Boice. Was there no attribution because Jordan developed these concepts independently of Mark and Boice?
September 20, 2012 at 14:48 |
moises
moises
But Jordan *does* attribute Boice, he mentions Boice several times.
Hm, looking back I clicked through to another post from 2010 on the same site (http://flowingmotion.jojordan.org/2010/05/20/get-done-2x-as-much-or-more-by-doing-less-some-facts/ ) where Boice is mentioned frequently. Just not in the post that Seraphim originally linked to.
About L&O being worse than the alternative: I'm not sure your conclusion is correct. Human beings crave completion, so when you work little & often, you'll *want* to return to the task that's not yet complete. As an extreme example, Mark mentions in DIT that you should stop a writing session in mid-sentence, so you'll be eager to return to another writing session after doing other stuff.
Hm, looking back I clicked through to another post from 2010 on the same site (http://flowingmotion.jojordan.org/2010/05/20/get-done-2x-as-much-or-more-by-doing-less-some-facts/ ) where Boice is mentioned frequently. Just not in the post that Seraphim originally linked to.
About L&O being worse than the alternative: I'm not sure your conclusion is correct. Human beings crave completion, so when you work little & often, you'll *want* to return to the task that's not yet complete. As an extreme example, Mark mentions in DIT that you should stop a writing session in mid-sentence, so you'll be eager to return to another writing session after doing other stuff.
September 20, 2012 at 15:03 |
Nicole
Nicole
I think "Little and Often is better/worse than the alternative" is not a well defined assertion. What alternative do you have in mind, as there are many alternatives? There are also many kinds of tasks.
A) Do one thing until it's done, then do the next. This is an excellent strategy within a narrow scope. If the things are small, or the focus is limited to particular times, and the task is easy enough to endure sustained effort, or someone is depending on you completing this soon - in these circumstances (A) is a great solution.
B) Intend to do (A), but instead get overwhelmed and procrastinate. This is a common variant of (A), and it's never better than L&O.
C) Study all the things you need to do, plan everything out, and then work according to the plan. If you succeed in doing this, great. But it's easy to mess up the plan, or fail to meet the plan. In such cases, you set yourself up for trouble.
D) L&O. It's incredibly easy to follow this, and hard to go wrong. It may be less efficient than other strategies done right, but it has the advantage of keeping up your energies, and it's better than other strategies done wrong.
A) Do one thing until it's done, then do the next. This is an excellent strategy within a narrow scope. If the things are small, or the focus is limited to particular times, and the task is easy enough to endure sustained effort, or someone is depending on you completing this soon - in these circumstances (A) is a great solution.
B) Intend to do (A), but instead get overwhelmed and procrastinate. This is a common variant of (A), and it's never better than L&O.
C) Study all the things you need to do, plan everything out, and then work according to the plan. If you succeed in doing this, great. But it's easy to mess up the plan, or fail to meet the plan. In such cases, you set yourself up for trouble.
D) L&O. It's incredibly easy to follow this, and hard to go wrong. It may be less efficient than other strategies done right, but it has the advantage of keeping up your energies, and it's better than other strategies done wrong.
September 20, 2012 at 16:13 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I think there are times and projects where L&O won't work, and times and projects where it's the best choice, and a whole spectrum in between.
Ideally, we learn to adapt the method to the project and our schedule and our mood and everything else that affects how we work.
However, most people err on the side "big and done or never". They need to experience L&O and get good at it before they know when it is and isn't the right tool.
Mark's approach is "work on it as long as you want." That allows you to keep going if you're on a roll, or stop if it isn't working and make progress elsewhere rather than beat your head against a brick wall.
If you will be uncomfortable not finishing, Mark's systems let you continue -- unless you realize completing it in this session will cause more harm than good.
"All or nothing" has three dangers. You may never have a long enough block to do it in, so never start. You may see it as a huge scary task and never start. Or, more insidious, you may succeed in doing it all, and by the time you're done you're so tired that you can't do anything else, and aren't looking forward to the next time.
L&O also has dangers. The feeling of "I did a little bit on it. Yay!" can carry too long, and you don't do the next bit. (That's my weakness.) Also, too may littles in a session can be like multitasking -- too many mind shifts.
Too much fear of uncompleted things is bad. You have to complete things -- even less important things -- rather than start better things.
Ideally, we learn to adapt the method to the project and our schedule and our mood and everything else that affects how we work.
However, most people err on the side "big and done or never". They need to experience L&O and get good at it before they know when it is and isn't the right tool.
Mark's approach is "work on it as long as you want." That allows you to keep going if you're on a roll, or stop if it isn't working and make progress elsewhere rather than beat your head against a brick wall.
If you will be uncomfortable not finishing, Mark's systems let you continue -- unless you realize completing it in this session will cause more harm than good.
