Discussion Forum > Single Text File
I could never tolerate any complex TM system. If I had to set tags of one kind or another, or spend any time at all in system maintenance, I just gave it up -- I had no interest and no time.
For me, the "tsunami" has usually been the result of over-commitment. I started looking at different TM systems to help me manage the feeling of being lost in so many tasks and competing priorities. Sometimes I did have a clear idea of what things were most pressing and could just get on with it. But sometimes I really didn't know, and felt paralyzed by so many competing priorities.
As an aside, I also had a frequent experience that when I procrastinated on something that was really pressing, I sometimes produced my best work in other areas, came up with insights or systems or solutions that made a huge difference in my education or career or personal goals.
So I struggled, not having a clear idea why I was so overwhelmed, and not knowing how to decide what work to do now, what to do later, what to drop.
Different systems (GTD, AF1, DWM) helped me be more efficient, helped me develop my intuition about my tasks, and helped cut some of the more wasteful excursions from my life, but didn't really solve the problem.
DIT finally provided the framework that helped me clearly see the source of my overwhelm: extreme over-commitment. Mark could already see it, and often commented on it (usually when I mentioned the size of my AF lists LOL!), but even with his insightful comments I couldn't see the problem clearly myself, or figure out a way to deal with it, till I tried DIT.
By simply following DIT's rules, it became VERY clear that my incoming work was regularly dwarfing my ability to process it. Several "commitment audits" helped me get a much clearer picture of where all this work was coming from, and made it very clear that the only way to deal with it was to make some hard choices about which commitments to keep, and which to drop.
At this point, I don't consciously follow DIT's rules, but have rather internalized most of them. I feel much more confident saying "No" to new commitments (or new random tasks and ideas that implicitly include unspoken commitments). And if I am pressured by persistent feelings of overwhelm, I have a pretty good idea why: I've allowed my commitments to exceed my capacity, and need to re-evaluate them.
And so now, I do feel like the best way to handle my work (whether in my mind or on a list) is just to punch through it and get it done. I've got the tasks down to a size where this is actually realistic, something that can actually be finished. It took a long time to get to this point.
Chris, it seems like you may have already internalized many of the lessons and habits that Mark's systems teach, so you need them less than some of us. No amount of "just get going" or "just get it done" would have helped me with the over-commitment. Following DIT's rules *did*. They helped me see the real underlying problems, and gave me some practical methods of solving them.
For me, the "tsunami" has usually been the result of over-commitment. I started looking at different TM systems to help me manage the feeling of being lost in so many tasks and competing priorities. Sometimes I did have a clear idea of what things were most pressing and could just get on with it. But sometimes I really didn't know, and felt paralyzed by so many competing priorities.
As an aside, I also had a frequent experience that when I procrastinated on something that was really pressing, I sometimes produced my best work in other areas, came up with insights or systems or solutions that made a huge difference in my education or career or personal goals.
So I struggled, not having a clear idea why I was so overwhelmed, and not knowing how to decide what work to do now, what to do later, what to drop.
Different systems (GTD, AF1, DWM) helped me be more efficient, helped me develop my intuition about my tasks, and helped cut some of the more wasteful excursions from my life, but didn't really solve the problem.
DIT finally provided the framework that helped me clearly see the source of my overwhelm: extreme over-commitment. Mark could already see it, and often commented on it (usually when I mentioned the size of my AF lists LOL!), but even with his insightful comments I couldn't see the problem clearly myself, or figure out a way to deal with it, till I tried DIT.
By simply following DIT's rules, it became VERY clear that my incoming work was regularly dwarfing my ability to process it. Several "commitment audits" helped me get a much clearer picture of where all this work was coming from, and made it very clear that the only way to deal with it was to make some hard choices about which commitments to keep, and which to drop.
At this point, I don't consciously follow DIT's rules, but have rather internalized most of them. I feel much more confident saying "No" to new commitments (or new random tasks and ideas that implicitly include unspoken commitments). And if I am pressured by persistent feelings of overwhelm, I have a pretty good idea why: I've allowed my commitments to exceed my capacity, and need to re-evaluate them.
And so now, I do feel like the best way to handle my work (whether in my mind or on a list) is just to punch through it and get it done. I've got the tasks down to a size where this is actually realistic, something that can actually be finished. It took a long time to get to this point.
Chris, it seems like you may have already internalized many of the lessons and habits that Mark's systems teach, so you need them less than some of us. No amount of "just get going" or "just get it done" would have helped me with the over-commitment. Following DIT's rules *did*. They helped me see the real underlying problems, and gave me some practical methods of solving them.
June 3, 2013 at 6:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
It's been interesting watching you over the last year or two Seraphim. You have experimented with a large number of systems and tweaks and your approach has become visibly leaner and leaner as time has gone on. Similarly Gerry moved from a more complex setup to a leaner, simpler setup.
I've ended up at this point because every system I've used has soon felt too burdensome but within it have been some principles which I had a gut feeling could be crystalised without the surrounding baggage. So over the years I've been on a journey, asking myself what's the simplest system I need to get stuff done, feel comfortable with capturing where needed and having that info in one place and highly available.
Eventually this has revealed the truth, which is that all I need is to know what I need to do and the grit to get on and do it, and that many of the systems worked in lieu of the latter, permitting me to sabotage my own efforts. There is also a safety blanket effect of having a comfortable system to protect you from the reality of getting stuck in and allowing some disorganisation, which is not the demon it's made out to be.
It's akin to someone wanting to lose weight drifting from one diet to another, convincing themselves that they don't work while conveniently ignoring that they don't want to diet at all and enjoy eating a lot. The diet industry and the productivity industry are very similar in some respects, selling complex solutions to a technically simple problem masked by complex psychology. I feel like I've stripped away the psychology and got to the bare simple root of it, and it's very liberating to feel it, and, more importantly, now key stuff is really getting done by the bucketload.
All the systems I've tried, including Mark's, have been important for the journey to get me to this point today. Without them I would not have been able to arrive at the above realisations and would still be drifting. Thankyou for your insights into your journey.
I've ended up at this point because every system I've used has soon felt too burdensome but within it have been some principles which I had a gut feeling could be crystalised without the surrounding baggage. So over the years I've been on a journey, asking myself what's the simplest system I need to get stuff done, feel comfortable with capturing where needed and having that info in one place and highly available.
Eventually this has revealed the truth, which is that all I need is to know what I need to do and the grit to get on and do it, and that many of the systems worked in lieu of the latter, permitting me to sabotage my own efforts. There is also a safety blanket effect of having a comfortable system to protect you from the reality of getting stuck in and allowing some disorganisation, which is not the demon it's made out to be.
It's akin to someone wanting to lose weight drifting from one diet to another, convincing themselves that they don't work while conveniently ignoring that they don't want to diet at all and enjoy eating a lot. The diet industry and the productivity industry are very similar in some respects, selling complex solutions to a technically simple problem masked by complex psychology. I feel like I've stripped away the psychology and got to the bare simple root of it, and it's very liberating to feel it, and, more importantly, now key stuff is really getting done by the bucketload.
All the systems I've tried, including Mark's, have been important for the journey to get me to this point today. Without them I would not have been able to arrive at the above realisations and would still be drifting. Thankyou for your insights into your journey.
June 3, 2013 at 11:21 |
Chris
Chris
Chris:
I'm puzzled by one thing about your method, which is that I can't see exactly what it is about it which stops you doing the thing you complain about in other systems, i.e. gaming the system by only touching some or all of the items.
From what you said in the other thread I understood you to say that you just needed to summon up the "grit" to get tasks done. But why can't you apply that to other systems? There's nothing preventing you from doing that in ASAEM for instance - and very effective it would be if you did.
I'm puzzled by one thing about your method, which is that I can't see exactly what it is about it which stops you doing the thing you complain about in other systems, i.e. gaming the system by only touching some or all of the items.
From what you said in the other thread I understood you to say that you just needed to summon up the "grit" to get tasks done. But why can't you apply that to other systems? There's nothing preventing you from doing that in ASAEM for instance - and very effective it would be if you did.
June 3, 2013 at 12:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark: "I'm puzzled by one thing about your method, which is that I can't see exactly what it is about it which stops you doing the thing you complain about in other systems, i.e. gaming the system by only touching some or all of the items."
There's absolutely nothing about it which could stop me from doing that. That particular problem lies not within the system or method used but within me and all of us. People continually tweak or switch systems to try and fix the part that isn't broken.
I've never claimed the way I work could not be gamed, I've explained that I overcame the gaming itself, thus rendering moot the entire need for the whipping effect of a rules based system and the baggage of maintaining it.
Mark: "From what you said in the other thread I understood you to say that you just needed to summon up the "grit" to get tasks done. But why can't you apply that to other systems? There's nothing preventing you from doing that in ASAEM for instance - and very effective it would be if you did."
I could quite easily apply that determination to other systems and as you say it would work. But having realised that it is THAT which gets stuff done, I am applying it daily without a system and it works just the same. So why do I need ASEM?
There's absolutely nothing about it which could stop me from doing that. That particular problem lies not within the system or method used but within me and all of us. People continually tweak or switch systems to try and fix the part that isn't broken.
I've never claimed the way I work could not be gamed, I've explained that I overcame the gaming itself, thus rendering moot the entire need for the whipping effect of a rules based system and the baggage of maintaining it.
Mark: "From what you said in the other thread I understood you to say that you just needed to summon up the "grit" to get tasks done. But why can't you apply that to other systems? There's nothing preventing you from doing that in ASAEM for instance - and very effective it would be if you did."
I could quite easily apply that determination to other systems and as you say it would work. But having realised that it is THAT which gets stuff done, I am applying it daily without a system and it works just the same. So why do I need ASEM?
June 3, 2013 at 14:45 |
Chris
Chris
Chris,
interesting setup. I thought it was everything as in a capture all type of system. But its more of only the things you have to do soon, wf list, and calendar. So I'm guessing it doesn't look into things you may want to do later and eventually will become soon?
Though it might be unnecessary for you, an app that seems perfect for your system that I could recommend is Workflowy. Again, the simplicity of a text document probably suits you perfectly already though.
...and back to work. :)
interesting setup. I thought it was everything as in a capture all type of system. But its more of only the things you have to do soon, wf list, and calendar. So I'm guessing it doesn't look into things you may want to do later and eventually will become soon?
Though it might be unnecessary for you, an app that seems perfect for your system that I could recommend is Workflowy. Again, the simplicity of a text document probably suits you perfectly already though.
...and back to work. :)
June 3, 2013 at 15:58 |
GMBW
GMBW
Chris:
<< I am applying it daily without a system and it works just the same. >>
But you do have a system - quite a complicated one which took you a long post to describe.