"All or nothing" has three dangers. You may never have a long enough block to do it in, so never start. You may see it as a huge scary task and never start. Or, more insidious, you may succeed in doing it all, and by the time you're done you're so tired that you can't do anything else, and aren't looking forward to the next time.
L&O also has dangers. The feeling of "I did a little bit on it. Yay!" can carry too long, and you don't do the next bit. (That's my weakness.) Also, too may littles in a session can be like multitasking -- too many mind shifts.
Too much fear of uncompleted things is bad. You have to complete things -- even less important things -- rather than start better things.
September 20, 2012 at 16:48 |
Cricket
Cricket
Nicole,
Thanks for the reference to Boice. My faith in humanity has been (partially) restored.
Thanks for the reference to Boice. My faith in humanity has been (partially) restored.
September 20, 2012 at 17:27 |
moises
moises
Alan asked what are the alternatives?
There are three:
1. Lots and often
2. Little and infrequent
3. Lots and infrequent
Most people tend towards 3.
1 is infeasible for most people. I can't spend 8 hour on 10 things in 1 day.
2 is possible. This is the person who just does not do much. And when he does do something, it's still not very much. If you have a life that allows it, you might function OK doing 2.
3 is where many end up. This is the binge worker who stays up all night before the deadline. Then she doesn't do much until the next deadline looms.
There are three:
1. Lots and often
2. Little and infrequent
3. Lots and infrequent
Most people tend towards 3.
1 is infeasible for most people. I can't spend 8 hour on 10 things in 1 day.
2 is possible. This is the person who just does not do much. And when he does do something, it's still not very much. If you have a life that allows it, you might function OK doing 2.
3 is where many end up. This is the binge worker who stays up all night before the deadline. Then she doesn't do much until the next deadline looms.
September 20, 2012 at 17:40 |
moises
moises
Cricket said,
"The feeling of 'I did a little bit on it. Yay!' can carry too long, and you don't do the next bit."
This has been my experience as well. I think a lot depends on the meaning of the word "often." In the Jordan link that Seraphim posted, "often" seems to mean "almost daily."
When I use Mark's systems, "often" means more like "at least 1 minute a week."
Maybe that's an area where I can improve?
"The feeling of 'I did a little bit on it. Yay!' can carry too long, and you don't do the next bit."
This has been my experience as well. I think a lot depends on the meaning of the word "often." In the Jordan link that Seraphim posted, "often" seems to mean "almost daily."
When I use Mark's systems, "often" means more like "at least 1 minute a week."
Maybe that's an area where I can improve?
September 20, 2012 at 17:44 |
moises
moises
I have also found little & often can go nowhere if that's the only principle you follow.
I have found it to be most effective when it is combined with a strong drive for COMPLETION.
Or, to put it more accurately, I am more effective when I focus on COMPLETION. But when I get stuck, or am facing an unnamed resistance, or feel overwhelmed, or don't know what to do next, L&O can keep me going and get me back on track again.
I have found it to be most effective when it is combined with a strong drive for COMPLETION.
Or, to put it more accurately, I am more effective when I focus on COMPLETION. But when I get stuck, or am facing an unnamed resistance, or feel overwhelmed, or don't know what to do next, L&O can keep me going and get me back on track again.
September 27, 2012 at 3:19 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Little-and-often and the need for completion reinforce each other. If I do a bit and see progress, i get excited about eventually finishing. If I can see the finish, I want to keep going.
My problem is still with the zillions of projects I have that need little-and-often because they need careful attention. Long sessions with them are deadly. I need to do a bit, be happy about the progress, then stop before the family returns. Otherwise I need "just five more minutes of silence" to finish the next batch, and of course I don't get it. Or I get scared I made mistakes and don't enjoy the project any more.
Again, that chart of weekly milestones for each project helps. The milestones themselves are little and often. They're also sequential. It's not just "another inch of ancient papers" or "another 15 minutes", it's "Inch #3 of 24." Also, every project has catch-up weeks, so falling behind isn't permanent.
For projects with no end point, like exercising, I need firm routines with logic behind them. Even if the logic is flimsy, I hold on to it, otherwise I play with the routine and things don't get done.
My problem is still with the zillions of projects I have that need little-and-often because they need careful attention. Long sessions with them are deadly. I need to do a bit, be happy about the progress, then stop before the family returns. Otherwise I need "just five more minutes of silence" to finish the next batch, and of course I don't get it. Or I get scared I made mistakes and don't enjoy the project any more.
Again, that chart of weekly milestones for each project helps. The milestones themselves are little and often. They're also sequential. It's not just "another inch of ancient papers" or "another 15 minutes", it's "Inch #3 of 24." Also, every project has catch-up weeks, so falling behind isn't permanent.
For projects with no end point, like exercising, I need firm routines with logic behind them. Even if the logic is flimsy, I hold on to it, otherwise I play with the routine and things don't get done.
September 27, 2012 at 14:18 |
Cricket
Cricket
1. Is little and often really better than the alternatives?
2. Why?