What's still puzzling me is why you think this particular system is exempt from the generalized criticism which you directed at all other systems.
<< I am applying it daily without a system and it works just the same. >>
But you do have a system - quite a complicated one which took you a long post to describe.
What's still puzzling me is why you think this particular system is exempt from the generalized criticism which you directed at all other systems.
June 3, 2013 at 16:12 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
There's a Yiddish word that might be helpful here: Gezunterheyt. Which loosely means: Good for you, be well, ok, next...
June 3, 2013 at 16:28 |
avrum
avrum
Mark: "But you do have a system - quite a complicated one which took you a long post to describe."
I don't have a system Mark. I have a single text file which I use to note some of the things I'm starting soon, who I'm waiting for and calendar appointments.
That's it. There are no rules. The long post was explaining how I typically work with it.
Once again (for the nth time) I am not criticising other systems. I'm questioning whether a rules based system like ASEM or AF4R or GTD really serves any purpose, for someone who is constantly switching systems and tweaking, beyond substituting for the realisation that you have to get going, and that once you do realise that, a simple freeform list is about all you need to manage your stuff just as, if not more, effectively.
I don't have a system Mark. I have a single text file which I use to note some of the things I'm starting soon, who I'm waiting for and calendar appointments.
That's it. There are no rules. The long post was explaining how I typically work with it.
Once again (for the nth time) I am not criticising other systems. I'm questioning whether a rules based system like ASEM or AF4R or GTD really serves any purpose, for someone who is constantly switching systems and tweaking, beyond substituting for the realisation that you have to get going, and that once you do realise that, a simple freeform list is about all you need to manage your stuff just as, if not more, effectively.
June 3, 2013 at 16:49 |
Chris
Chris
Interesting discussion. Chris, I think it also depends on what we mean by system. If "system" is several strict rules which MUST be followed every time, then I agree that you do not have a system. Neither do I. Still, your statement "There are no rules. The long post was explaining how I typically work with it." is what I call system for myself:
I do not have closed set of strict rules and - after years of experimenting - I am not looking for them any more. And (maybe "that`s why") I am happy with it. My approach is fuzzy. I use inspirations from several Mark`s systems: FV, AV, GED. Sometimes.
I also formulated what I call "principles". Usually I follow them, sometimes not - it depends on my mood, on context, on prevailing nature of tasks/work for today etc. But I have them - as tools in my backpack. I cannot describe such "system" easily in terms of rules, because it would be very long description, yet it is simple for me, as many "rules/principles/tendencies" are already built into the way how I organize work etc, so they are more on implicit level (sometimes used, sometimes not).
And STILL - yes - I consider these "strict rules" systems very inspirational, exactly for the fact that I can choose from them and I can use them in more loose way. I do not call it "tweaking" as I am not making new "strict rules" system. I call it "inspiration". I do not have problem with using more of "daily list" approach one day and "Dreams"-like or FV-like approach the other day.
I do not have closed set of strict rules and - after years of experimenting - I am not looking for them any more. And (maybe "that`s why") I am happy with it. My approach is fuzzy. I use inspirations from several Mark`s systems: FV, AV, GED. Sometimes.
I also formulated what I call "principles". Usually I follow them, sometimes not - it depends on my mood, on context, on prevailing nature of tasks/work for today etc. But I have them - as tools in my backpack. I cannot describe such "system" easily in terms of rules, because it would be very long description, yet it is simple for me, as many "rules/principles/tendencies" are already built into the way how I organize work etc, so they are more on implicit level (sometimes used, sometimes not).
And STILL - yes - I consider these "strict rules" systems very inspirational, exactly for the fact that I can choose from them and I can use them in more loose way. I do not call it "tweaking" as I am not making new "strict rules" system. I call it "inspiration". I do not have problem with using more of "daily list" approach one day and "Dreams"-like or FV-like approach the other day.
June 3, 2013 at 23:02 |
Daneb
Daneb
Chris:
<< I don't have a system Mark. I have a single text file which I use to note some of the things I'm starting soon, who I'm waiting for and calendar appointments. >>
If someone tells me they don't have a system, I would normally expect that they mean that they just work on what they feel like doing at the time, without any systematic lists or notes or prioritizing.
That is how the vast majority of people work, and it's how I worked before I started developing my own systems.
What I don't expect someone who claims not to be using a system to be doing is following rules like these:
1. Keep a reference list of tasks that you intend to start soon.
2. At the beginning of each day, construct a day list from the reference list and your calendar. Add any other tasks that come to mind to do that day.
3. Scan the list to select the most appropriate task to start with. Each time you finish a task, scan the list again so that tasks are done in the most appropriate order.
4. Add new tasks to the day list, calendar or reference list as they come up.
5. Change priorities as necessary throughout the day by moving tasks between the day list and the reference list or vice versa.
6. Review the reference list at least once a day to prevent it growing beyond a handful of upcoming stuff.
7. Return tasks on the day list which you don't succeed in getting done to the reference list either during the day or at the end of the day.
If that's not a system I don't know what is.
<< I don't have a system Mark. I have a single text file which I use to note some of the things I'm starting soon, who I'm waiting for and calendar appointments. >>
If someone tells me they don't have a system, I would normally expect that they mean that they just work on what they feel like doing at the time, without any systematic lists or notes or prioritizing.
That is how the vast majority of people work, and it's how I worked before I started developing my own systems.
What I don't expect someone who claims not to be using a system to be doing is following rules like these:
1. Keep a reference list of tasks that you intend to start soon.
2. At the beginning of each day, construct a day list from the reference list and your calendar. Add any other tasks that come to mind to do that day.
3. Scan the list to select the most appropriate task to start with. Each time you finish a task, scan the list again so that tasks are done in the most appropriate order.
4. Add new tasks to the day list, calendar or reference list as they come up.
5. Change priorities as necessary throughout the day by moving tasks between the day list and the reference list or vice versa.
6. Review the reference list at least once a day to prevent it growing beyond a handful of upcoming stuff.
7. Return tasks on the day list which you don't succeed in getting done to the reference list either during the day or at the end of the day.
If that's not a system I don't know what is.
June 3, 2013 at 23:42 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Daneb, yes I am using the term "system" in the context of the original discussion over in the other thread: a rules-based algorithmic approach to working through outstanding tasks, such as AF4R or ASEM or FV.
What you're describing I think was summed up well by Seraphim talking about having internalised a lot of the principles. I too have enjoyed the journey to this point and taken a lot of inspiration from all the systems I've used.
What you're describing I think was summed up well by Seraphim talking about having internalised a lot of the principles. I too have enjoyed the journey to this point and taken a lot of inspiration from all the systems I've used.
June 3, 2013 at 23:56 |
Chris
Chris
Mark: "If someone tells me they don't have a system, I would normally expect that they mean that they just work on what they feel like doing at the time, without any systematic lists or notes or prioritizing."
In that case please read my reply to Daneb just now and re-read my first reply to you in the AF4R thread and subsequent posts. My use of the term has not changed. Regarding the list you posted, every single one is incorrect, and you describe me doing them as "following rules" which is also incorrect.
In that case please read my reply to Daneb just now and re-read my first reply to you in the AF4R thread and subsequent posts. My use of the term has not changed. Regarding the list you posted, every single one is incorrect, and you describe me doing them as "following rules" which is also incorrect.
June 4, 2013 at 0:40 |
Chris
Chris
Hi Mark and Chris
I think that people have different orientations so they might just have to agree to disagree.
Mark said:
"If someone tells me they don't have a system, I would normally expect that they mean that they just work on what they feel like doing at the time, without any systematic lists or notes or prioritizing."
On this I have to agree with Chris. I'm not right. I just have a different orientation. Before AF1 I never heard of people doing what they feel like during work. I also never heard of the idea of writing leisure activities on a work list and tallying them up as tasks completed. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I just never witnessed or even heard of that concept. Work was work and breaks or off time was leisure (or doing extra work to get ahead). I'd think that most jobs would fire a person if they just did what they felt like if they weren't on a sanctioned break.
If I wanted to do something specific on my break and it involved keeping a date, I'd write it on an index card and tape it to my desk. (When I did my illustrations, my time sense would disappear.)
Different jobs have different requirements and expectations. I've read that administrators have to block youtube, facebook, etc. I still can't imagine anybody doing that while they're working.
Prioritizing is a system of thought. The various arbitrary, algorithmic rule sets and random lists drove me crazy. I couldn't work without flexibile plan. If I'm going to devote and and effort, I want to get the biggest bang for the buck. I don't want to end my day feeling like I wasted my time and effort on any old thing. On the job, it's much clearer what to prioritize. At home, I need to plan. All my life I've planned and prioritized. How could anybody get through school, university, jobs, hobbies, community service et al without prioritizing and planning? Obviously they do as you say. I just can't wrap my head around it because I'm not oriented that way. I'm not wrong for it nor are the others. As long as you're reliable and living a decent life, does it really matter how you do it?
I think that people have different orientations so they might just have to agree to disagree.
Mark said:
"If someone tells me they don't have a system, I would normally expect that they mean that they just work on what they feel like doing at the time, without any systematic lists or notes or prioritizing."
On this I have to agree with Chris. I'm not right. I just have a different orientation. Before AF1 I never heard of people doing what they feel like during work. I also never heard of the idea of writing leisure activities on a work list and tallying them up as tasks completed. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I just never witnessed or even heard of that concept. Work was work and breaks or off time was leisure (or doing extra work to get ahead). I'd think that most jobs would fire a person if they just did what they felt like if they weren't on a sanctioned break.
If I wanted to do something specific on my break and it involved keeping a date, I'd write it on an index card and tape it to my desk. (When I did my illustrations, my time sense would disappear.)
Different jobs have different requirements and expectations. I've read that administrators have to block youtube, facebook, etc. I still can't imagine anybody doing that while they're working.
Prioritizing is a system of thought. The various arbitrary, algorithmic rule sets and random lists drove me crazy. I couldn't work without flexibile plan. If I'm going to devote and and effort, I want to get the biggest bang for the buck. I don't want to end my day feeling like I wasted my time and effort on any old thing. On the job, it's much clearer what to prioritize. At home, I need to plan. All my life I've planned and prioritized. How could anybody get through school, university, jobs, hobbies, community service et al without prioritizing and planning? Obviously they do as you say. I just can't wrap my head around it because I'm not oriented that way. I'm not wrong for it nor are the others. As long as you're reliable and living a decent life, does it really matter how you do it?
June 4, 2013 at 4:03 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
I think i understand Chris. Basically you have internalized what is needed to keep yourself organized and productive. You emphasize getting to work and doing stuff. You don't need rules because you know what to do.
And yet, your approach isn't just make a list and do stuff on it. Why that's perfectly fine and to be honest not much different from my own practice of a system. I don't follow rules strictly; they simply structure my examination of the list. I don't use the system to avoid work. I use it to help select work when I otherwise don't know what I should do.
And yet, your approach isn't just make a list and do stuff on it. Why that's perfectly fine and to be honest not much different from my own practice of a system. I don't follow rules strictly; they simply structure my examination of the list. I don't use the system to avoid work. I use it to help select work when I otherwise don't know what I should do.
June 4, 2013 at 4:56 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I agree that it's better to attack the core of a problem than trim the branches. For TM, it's more or less learning how to deal with the basic resistance that comes up and develop the discipline needed to push through certain tasks. But I also like using systems to manage a daily workload and spend less time thinking about what to do, so you have more energy. A good system should be a framework to hopefully support the core concept of dealing with that initial blockage.
June 4, 2013 at 15:19 |
Hail2U!
Hail2U!
"I also like using systems to manage a daily workload and spend less time thinking about what to do, so you have more energy." (Hail2U!)
Definitely, good point. I am thinking about "ego depletion" effect (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion), known from current psychological research.
Sometimes it is much more effective to let system decide for you (FV, AF...) and thus to conserve some of your mental resources/willpower for more important decisions.
Definitely, good point. I am thinking about "ego depletion" effect (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion), known from current psychological research.
Sometimes it is much more effective to let system decide for you (FV, AF...) and thus to conserve some of your mental resources/willpower for more important decisions.
June 4, 2013 at 17:58 |
Daneb
Daneb
Hi Hail2U! and Daneb
This is where people think differently sometimes. I hate wasting my work time deciding what to do. That's why I have a flexible plan for the day. Deciding what to choose after I complete each task according to an arbitrary rule would exhaust me. I decide what's most important and throw in a couple of easier tasks to work the plan.
Although I need to use strategies to get past resistance on a regular basis, I don't consider that the core of my system. The core of my efforts is to do the right work. If I have extra energy and and am in the mood, I can pick off some extra work. I don't rely on my system to handle my resistance. I do that separately. I rely on my system to remind me what's on my plate. I use my brain to prioritize and make a doable plan. I expect to overcome resistance more days than not. If I'm putting in the extra effort to get over the hump, I want to do the right work, not busywork.
I would never expect a system to manage the workings of my brain especially the quirks of my resistance. That's on me do discover and implement methods of allowing me to do my work, even the boring or scary stuff. It's always been like that for me. Being good at approaching my work despite resistance doesn't make it easier to do but what other option do I have? It's got to be done in a timely manner no matter what I feel about it. I settle for coping because I don't think there's a cure (for me at least.)
This is where people think differently sometimes. I hate wasting my work time deciding what to do. That's why I have a flexible plan for the day. Deciding what to choose after I complete each task according to an arbitrary rule would exhaust me. I decide what's most important and throw in a couple of easier tasks to work the plan.
Although I need to use strategies to get past resistance on a regular basis, I don't consider that the core of my system. The core of my efforts is to do the right work. If I have extra energy and and am in the mood, I can pick off some extra work. I don't rely on my system to handle my resistance. I do that separately. I rely on my system to remind me what's on my plate. I use my brain to prioritize and make a doable plan. I expect to overcome resistance more days than not. If I'm putting in the extra effort to get over the hump, I want to do the right work, not busywork.
I would never expect a system to manage the workings of my brain especially the quirks of my resistance. That's on me do discover and implement methods of allowing me to do my work, even the boring or scary stuff. It's always been like that for me. Being good at approaching my work despite resistance doesn't make it easier to do but what other option do I have? It's got to be done in a timely manner no matter what I feel about it. I settle for coping because I don't think there's a cure (for me at least.)
June 4, 2013 at 18:51 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Hi Chris,
Just to add my little feet back about the method. It works pretty well.
First because you stay concentrate on one file. Your daily file.
Secont because all items are very close one to the others
Third because the items are always up to date. This is one of the secret. Reviewing and making a clean list helps working quickly and efficiently.
Fourth because you stay focus on your jib instead of the software
Fift because it is fast and easy.
I personally divided my list in 6
1. Work
2. Follow : waiting and unfinished
ie WF- the file from Jean
WF- the answer proposal 06/04
3. Calendar
4. Home
5. Someday may be
6. Notes
and the list is always up to date on all apple devices. I use plaintext for editing and review
For my projects they are followed on digital folder and .txt files
I use .txt because they dont need complicated sofware to be opened and modified. A simple text editor works very well
Just to add my little feet back about the method. It works pretty well.
First because you stay concentrate on one file. Your daily file.
Secont because all items are very close one to the others
Third because the items are always up to date. This is one of the secret. Reviewing and making a clean list helps working quickly and efficiently.
Fourth because you stay focus on your jib instead of the software
Fift because it is fast and easy.
I personally divided my list in 6
1. Work
2. Follow : waiting and unfinished
ie WF- the file from Jean
WF- the answer proposal 06/04
3. Calendar
4. Home
5. Someday may be
6. Notes
and the list is always up to date on all apple devices. I use plaintext for editing and review
For my projects they are followed on digital folder and .txt files
I use .txt because they dont need complicated sofware to be opened and modified. A simple text editor works very well
June 4, 2013 at 20:04 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
Hi Jupiter,
That's the beauty of it, you can make it fit your own needs however you like, and the focus is on the doing, with the list just being a reminder when you need it. I tried Plaintext but if I make an editing mistake I cannot see a way to abandon my edit. I was worried I could easily accidentally destroy my file. So I switched to Droptext which allows you to abort changes and start again if you make an editing mistake.
For the text calendar, I originally wrote one up to the year 2020 for a Windows/Linux program called Treepad. I copied and pasted it into my planning file. You're welcome to download it here to paste into your file:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32392336/calendar.txt
If you prefer it to be in French, use Find/Replace to change all the days and months to French.
That's the beauty of it, you can make it fit your own needs however you like, and the focus is on the doing, with the list just being a reminder when you need it. I tried Plaintext but if I make an editing mistake I cannot see a way to abandon my edit. I was worried I could easily accidentally destroy my file. So I switched to Droptext which allows you to abort changes and start again if you make an editing mistake.
For the text calendar, I originally wrote one up to the year 2020 for a Windows/Linux program called Treepad. I copied and pasted it into my planning file. You're welcome to download it here to paste into your file:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32392336/calendar.txt
If you prefer it to be in French, use Find/Replace to change all the days and months to French.
June 4, 2013 at 22:18 |
Chris
Chris
Thanks chris I pasted it in english and it is fine.
I will keep plaintext because time machine on mac saves all my files regularly. Then if there is any problem I will easily recover the last version.
What is also interesting with your method is that FV can be use for this.
IF you copy and past all the most important items at the top of the list you can do all the most important things first and then take some time for what is not.
As it is a .txt file it can be opened anywhere and on any support usb and so on...
As a user of omnifocus and paper I am very impressed by the simplicity of the digital file which goes very well with textedit on my mac. all is saved with dropbox. I stay concentrate on my job even if the rush is deeply increasing. As all is up to date i spend my weekly review mostly to think about my strategic aims instead of updating information what I did with omnifocus (it tooks me hours and the organization was complicated.
Thanks for sharing and giving tips it helps.
I will keep plaintext because time machine on mac saves all my files regularly. Then if there is any problem I will easily recover the last version.
What is also interesting with your method is that FV can be use for this.
IF you copy and past all the most important items at the top of the list you can do all the most important things first and then take some time for what is not.
As it is a .txt file it can be opened anywhere and on any support usb and so on...
As a user of omnifocus and paper I am very impressed by the simplicity of the digital file which goes very well with textedit on my mac. all is saved with dropbox. I stay concentrate on my job even if the rush is deeply increasing. As all is up to date i spend my weekly review mostly to think about my strategic aims instead of updating information what I did with omnifocus (it tooks me hours and the organization was complicated.
Thanks for sharing and giving tips it helps.
June 5, 2013 at 8:25 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
By the way I 100% agree about what Mark said June 3, 2013 at 23:42 | Mark Forster
Yes indeed it is a system.
Yes indeed it is a system.
June 5, 2013 at 8:31 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
You can certainly put rules in place and use it as a system to decide your tasks if you want. That is the great thing about a simple text file; the structure and how you use it is entirely up to you.
June 5, 2013 at 9:57 |
Chris
Chris
Jupiter, just a quick tip:
If you are using txt files and mac/iphone/ipad, have a look at Taskpaper (if you do not know this app). It works with txt (preserving all advantages as dropbox sync etc), yet it gives you very nice options of formatting, tagging and filtering, which are especially helpful when txt file gets long. I used it with satisfaction.
If you are using txt files and mac/iphone/ipad, have a look at Taskpaper (if you do not know this app). It works with txt (preserving all advantages as dropbox sync etc), yet it gives you very nice options of formatting, tagging and filtering, which are especially helpful when txt file gets long. I used it with satisfaction.
June 5, 2013 at 10:47 |
Daneb
Daneb
Hi Daneb Yes I use already taskpaper since 2 years. Thanks. But a single txt file is much better
June 5, 2013 at 13:16 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
Hi Chris
Just discovered part of your thread on AF4R and wonder something. I am not sure I cought everything. If I wrighly understood you work with 2 tool. One is your text file where your put everything ideas, tasks, notes, as it come. It is a collector. This list concern all you imagine you would do. One is a real sheet of paper were you drop from the text file what you intend to do today and nothing else. Is that right ? Is that the way you work per day ? Could you please explain more clearly how you work with text files and paper ? Why dont you use taskpaper or something else ? Why do you use a sheet of paper and the text file. Would not be simplest to only use a text file ? Thanks for sharing.
Just discovered part of your thread on AF4R and wonder something. I am not sure I cought everything. If I wrighly understood you work with 2 tool. One is your text file where your put everything ideas, tasks, notes, as it come. It is a collector. This list concern all you imagine you would do. One is a real sheet of paper were you drop from the text file what you intend to do today and nothing else. Is that right ? Is that the way you work per day ? Could you please explain more clearly how you work with text files and paper ? Why dont you use taskpaper or something else ? Why do you use a sheet of paper and the text file. Would not be simplest to only use a text file ? Thanks for sharing.
June 5, 2013 at 20:32 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
Chris:
<< Regarding the list you posted, every single one is incorrect, >>
Since I took them all directly from your post I don't understand how that can be the case.
I should emphasize that I am not trying to knock your system. I just don't understand why you keep saying it's not a system when it obviously is, why you claim not to have any rules when your obviously do, and why you think it is superior to other systems simply because it's not a system and doesn't have any rules when it is and does.
I don't think I'm ever going to understand this, so you needn't bother to reply.
<< Regarding the list you posted, every single one is incorrect, >>
Since I took them all directly from your post I don't understand how that can be the case.
I should emphasize that I am not trying to knock your system. I just don't understand why you keep saying it's not a system when it obviously is, why you claim not to have any rules when your obviously do, and why you think it is superior to other systems simply because it's not a system and doesn't have any rules when it is and does.
I don't think I'm ever going to understand this, so you needn't bother to reply.
June 6, 2013 at 2:42 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Chris makes a great play out of the fact that his "single text file" isn't an algorithm. However how he actually uses it (described in the first post in this thread) is heavily algorithm based. But even at its simplest his method uses an algorithm:
1. Write list of things to do.
2. Decide which task to do next.
3. Do it.
In fact quite a few of my systems, described in this site or in my books, are even simpler than this. The "Resistance Principle" for instance consists of:
1. Decide which task to do next.
2. Do it.
One of the exercises in "Get Everything Done" consists of:
1. Decide which task to do next.
2. Write it down.
3. Do it.
The "Predictive To Do List" consists of:
1. (Morning) Write list of things you expect to do during the day.
2. (Evening) Delete tasks which actually were done during the day.
When I was coaching people on time management and organization, one of the first tasks was to examine with the person what algorithm they were actually following in dealing with their work, and then to help them to improve the algorithm. Once they had realized that they were in fact following an algorithm, it was much easier for them to see how it could be improved. Often only small changes were required.
The basic algorithm which most people follow by instinct is:
1. Do whatever catches your attention at the time, until:.
2. Something else catches your attention more than what you are currently doing.
Almost anything is an improvement on that!
1. Write list of things to do.
2. Decide which task to do next.
3. Do it.
In fact quite a few of my systems, described in this site or in my books, are even simpler than this. The "Resistance Principle" for instance consists of:
1. Decide which task to do next.
2. Do it.
One of the exercises in "Get Everything Done" consists of:
1. Decide which task to do next.
2. Write it down.
3. Do it.
The "Predictive To Do List" consists of:
1. (Morning) Write list of things you expect to do during the day.
2. (Evening) Delete tasks which actually were done during the day.
When I was coaching people on time management and organization, one of the first tasks was to examine with the person what algorithm they were actually following in dealing with their work, and then to help them to improve the algorithm. Once they had realized that they were in fact following an algorithm, it was much easier for them to see how it could be improved. Often only small changes were required.
The basic algorithm which most people follow by instinct is:
1. Do whatever catches your attention at the time, until:.
2. Something else catches your attention more than what you are currently doing.
Almost anything is an improvement on that!
June 6, 2013 at 9:48 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
learning as I go:
<< Before AF1 I never heard of people doing what they feel like during work. >>
I don't think I explained myself clearly enough. When I say "what they feel like doing" I don't mean "what they would enjoy doing" or "what they would like to do" (though that may come into it).
I mean "whatever catches their attention at the time". There may be a whole variety of reasons why something catches one's attention.
For example:
- you may feel like working on the big report because you are afraid of what your boss's reaction will be if you don't finish it on time.
- you may feel like doing some trivial bits of make-work because you are procrastinating about something difficult.
- you may feel like calling your client back immediately because you want to get the matter over and done with.
- you may feel like taking a break because your concentration is slackening off.
- you may feel like chatting to your friends on Facebook because you work is boring.
<< Before AF1 I never heard of people doing what they feel like during work. >>
I don't think I explained myself clearly enough. When I say "what they feel like doing" I don't mean "what they would enjoy doing" or "what they would like to do" (though that may come into it).
I mean "whatever catches their attention at the time". There may be a whole variety of reasons why something catches one's attention.
For example:
- you may feel like working on the big report because you are afraid of what your boss's reaction will be if you don't finish it on time.
- you may feel like doing some trivial bits of make-work because you are procrastinating about something difficult.
- you may feel like calling your client back immediately because you want to get the matter over and done with.
- you may feel like taking a break because your concentration is slackening off.
- you may feel like chatting to your friends on Facebook because you work is boring.
June 6, 2013 at 10:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Mark
Thank you for explaining what you meant. I suppose that I'll never understand "- you may feel like chatting to your friends on Facebook because you work is boring." because every job that I've had I had to do the work whether I felt like it or not. Believe me, drawing schematics, mechanical blueprints, etc was mind numbing boredom. LOL! I truly hated it when those jobs came in. My boss hated them also. Sometimes I could bribe my boss for an early out if I volunteered to do them. If we had several, my boss would take us out for lunch and drinks as a reward. Charts and graphs were almost as bad. We'd relax after the work was done. Because my work was very deadline oriented, if would never occur to me to goof off rather than do the work. I'd be fired pronto! Even less specialized jobs I had while I was at University never allow me to not do my work because it was boring. It wasn't an option. Plus I was getting a salary to work. I've switched jobs that were too boring but I never goofed off and got paid. What kind of job allows a person to goof off? LOL! Sorry. I just can't wrap my head around that. LOL!
Thank you for explaining what you meant. I suppose that I'll never understand "- you may feel like chatting to your friends on Facebook because you work is boring." because every job that I've had I had to do the work whether I felt like it or not. Believe me, drawing schematics, mechanical blueprints, etc was mind numbing boredom. LOL! I truly hated it when those jobs came in. My boss hated them also. Sometimes I could bribe my boss for an early out if I volunteered to do them. If we had several, my boss would take us out for lunch and drinks as a reward. Charts and graphs were almost as bad. We'd relax after the work was done. Because my work was very deadline oriented, if would never occur to me to goof off rather than do the work. I'd be fired pronto! Even less specialized jobs I had while I was at University never allow me to not do my work because it was boring. It wasn't an option. Plus I was getting a salary to work. I've switched jobs that were too boring but I never goofed off and got paid. What kind of job allows a person to goof off? LOL! Sorry. I just can't wrap my head around that. LOL!
June 6, 2013 at 11:26 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
p.s.
Sometimes my boss generously closed up shop early and we'd get the whole day's pay especially after we met a deadline doing a horrific amount of work. That was his decision to pay me despite not being there, not mine. I had nothing to do with the decision but I was grateful when it happened. I'd much rather be paid to goof off while out of the office! I think he thought the same way. The researchers never commented or complained when he did it. They knew that we busted our butts for them to meet deadline even when they trickled in their work up to the last minute for revisions. They wouldn't be so supportive if we goofed off and made them miss the publisher's deadline or a symposium that they paid for in advance.
I suppose that some bosses can be more lenient about goofing off on the job if it doesn't interfere with operations. Government has many, many job positions that are wasteful. LOL!
If truth were to be told, I would have never chosen my career if I knew how high pressure the environment was. It could be brutal. When I finally switched careers, I was so relieved. Unfortunately, the next one was also a pressure cooker environment. Geez...LOL!
Sometimes my boss generously closed up shop early and we'd get the whole day's pay especially after we met a deadline doing a horrific amount of work. That was his decision to pay me despite not being there, not mine. I had nothing to do with the decision but I was grateful when it happened. I'd much rather be paid to goof off while out of the office! I think he thought the same way. The researchers never commented or complained when he did it. They knew that we busted our butts for them to meet deadline even when they trickled in their work up to the last minute for revisions. They wouldn't be so supportive if we goofed off and made them miss the publisher's deadline or a symposium that they paid for in advance.
I suppose that some bosses can be more lenient about goofing off on the job if it doesn't interfere with operations. Government has many, many job positions that are wasteful. LOL!
If truth were to be told, I would have never chosen my career if I knew how high pressure the environment was. It could be brutal. When I finally switched careers, I was so relieved. Unfortunately, the next one was also a pressure cooker environment. Geez...LOL!
June 6, 2013 at 11:50 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Mark: "I don't think I'm ever going to understand this, so you needn't bother to reply."
It's no bother. I'll clarify why each of the earlier points are incorrect. My opening post was an example of how I typically use this file. This reply should help answer Jupiter's questions too.
"What I don't expect someone who claims not to be using a system to be doing is following rules like these"
So I'm not following any rules with this. The txt file is a place to dump reminders of things I would otherwise forget. If I could keep them all in my head that would be fantastic but I fear too many brain cells have encountered too many beers for that. I've made some sections in there to keep things grouped together to make them easier to find. As a text file it's obviously freeform so the layout is up to me.
"1. Keep a reference list of tasks that you intend to start soon."
Not a reference list of tasks. I wrote "a note of things". Things are whatever I want to be reminded of, everything from european projects to buying teabags. Some of them are tasks and the rest aren't. And there's no rule that says I have to put everything in the file either, I just use it when it's convenient to do so, eg if I'm deep into something else or on the road. It's essentially a detailed txt based sticky note that's always to hand.
"2. At the beginning of each day, construct a day list from the reference list and your calendar. Add any other tasks that come to mind to do that day."
I find that writing out what I want to achieve for the day can help me see a clear picture of my workload for the day, especially if I have a sense of having a lot on that day. I don't always do that, for example on Wednesday I got into work and got started on finishing a proposal which was needed. That took 5 hours to finish, then I checked the calendar and was reminded of a call at 4pm but didn't need to write anything down as that was also in Outlook which would remind me in advance. The rest of the day was spent working on a sales tool we're putting together. I didn't use any lists at all to get everything done that was needed for the day.
Any tasks which come to mind might get added to a piece of paper, or remembered, or added to the txt file, or left in Outlook, or discussed with a colleague, or written on a sticky on my laptop or given to someone else or anything. Each event is unique, there's no rule that says when something comes in it must be added to the file.
"3. Scan the list to select the most appropriate task to start with. Each time you finish a task, scan the list again so that tasks are done in the most appropriate order."
First off it's possible there is no paper list, and the txt file doesn't contain a lot of tasks. There's no scanning in the sense of an AF task scan. I simply get on with my projects and use the txt file for my reminders of some of the stuff I can be getting on with.
"4. Add new tasks to the day list, calendar or reference list as they come up."
There's a lot of focus on tasks in all these points, which I think you mean in the sense of an AF type list. My txt file isn't like that at all. But when new tasks come up I'll process as in the previous point.
"5. Change priorities as necessary throughout the day by moving tasks between the day list and the reference list or vice versa."
I've no idea where that one came from. I manage priorities in real time and don't waste time re-writing anything, and as I said I'm not working a task list. That was one of my pet peeves in fact with other systems, one of the ways I found I gamed the awkward tasks on those lists was to fiddle with them and move them on so I could tell myself I "worked on it".
"6. Review the reference list at least once a day to prevent it growing beyond a handful of upcoming stuff."
Not my words. The txt file stays pretty lean since I'm focused on the work itself but if it grows that's okay, and there's no rule that says it needs to be "reviewed once a day to prevent it growing" or anything else.
"7. Return tasks on the day list which you don't succeed in getting done to the reference list either during the day or at the end of the day."
If I've made a paper note *and* if it contains tasks *and* if they don't get done by the end of the day then I might write them in the txt file if they need to be remembered. Normally I'll just leave them on the paper on my desk for the next day and then decide if they need doing then. Again there's no rule that says "if you have untouched tasks then they must be recorded back in the list either during or at the end of the day".
Hope that answered Jupiter's questions too. Jupiter if you want to work from the file with no paper you can do so, I guess you would just use an asterisk (*) or similar to mark things you want to focus on.
It's no bother. I'll clarify why each of the earlier points are incorrect. My opening post was an example of how I typically use this file. This reply should help answer Jupiter's questions too.
"What I don't expect someone who claims not to be using a system to be doing is following rules like these"
So I'm not following any rules with this. The txt file is a place to dump reminders of things I would otherwise forget. If I could keep them all in my head that would be fantastic but I fear too many brain cells have encountered too many beers for that. I've made some sections in there to keep things grouped together to make them easier to find. As a text file it's obviously freeform so the layout is up to me.
"1. Keep a reference list of tasks that you intend to start soon."
Not a reference list of tasks. I wrote "a note of things". Things are whatever I want to be reminded of, everything from european projects to buying teabags. Some of them are tasks and the rest aren't. And there's no rule that says I have to put everything in the file either, I just use it when it's convenient to do so, eg if I'm deep into something else or on the road. It's essentially a detailed txt based sticky note that's always to hand.
"2. At the beginning of each day, construct a day list from the reference list and your calendar. Add any other tasks that come to mind to do that day."
I find that writing out what I want to achieve for the day can help me see a clear picture of my workload for the day, especially if I have a sense of having a lot on that day. I don't always do that, for example on Wednesday I got into work and got started on finishing a proposal which was needed. That took 5 hours to finish, then I checked the calendar and was reminded of a call at 4pm but didn't need to write anything down as that was also in Outlook which would remind me in advance. The rest of the day was spent working on a sales tool we're putting together. I didn't use any lists at all to get everything done that was needed for the day.
Any tasks which come to mind might get added to a piece of paper, or remembered, or added to the txt file, or left in Outlook, or discussed with a colleague, or written on a sticky on my laptop or given to someone else or anything. Each event is unique, there's no rule that says when something comes in it must be added to the file.
"3. Scan the list to select the most appropriate task to start with. Each time you finish a task, scan the list again so that tasks are done in the most appropriate order."
First off it's possible there is no paper list, and the txt file doesn't contain a lot of tasks. There's no scanning in the sense of an AF task scan. I simply get on with my projects and use the txt file for my reminders of some of the stuff I can be getting on with.
"4. Add new tasks to the day list, calendar or reference list as they come up."
There's a lot of focus on tasks in all these points, which I think you mean in the sense of an AF type list. My txt file isn't like that at all. But when new tasks come up I'll process as in the previous point.
"5. Change priorities as necessary throughout the day by moving tasks between the day list and the reference list or vice versa."
I've no idea where that one came from. I manage priorities in real time and don't waste time re-writing anything, and as I said I'm not working a task list. That was one of my pet peeves in fact with other systems, one of the ways I found I gamed the awkward tasks on those lists was to fiddle with them and move them on so I could tell myself I "worked on it".
"6. Review the reference list at least once a day to prevent it growing beyond a handful of upcoming stuff."
Not my words. The txt file stays pretty lean since I'm focused on the work itself but if it grows that's okay, and there's no rule that says it needs to be "reviewed once a day to prevent it growing" or anything else.
"7. Return tasks on the day list which you don't succeed in getting done to the reference list either during the day or at the end of the day."
If I've made a paper note *and* if it contains tasks *and* if they don't get done by the end of the day then I might write them in the txt file if they need to be remembered. Normally I'll just leave them on the paper on my desk for the next day and then decide if they need doing then. Again there's no rule that says "if you have untouched tasks then they must be recorded back in the list either during or at the end of the day".
Hope that answered Jupiter's questions too. Jupiter if you want to work from the file with no paper you can do so, I guess you would just use an asterisk (*) or similar to mark things you want to focus on.
June 6, 2013 at 18:52 |
Chris
Chris
Mark: "1. Decide which task to do next. 2. Do it."
In that sense pretty much everything is a system. Eg "a system for avoidance of death resulting from malnutrition" (1. Notice a sensation of hunger. 2. Eat some food 3. Stop when you're no longer hungry).
However, as I feel I have made clear, I am referring to system in the sense of your productivity systems, ie a way of using rules to "force" you to address the tasks with more resistance. Eg in FV such tasks eventually end up as root tasks and "have" to be worked on. In ASEM such tasks end up in their own sections and "have" to be worked on.
And then the point I was making is this. The quote marks above are because if you can work something because a rule says you must, then you can work it without the rule if you're honest with yourself about whether you're going to do it or not. That was the realisation I got to after multiple systems failed to get certain things done. I asked myself if I was going to do it or not. The answer was yes, I must. So then I said to myself "then stop playing games and get it done". So I don't need to have the task become a root task in FV to get it done, I just need to know to do it, and then do it.
That's now how I treat all my work. The txt file I use is a place to dump reminders and notes about that work so I know to do it. I don't have any rules to get through this work, I just do it and keep the txt file up to date. The most useful parts of it for me, based on the kind of work I do, are the calendar and the WF's so I remember who I'm waiting for.
I agree with your last point, most people seem to be reactive and jump all over the place. Becoming really organised makes that really clear. That sounds pompous I know, but it's true, I'm sure we've all experienced it with disorganised colleages.
In that sense pretty much everything is a system. Eg "a system for avoidance of death resulting from malnutrition" (1. Notice a sensation of hunger. 2. Eat some food 3. Stop when you're no longer hungry).
However, as I feel I have made clear, I am referring to system in the sense of your productivity systems, ie a way of using rules to "force" you to address the tasks with more resistance. Eg in FV such tasks eventually end up as root tasks and "have" to be worked on. In ASEM such tasks end up in their own sections and "have" to be worked on.
And then the point I was making is this. The quote marks above are because if you can work something because a rule says you must, then you can work it without the rule if you're honest with yourself about whether you're going to do it or not. That was the realisation I got to after multiple systems failed to get certain things done. I asked myself if I was going to do it or not. The answer was yes, I must. So then I said to myself "then stop playing games and get it done". So I don't need to have the task become a root task in FV to get it done, I just need to know to do it, and then do it.
That's now how I treat all my work. The txt file I use is a place to dump reminders and notes about that work so I know to do it. I don't have any rules to get through this work, I just do it and keep the txt file up to date. The most useful parts of it for me, based on the kind of work I do, are the calendar and the WF's so I remember who I'm waiting for.
I agree with your last point, most people seem to be reactive and jump all over the place. Becoming really organised makes that really clear. That sounds pompous I know, but it's true, I'm sure we've all experienced it with disorganised colleages.
June 6, 2013 at 19:35 |
Chris
Chris
Well thank you Chris. finally it is quiet simple. it is like a big inbox were you drop everything you like dropping and then you update and use items as you need of them. You could do it on any support. A paper note book, a paper pad, an evernote folder or like you do a .txt file. anyway whatever works !!!
June 6, 2013 at 22:05 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
<< In that sense pretty much everything is a system. >>
I think that's Mark's main point. I've tried to make the point too. We all have rules that we follow - sometimes optionally, sometimes we try to be strict about them. Sometimes they are called habits - or behaviors - or internalized principles. We get into a routine, and the routine allows us to save our mental energy for the stuff that really needs it, rather than REALLY trying to figure out from scratch every day what one is going to do, and how decisions should be made.
<< I asked myself if I was going to do it or not. The answer was yes, I must. So then I said to myself "then stop playing games and get it done". >>
Instead of "yes, I must", what if the answer is ...
... I don't know
... Is there anything else more pressing that I am forgetting about?
... Do I have enough time/energy/resources/money/etc to do this right now?
... Do I really even know what the task is? Has the objective been clearly defined?
Etc.
Your posts often make me think that you already have a very clearly defined set of commitments, and you already have the assurance that it is a level of commitment that you can actually sustain.
As long as I can remember, I have never been in a situation like that. There is always more work knocking on the door, trying to get in.
Sometimes it's coming from my work environment -- our project is growing very fast but we don't have the resources we need to keep up the pace of growth. We are always scrambling to set priorities, and making the hard decisions about which programs or customers we will support, and which ones we won't.
Sometimes it's coming from having too many personal commitments, too many things I'd like to dabble in, too many times I've said "Yes, I can do that" without considering the impact on my already-existing commitments.
For me, one of the greatest benefits of Mark's systems is the way some very simple rules can provide very useful and nuanced insights that help me make decisions about what to STOP DOING or AVOID DOING, not just what TO DO. Examples: AF1 - dismissal. DWM - delete stuff that runs over the waterfall. DIT - audit of commitments. SMEMA - only write down the things pressing on you right now, and limit it to THREE things - ignore the rest for now, it will come back if it's really important. Etc.
I really don't see how your "just get it done" method of working could actually be effective in these situations.
Also, you often mention that these systems can provide an illusion of productivity by allowing you to spend your day shuffling tasks around on paper. I agree with you - this is a risk one must face. In fact, your "non-system" has the same risk; one can easily ignore the things one doesn't want to face, but convince oneself one is focusing on what is most important. One must come up with some means of evaluating oneself and one's work, whether one is doing what is most effective, if there is room for improvement, etc. We all develop habits and ways of thinking here. Whether one calls these habits "rules" or not seems beside the point. We all have them, and we all have a particular level of commitment to following them, whether they are algorithmic or not, whether they are clearly articulated or not, whether we are fully aware of them or not.
I think that's Mark's main point. I've tried to make the point too. We all have rules that we follow - sometimes optionally, sometimes we try to be strict about them. Sometimes they are called habits - or behaviors - or internalized principles. We get into a routine, and the routine allows us to save our mental energy for the stuff that really needs it, rather than REALLY trying to figure out from scratch every day what one is going to do, and how decisions should be made.
<< I asked myself if I was going to do it or not. The answer was yes, I must. So then I said to myself "then stop playing games and get it done". >>
Instead of "yes, I must", what if the answer is ...
... I don't know
... Is there anything else more pressing that I am forgetting about?
... Do I have enough time/energy/resources/money/etc to do this right now?
... Do I really even know what the task is? Has the objective been clearly defined?
Etc.
Your posts often make me think that you already have a very clearly defined set of commitments, and you already have the assurance that it is a level of commitment that you can actually sustain.
As long as I can remember, I have never been in a situation like that. There is always more work knocking on the door, trying to get in.
Sometimes it's coming from my work environment -- our project is growing very fast but we don't have the resources we need to keep up the pace of growth. We are always scrambling to set priorities, and making the hard decisions about which programs or customers we will support, and which ones we won't.
Sometimes it's coming from having too many personal commitments, too many things I'd like to dabble in, too many times I've said "Yes, I can do that" without considering the impact on my already-existing commitments.
For me, one of the greatest benefits of Mark's systems is the way some very simple rules can provide very useful and nuanced insights that help me make decisions about what to STOP DOING or AVOID DOING, not just what TO DO. Examples: AF1 - dismissal. DWM - delete stuff that runs over the waterfall. DIT - audit of commitments. SMEMA - only write down the things pressing on you right now, and limit it to THREE things - ignore the rest for now, it will come back if it's really important. Etc.
I really don't see how your "just get it done" method of working could actually be effective in these situations.
Also, you often mention that these systems can provide an illusion of productivity by allowing you to spend your day shuffling tasks around on paper. I agree with you - this is a risk one must face. In fact, your "non-system" has the same risk; one can easily ignore the things one doesn't want to face, but convince oneself one is focusing on what is most important. One must come up with some means of evaluating oneself and one's work, whether one is doing what is most effective, if there is room for improvement, etc. We all develop habits and ways of thinking here. Whether one calls these habits "rules" or not seems beside the point. We all have them, and we all have a particular level of commitment to following them, whether they are algorithmic or not, whether they are clearly articulated or not, whether we are fully aware of them or not.
June 6, 2013 at 22:25 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Hi Jupiter, yes exactly, and if you want to use a moleskine or a pad you can do. I think txt is best because you can change things easily, there are no fancy distractions, it's secure, it doesn't need special software, it's cross-platform and with something like dropbox you can have it everywhere in sync.
1. The simple txt file (or whatever you use) helps you remember stuff
2. The simple fact that ***only you can make your stuff happen if it matters to you*** helps you to keep going and get it done.
I've found that ditching rules and just being true to myself and what I truly want to get done is incredibly liberating and productive.
1. The simple txt file (or whatever you use) helps you remember stuff
2. The simple fact that ***only you can make your stuff happen if it matters to you*** helps you to keep going and get it done.
I've found that ditching rules and just being true to myself and what I truly want to get done is incredibly liberating and productive.
June 6, 2013 at 22:35 |
Chris
Chris
Chris:
<< I've found that ditching rules and just being true to myself and what I truly want to get done is incredibly liberating and productive. >>
Which raises the question of why, if ditching the rules is so incredibly liberating and productive, you needed to get into rule-based systems in the first place. Or is it that following the rules-based systems has given you the discipline, training and discernment that you needed in order to survive without them?
<< I've found that ditching rules and just being true to myself and what I truly want to get done is incredibly liberating and productive. >>
Which raises the question of why, if ditching the rules is so incredibly liberating and productive, you needed to get into rule-based systems in the first place. Or is it that following the rules-based systems has given you the discipline, training and discernment that you needed in order to survive without them?
June 6, 2013 at 22:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Seraphim,
Yes I get Mark's technical definition of a system. Indeed I'm struggling to think of any process under the sun which doesn't fall under that definition.
In my original post in the other thread I questioned the need for AF4R with ASEM, both of which are rules based systems which 'force' tasks to be confronted. That is what I am talking about when I talk about a rules based system and explain why my txt file doesn't have any rules.
I've explained this a few times now. I'm pretty sure I cannot make it any clearer.
" << I asked myself if I was going to do it or not. The answer was yes, I must. So then I said to myself "then stop playing games and get it done". >>
Instead of "yes, I must", what if the answer is ...
... I don't know"
If I've written down "Do X" and I ask myself if I should do X and the answer is that I don't know, I should not have "Do X" written down. So I would ask myself what do I need to do, to determine if I need to do X, and do that.
"... Is there anything else more pressing that I am forgetting about?"
That's a separate question to whether I should do X or not. If I do want to do X then I'm in a position where I can decide where X lies in my priorities.
"... Do I have enough time/energy/resources/money/etc to do this right now?"
That's part of the decision making when I ask myself if I'm going to do X or not, the answer being yes in my case.
"Do I really even know what the task is? Has the objective been clearly defined?"
That's a common reason for things to stall and actually a good example of a why a task based approach can lock up ("I'm doing things and now I want to do this... thing... but not really sure how to actually DO it or what it really is, ah I'll pass on it for now"). Assuming the task has not been clearly defined then the next action is to do define it which will lead to new actions which ultimately will be clearly defined.
"Your posts often make me think that you already have a very clearly defined set of commitments, and you already have the assurance that it is a level of commitment that you can actually sustain. As long as I can remember, I have never been in a situation like that. There is always more work knocking on the door, trying to get in."
In that case I'll take that as a compliment because I deal with a barrage of demands all day from all parts of the business which total more than 100% of my available resource, then I have my home stuff to do. A reactive person would not fare well.
"For me, one of the greatest benefits of Mark's systems is the way some very simple rules can provide very useful and nuanced insights that help me make decisions about what to STOP DOING or AVOID DOING, not just what TO DO. Examples: AF1 - dismissal. DWM - delete stuff that runs over the waterfall. DIT - audit of commitments. SMEMA - only write down the things pressing on you right now, and limit it to THREE things - ignore the rest for now, it will come back if it's really important. Etc. I really don't see how your "just get it done" method of working could actually be effective in these situations."
Let's compare AF1 and the way I do it now using the example of a discrete task "Do X" (in practice we might do some work on X and then conclude it's an over-commitment, plus in dropping it we may well do something else with it rather than just abandon, but to keep the example simple...)
You write down "Do X" which will later turn out to be an over-commitment but you don't know that yet. Every time you come to that page you read all the items on it including "Do X". Then you go through all the items until things stand out, work on them and cross them off and re-enter them if needed. In this example you pass over "Do X" each time. Eventually all the items on the page are dismissed and you highlight them, including "Do X". After some time has passed and you have considered why "Do X" was rejected you decide it's an over-commitment and drop it.
I write down "Do X" in my txt file which will later turn out to be an over-commitment but I don't know that yet. Every time I am defining work to do I'll either remember about X and decide to not do it, or I'll see "Do X" and ignore it. After I've seen "Do X" hanging around a few times I ask myself what's stalling it because if it's in my file then at some point I need to dedicate my resources to it. I decide it's an over-committment and delete it.
"Also, you often mention that these systems can provide an illusion of productivity by allowing you to spend your day shuffling tasks around on paper. I agree with you - this is a risk one must face. In fact, your "non-system" has the same risk; one can easily ignore the things one doesn't want to face, but convince oneself one is focusing on what is most important."
I addressed that point when Mark raised it earlier. I wrote "I've never claimed the way I work could not be gamed, I've explained that I overcame the gaming itself, thus rendering moot the entire need for the whipping effect of a rules based system and the baggage of maintaining it."
Yes I get Mark's technical definition of a system. Indeed I'm struggling to think of any process under the sun which doesn't fall under that definition.
In my original post in the other thread I questioned the need for AF4R with ASEM, both of which are rules based systems which 'force' tasks to be confronted. That is what I am talking about when I talk about a rules based system and explain why my txt file doesn't have any rules.
I've explained this a few times now. I'm pretty sure I cannot make it any clearer.
" << I asked myself if I was going to do it or not. The answer was yes, I must. So then I said to myself "then stop playing games and get it done". >>
Instead of "yes, I must", what if the answer is ...
... I don't know"
If I've written down "Do X" and I ask myself if I should do X and the answer is that I don't know, I should not have "Do X" written down. So I would ask myself what do I need to do, to determine if I need to do X, and do that.
"... Is there anything else more pressing that I am forgetting about?"
That's a separate question to whether I should do X or not. If I do want to do X then I'm in a position where I can decide where X lies in my priorities.
"... Do I have enough time/energy/resources/money/etc to do this right now?"
That's part of the decision making when I ask myself if I'm going to do X or not, the answer being yes in my case.
"Do I really even know what the task is? Has the objective been clearly defined?"
That's a common reason for things to stall and actually a good example of a why a task based approach can lock up ("I'm doing things and now I want to do this... thing... but not really sure how to actually DO it or what it really is, ah I'll pass on it for now"). Assuming the task has not been clearly defined then the next action is to do define it which will lead to new actions which ultimately will be clearly defined.
"Your posts often make me think that you already have a very clearly defined set of commitments, and you already have the assurance that it is a level of commitment that you can actually sustain. As long as I can remember, I have never been in a situation like that. There is always more work knocking on the door, trying to get in."
In that case I'll take that as a compliment because I deal with a barrage of demands all day from all parts of the business which total more than 100% of my available resource, then I have my home stuff to do. A reactive person would not fare well.
"For me, one of the greatest benefits of Mark's systems is the way some very simple rules can provide very useful and nuanced insights that help me make decisions about what to STOP DOING or AVOID DOING, not just what TO DO. Examples: AF1 - dismissal. DWM - delete stuff that runs over the waterfall. DIT - audit of commitments. SMEMA - only write down the things pressing on you right now, and limit it to THREE things - ignore the rest for now, it will come back if it's really important. Etc. I really don't see how your "just get it done" method of working could actually be effective in these situations."
Let's compare AF1 and the way I do it now using the example of a discrete task "Do X" (in practice we might do some work on X and then conclude it's an over-commitment, plus in dropping it we may well do something else with it rather than just abandon, but to keep the example simple...)
You write down "Do X" which will later turn out to be an over-commitment but you don't know that yet. Every time you come to that page you read all the items on it including "Do X". Then you go through all the items until things stand out, work on them and cross them off and re-enter them if needed. In this example you pass over "Do X" each time. Eventually all the items on the page are dismissed and you highlight them, including "Do X". After some time has passed and you have considered why "Do X" was rejected you decide it's an over-commitment and drop it.
I write down "Do X" in my txt file which will later turn out to be an over-commitment but I don't know that yet. Every time I am defining work to do I'll either remember about X and decide to not do it, or I'll see "Do X" and ignore it. After I've seen "Do X" hanging around a few times I ask myself what's stalling it because if it's in my file then at some point I need to dedicate my resources to it. I decide it's an over-committment and delete it.
"Also, you often mention that these systems can provide an illusion of productivity by allowing you to spend your day shuffling tasks around on paper. I agree with you - this is a risk one must face. In fact, your "non-system" has the same risk; one can easily ignore the things one doesn't want to face, but convince oneself one is focusing on what is most important."
I addressed that point when Mark raised it earlier. I wrote "I've never claimed the way I work could not be gamed, I've explained that I overcame the gaming itself, thus rendering moot the entire need for the whipping effect of a rules based system and the baggage of maintaining it."
June 7, 2013 at 0:05 |
Chris
Chris
Mark: "Which raises the question of why, if ditching the rules is so incredibly liberating and productive, you needed to get into rule-based systems in the first place."
I got into productivity systems 25 years ago and have used dozens and dozens of systems and applications in that time. I've eventually learned that a simple list and the resolve to do what needs to be done is all I need to achieve the same results as every single one of them without any of their overheads.
"Or is it that following the rules-based systems has given you the discipline, training and discernment that you needed in order to survive without them?"
Further up I wrote: "All the systems I've tried, including Mark's, have been important for the journey to get me to this point today. Without them I would not have been able to arrive at the above realisations and would still be drifting."
I got into productivity systems 25 years ago and have used dozens and dozens of systems and applications in that time. I've eventually learned that a simple list and the resolve to do what needs to be done is all I need to achieve the same results as every single one of them without any of their overheads.
"Or is it that following the rules-based systems has given you the discipline, training and discernment that you needed in order to survive without them?"
Further up I wrote: "All the systems I've tried, including Mark's, have been important for the journey to get me to this point today. Without them I would not have been able to arrive at the above realisations and would still be drifting."
June 7, 2013 at 0:29 |
Chris
Chris
Hi Chris,
I think the main reason I find your posts puzzling is the juxtaposition of statements like this one:
"All the systems I've tried, including Mark's, have been important for the journey to get me to this point today. Without them I would not have been able to arrive at the above realisations and would still be drifting."
with statements like this one:
"I'm questioning whether a rules based system like ASEM or AF4R or GTD really serves any purpose, for someone who is constantly switching systems and tweaking, beyond substituting for the realisation that you have to get going, and that once you do realise that, a simple freeform list is about all you need to manage your stuff just as, if not more, effectively."
You seem to be saying the main feature of TM systems is that they cloud the main thing you need to do: just get going and do the work.
On the other hand, you say that TM systems have been "important" to your "journey".
Trying to reconcile these two statements, it seems the only importance of TM systems to your journey is their *futility*. It's your frustration with this that ultimately led you to realize "the truth, which is that all I need is to know what I need to do and the grit to get on and do it".
Is that what you are saying?
If so, my experience has been very different. Specific features of specific systems have taught me very valuable lessons. I learned to internalize better principles BECAUSE of systems like AF1 and DIT, not despite them.
I think the main reason I find your posts puzzling is the juxtaposition of statements like this one:
"All the systems I've tried, including Mark's, have been important for the journey to get me to this point today. Without them I would not have been able to arrive at the above realisations and would still be drifting."
with statements like this one:
"I'm questioning whether a rules based system like ASEM or AF4R or GTD really serves any purpose, for someone who is constantly switching systems and tweaking, beyond substituting for the realisation that you have to get going, and that once you do realise that, a simple freeform list is about all you need to manage your stuff just as, if not more, effectively."
You seem to be saying the main feature of TM systems is that they cloud the main thing you need to do: just get going and do the work.
On the other hand, you say that TM systems have been "important" to your "journey".
Trying to reconcile these two statements, it seems the only importance of TM systems to your journey is their *futility*. It's your frustration with this that ultimately led you to realize "the truth, which is that all I need is to know what I need to do and the grit to get on and do it".
Is that what you are saying?
If so, my experience has been very different. Specific features of specific systems have taught me very valuable lessons. I learned to internalize better principles BECAUSE of systems like AF1 and DIT, not despite them.
June 7, 2013 at 0:55 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
Yes, I share your puzzlement. To me Chris sounds like someone who says "You don't need a driving instructor in order to drive a car."
Yes, I share your puzzlement. To me Chris sounds like someone who says "You don't need a driving instructor in order to drive a car."
June 7, 2013 at 1:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim, nothing so complex. I've adopted a lot of principles from various systems in how I approach my work. However I've not stuck with any one system's approach to that work.
For example GTD gave me a number of principles such as clearly defining the next action, but when it comes to processing work under GTD I don't like the contexts or the inbox processing approach or the need to define a project for two or more actions.
AF1 allowed me to get a real feel for developing momentum through a lot of tasks, but the constant jumping between tasks from different workflows and having to maintain a work and home list (stalactite/stalagmite didn't work for me either) really bugged me.
Your final paragraph mirrors your opening quote from me in fact.
For example GTD gave me a number of principles such as clearly defining the next action, but when it comes to processing work under GTD I don't like the contexts or the inbox processing approach or the need to define a project for two or more actions.
AF1 allowed me to get a real feel for developing momentum through a lot of tasks, but the constant jumping between tasks from different workflows and having to maintain a work and home list (stalactite/stalagmite didn't work for me either) really bugged me.
Your final paragraph mirrors your opening quote from me in fact.
June 7, 2013 at 1:26 |
Chris
Chris
Chris:
You seem to have changed your tune a bit.
In your original posts in the previous thread you were making statements like this:
"The point of my post is to question whether yet another rules based system is an appropriate way to approach these tasks. I submit that it is not. The quest for the perfect system - one where you feed it every last thought and it ensures that everything gets addressed at just the right time - is futile. No such thing exists. Endless tweaking to try and find this system is just another way of skirting around those unpleasant tasks, because at least trying to fit them into a rules based system makes it *feel* like they are being handled - stored away in the warehouse of unfinished business, safe in the self-delusion that they will be picked and dealt with at some point."
That and other remarks gave the very definite impression that you considered the whole process of trying to develop new rule-based time management methods to be a complete waste of time. That's certainly how I took it.
Had you started off by saying that you had learned a lot from various systems (mine and others') but now found that you were able to do without them, I wouldn't have had too much problem with what you were saying. I certainly wouldn't have got the impression that you were both extremely insulting and very arrogant.
You seem to have changed your tune a bit.
In your original posts in the previous thread you were making statements like this:
"The point of my post is to question whether yet another rules based system is an appropriate way to approach these tasks. I submit that it is not. The quest for the perfect system - one where you feed it every last thought and it ensures that everything gets addressed at just the right time - is futile. No such thing exists. Endless tweaking to try and find this system is just another way of skirting around those unpleasant tasks, because at least trying to fit them into a rules based system makes it *feel* like they are being handled - stored away in the warehouse of unfinished business, safe in the self-delusion that they will be picked and dealt with at some point."
That and other remarks gave the very definite impression that you considered the whole process of trying to develop new rule-based time management methods to be a complete waste of time. That's certainly how I took it.
Had you started off by saying that you had learned a lot from various systems (mine and others') but now found that you were able to do without them, I wouldn't have had too much problem with what you were saying. I certainly wouldn't have got the impression that you were both extremely insulting and very arrogant.
June 7, 2013 at 1:49 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark: "Yes, I share your puzzlement. To me Chris sounds like someone who says "You don't need a driving instructor in order to drive a car." "
Since you've introduced this analogy, it's more like saying that one doesn't need a driving instructor when one drives the car now but one readily took on board the principles they learned in the early days when they did have one. However you insist that without one of dozen satnav models bellowing out instructions non-stop the driver has no hope of controlling where his car is going.
I'm puzzled by your puzzlement, I can only suggest re-reading what I've written and taking a more objective view because you seem to be taking this thread quite personally and becoming a touch hostile in your responses.
I've been very clear on the value that your systems have had for me; the behaviour I'm describing is a form when people game systems is a form of cognitive dissonance. People try to force themselves into certain behaviours all over the place and then game their way out of it, productivity is just one example, other are:
- New year's resolutions that get broken in two weeks
- The gym membership which is never used after the first month
- The exercise bike which ends up with washing hanging from it
- The new diet - this time it will work!
- The running app on the phone that got opened just a few times
- The new clothes that we promised we'd fit into and are now in a drawer
and so on. I've solved that for myself and am sharing it here for others and appear to be taking quite a bit of flak for it.
Since you've introduced this analogy, it's more like saying that one doesn't need a driving instructor when one drives the car now but one readily took on board the principles they learned in the early days when they did have one. However you insist that without one of dozen satnav models bellowing out instructions non-stop the driver has no hope of controlling where his car is going.
I'm puzzled by your puzzlement, I can only suggest re-reading what I've written and taking a more objective view because you seem to be taking this thread quite personally and becoming a touch hostile in your responses.
I've been very clear on the value that your systems have had for me; the behaviour I'm describing is a form when people game systems is a form of cognitive dissonance. People try to force themselves into certain behaviours all over the place and then game their way out of it, productivity is just one example, other are:
- New year's resolutions that get broken in two weeks
- The gym membership which is never used after the first month
- The exercise bike which ends up with washing hanging from it
- The new diet - this time it will work!
- The running app on the phone that got opened just a few times
- The new clothes that we promised we'd fit into and are now in a drawer
and so on. I've solved that for myself and am sharing it here for others and appear to be taking quite a bit of flak for it.
June 7, 2013 at 1:57 |
Chris
Chris
Chris:
<< I've solved that for myself and am sharing it here for others and appear to be taking quite a bit of flak for it.>>
What you are taking flak for is not what you have shared about your current method itself, which sounds reasonable and which I've said I have no quarrel with.
It's the implication - especially in your earlier posts - that all attempts to develop rule-based methods are a waste of time and that your method is the only one that isn't a waste of time.
You subsequently modified your stance to admit that you'd learned quite a lot from the rule based methods, but that was a long time after you had thoroughly succeeded in getting my back up.
<< I've solved that for myself and am sharing it here for others and appear to be taking quite a bit of flak for it.>>
What you are taking flak for is not what you have shared about your current method itself, which sounds reasonable and which I've said I have no quarrel with.
It's the implication - especially in your earlier posts - that all attempts to develop rule-based methods are a waste of time and that your method is the only one that isn't a waste of time.
You subsequently modified your stance to admit that you'd learned quite a lot from the rule based methods, but that was a long time after you had thoroughly succeeded in getting my back up.
June 7, 2013 at 2:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark: "Had you started off by saying that you had learned a lot from various systems (mine and others') but now found that you were able to do without them, I wouldn't have had too much problem with what you were saying."
My #2 post at the top of this thread ended "All the systems I've tried, including Mark's, have been important for the journey to get me to this point today. Without them I would not have been able to arrive at the above realisations and would still be drifting."
So I have praised your systems for their principles off the bat in this new thread. Did you miss this?
My #2 post at the top of this thread ended "All the systems I've tried, including Mark's, have been important for the journey to get me to this point today. Without them I would not have been able to arrive at the above realisations and would still be drifting."
So I have praised your systems for their principles off the bat in this new thread. Did you miss this?
June 7, 2013 at 2:27 |
Chris
Chris
Chris:
<< So I have praised your systems for their principles off the bat in this new thread. Did you miss this? >>
No, I did not miss it. But the #2 post in this thread after a long series of posts on the previous thread hardly qualifies as "starting off".
I would suggest that if you want to avoid getting flak for your posts in future you try to avoid starting off by saying that everyone else has got it wrong and you are the only person who's got it right.
<< So I have praised your systems for their principles off the bat in this new thread. Did you miss this? >>
No, I did not miss it. But the #2 post in this thread after a long series of posts on the previous thread hardly qualifies as "starting off".
I would suggest that if you want to avoid getting flak for your posts in future you try to avoid starting off by saying that everyone else has got it wrong and you are the only person who's got it right.
June 7, 2013 at 2:38 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<< So I have praised your systems for their principles off the bat in this new thread. Did you miss this? >>
I did see your statement, but puzzled over it because of so many of your other statements that rule-based systems are, in general, a waste of time.
I think it's all clear now, but agree with Mark that it would have been easier to understand if you had been less forceful in your dismissal of rule-based systems, or maybe gave an example of how they had helped you along the way. I was really beginning to get the impression that the only way they helped you was by convincing you of their futility, and pushing you to rely entirely on your own gumption to get things done.
I did see your statement, but puzzled over it because of so many of your other statements that rule-based systems are, in general, a waste of time.
I think it's all clear now, but agree with Mark that it would have been easier to understand if you had been less forceful in your dismissal of rule-based systems, or maybe gave an example of how they had helped you along the way. I was really beginning to get the impression that the only way they helped you was by convincing you of their futility, and pushing you to rely entirely on your own gumption to get things done.
June 7, 2013 at 2:46 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark: "It's the implication - especially in your earlier posts - that all attempts to develop rule-based methods are a waste of time and that your method is the only one that isn't a waste of time."
You have inferred this from my articles but I have gone to pains to articulate *in a number of different replies* that the principles are sound but the use of task processing rules creates a framework in which a person can cheat themselves out of doing the tasks that the system is supposed to be forcing them to do, and once the person realises this then they can perhaps modify their behaviour which eliminates the need for the framework - ie the system - itself. I've gone on to describe my journey to that point.
Mark: "I would suggest that if you want to avoid getting flak for your posts in future you try to avoid starting off by saying that everyone else has got it wrong and you are the only person who's got it right."
Where did I say that everyone else has got it wrong and I am the only person who got it right? Can you link to the post please? Of course not. I think that in some cases you have read what you thought I said and not what I actually have said and jumped into red mist mode.
I think the thread has likely served its purpose and articulated the single text file and rules-free approach to anyone interested in future. I hope any future visitors to this thread read the entire thing.
You have inferred this from my articles but I have gone to pains to articulate *in a number of different replies* that the principles are sound but the use of task processing rules creates a framework in which a person can cheat themselves out of doing the tasks that the system is supposed to be forcing them to do, and once the person realises this then they can perhaps modify their behaviour which eliminates the need for the framework - ie the system - itself. I've gone on to describe my journey to that point.
Mark: "I would suggest that if you want to avoid getting flak for your posts in future you try to avoid starting off by saying that everyone else has got it wrong and you are the only person who's got it right."
Where did I say that everyone else has got it wrong and I am the only person who got it right? Can you link to the post please? Of course not. I think that in some cases you have read what you thought I said and not what I actually have said and jumped into red mist mode.
I think the thread has likely served its purpose and articulated the single text file and rules-free approach to anyone interested in future. I hope any future visitors to this thread read the entire thing.
June 7, 2013 at 2:49 |
Chris
Chris
Hi all
I've never felt that Chris was insulting to me and I've clearly since 2007 that I rely on system....Mark's system. I understood him to say that he has found peace and joy with his newfound strength. I don't think he was intending to insult anybody, he was simply stating that he has found his strength to simply assert himself. I'm the biggest fool on these forums when I comes to me having to use strategies and silly tricks to get me list done. If anybody should be insulted it should be me because I need my DIT and I need to help myself in sometimes silly ways to get my work done rather than simply assert myself like Chris has learned to do. I truly believe that he was simply offering another perspective for folks consider to maybe help help them as it's helped him. I know that I just can't do it like Chris does. I struggle along coping with my weaknesses and illogical attitude. I'll never reach Chris's success with self direction but I wasn't insulted. I was inspired. He never gave me the impression that my methods were inferior (which they clearly are). I felt like he was offering encouragement.
I've never felt that Chris was insulting to me and I've clearly since 2007 that I rely on system....Mark's system. I understood him to say that he has found peace and joy with his newfound strength. I don't think he was intending to insult anybody, he was simply stating that he has found his strength to simply assert himself. I'm the biggest fool on these forums when I comes to me having to use strategies and silly tricks to get me list done. If anybody should be insulted it should be me because I need my DIT and I need to help myself in sometimes silly ways to get my work done rather than simply assert myself like Chris has learned to do. I truly believe that he was simply offering another perspective for folks consider to maybe help help them as it's helped him. I know that I just can't do it like Chris does. I struggle along coping with my weaknesses and illogical attitude. I'll never reach Chris's success with self direction but I wasn't insulted. I was inspired. He never gave me the impression that my methods were inferior (which they clearly are). I felt like he was offering encouragement.
June 7, 2013 at 3:52 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2133033
GMBW: "I must say, I'm impressed by the simplicity you have to manage everything in your life in one text file."
I'll clarify. I use a single text file to make a note of things that I'm going to be starting soon, to track people I'm waiting for and as a calendar. It's split into three sections called HOME, WORK and CALENDAR. For things I'm going to be starting soon it's usually just a one liner but sometimes I write extra notes, a couple of entries in there now:
How to backup Walkmeter walks?
Get C2 logbook up to date
- new time format?
- check year start date
For tracking people I just write (WF stands for Waiting For):
WF John to return updated tape campaign sheet
WF Sarah to reply re training pricing
I have the above type of info in both the HOME and the WORK sections so I can keep home and work stuff separate. That split works for me. That leaves the calendar which I use for both work and home to track upcoming meetings, calls, appointments, stuff that's due for the car, domains expiring, subscriptions due for renewal, everything. Eg:
JUNE 2013
Sun 02
Mon 03
1600-1700 Exalytics review MR2
Sally calling me
Call Rob @ Scotland
Complete PL high level arch doc
Tue 04
The calendar goes all the way to 31 Dec 2020 in this fashion (which is why I have this section last!)
So tomorrow when I get into work I'll have a quick look through this and note the Exalytics review, calling Rob and completing the NA doc on my blank paper. I'll check the WFs and see if I want to chase anyone. I don't need to be concerned with Sally, that's just a reminder so I can decide if I want to follow up if she doesn't call me (I'll either call her or just write a WF to catch her at a later date if she doesn't call before then).
I'll also write down all the other stuff I know I need to do which isn't in the text file. That can be stuff that relates to emails, conversations, ideas I had and stuff I just know I need to do. Then I work through the stuff on the paper in the most appropriate order.
If new calendar events arise I write them in. If I need to track new people I add the WFs, if people get back to me I delete their WFs and consider what I want to do next, which I'll either write on the paper or the in the text file for later or in the relevant project file. If I get new ideas I'll have a quick think about what needs to happen with them and if there is something I'll record it as needed. New demands either go on the paper if they're happening today or else in the text file as a line for later on or in the calendar if more appropriate, or else I'll let someone else take it and just log a WF to track them.
The actual jobs themselves get managed with whatever tool is most appropriate, as with anyone else. For certification tracking it's all in Excel. For exam tracking it's online with the vendor's own systems. For project tracking there are dedicated tools. For digging the garden it's a spade.
One great tip I picked up from these forums is where someone said for a new project they create a new folder and store everything in there. That's now how I manage almost all my data. So each customer project has a folder with all the docs related to that project, and each one has a file called notes.txt in which I can make a note of what's happening for reference. I name these folders "YYYYMMDD project name" which keeps them in chronological order when sorted alphanumerically.
So my single planning text file means I can manage my calendar, any of my projects or ideas, and who I'm waiting for. I keep the file in dropbox which means it's available for reference/editing from work, home and on the go on my iphone (I use Droptext to view/edit it). It works well because it's not tied to any structure, text files work anywhere, I can access it anywhere, any operating system, it doesn't need any software installing and it's a single modeless window I can put on any display.
GMBW: "Do you ever find that some reminders slip through the cracks or that you make an incorrect decision on what is a priority?"
Reminders never slip through because if it's in the file it cannot escape my attention. Decisions on priority, that's what I do with the paper each morning and they often change during the day.
GMBW: "what do you do to avoid the numbing feeling of looking at one simple long list of everything and not feel chaotic? Do you ever delete anything from your text file and what is the criteria to do so?"
It's not a long list of endless tasks, it contains just a handful of upcoming stuff which I'll drop onto paper soon to get started on it. If needed that will mean it gets its own folder to store the files in. Once it's underway I remove the text from the file as it's served its purpose. Each day I'll just know whether I need to work on that thing or not. If I have to park it for a while, I might add a calendar line or just a task line later on to remind me to revisit it.
GMBW: "Also, not to sound rude, why do you come on this blog if your system uses none of the aspects of the MF systems (and tweaks) and you are content and not looking to follow a system other than your own?"
I've used a number of Mark's systems as well as all the usual other ones and am interested in the variations between people's approaches. Plus I pick up tips such as that folder idea, and I hope my own approaches are interesting to a few people.
At the end of each day most of the stuff on the paper is done and it's been a very productive day. I'm already aware of what needs to be done tomorrow and I have my text file to hand if I need to update my calendar, remove a WF or add a note.
When I get home, I usually know what I could be doing to make progress on something. If it's a small job I might grab a task off the text file and knock that off too. Slowly and surely the stuff on the text file is whittled away, while new stuff is only added when it's already tangible and soon to get started.
I don't keep a someday/maybe list - time itself offers that opportunity constantly. I used to play the trumpet and would like to pick it up again. GTD would have me write that on a someday/maybe list. I prefer to not think about it. One day I will think about it again and perhaps say "I think I'll buy a trumpet". At that point I'll either just know to start reviewing trumpets or else I'll add a note in the file saying review trumpets and the process will be underway in due course. On the other hand if I never think about trumpets again, then did I really want to start playing again? Doubtful, so my brain filtered it for me without needing to capture anything at the time.
I hope some people found this post interesting or even useful.
Chris