Discussion Forum > Life support for Superfocus v3? Any brilliant minds want to help?
GMBW:
I'm happy you posted this. I've considered posting similar thoughts for quite some time. Let's get started!
I'm happy you posted this. I've considered posting similar thoughts for quite some time. Let's get started!
August 14, 2013 at 6:56 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Is it just a case of finding an app which allows you to work SF? Can you carve up a text file into the required sections and use that? If so, a text file on Dropbox and the app Droptext (for iPhone, similar must exist for Android) will give you access anywhere plus security.
August 14, 2013 at 8:21 |
Chris
Chris
Many findings from the following article can be found artfully crafted into Mark's systems. His methods melt the ice of procrastination using combustive algorithms as accelerant to our motivation fire.
Can additional findings from this article be integrated into SuperFocus? Has Mark already ruminated over improvements to SuperFocus and will he/has he beat us to the punch?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/3w3/how_to_beat_procrastination/
Can additional findings from this article be integrated into SuperFocus? Has Mark already ruminated over improvements to SuperFocus and will he/has he beat us to the punch?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/3w3/how_to_beat_procrastination/
August 14, 2013 at 15:31 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Chris: <<Is it just a case of finding an app which allows you to work SF?>>
No. Trust me, I love apps and I see what you mean by the text file. Eventually, I will use an app or a text file (really like the single text file idea btw). However, I want to focus on patching improvements to the system SF itself before the system is transposed to work on/ with an app. I don’t believe SF was complete as it should have been. I think it has a lot of potential but unfortunately, work revisions and fine tuning to it was halted prematurely due to the success of other systems after it. Those systems (including FV, SMEMA etc. ), I believe work differently and yield different results and in their own right have different potentials or are complete. FV for example, has been tweaked to death….and the system really is final. If you look at the forum, its evident that revisions have been exhausted (nothing wrong with that).
Michael B.:
<< Can additional findings from this article be integrated into SuperFocus?>>
Possibly. Great article btw. But before that is looked into deeper (and it should), perhaps, it is best to clarify what works with the SF system and what doesn’t. Luckily this system can be decomposed into rules.
As the system is composed of rules, (AF1 Rules plus 7 extra) are there any rules that could be focused in on/ edited or added to improve the system? I’m not condoning, screwing around with the system and modifying it. But bare in mind, that SF sprouted from necessary improvements to AF…I’m trying to repeat that process to resolve necessary improvements to SF.
I’m leaving this open to discussion or a poll as you will (for what works and what doesn’t) as its best to collect a set of opinions first as others may see positives I haven’t seen or negative’s I haven’t seen.
<<Has Mark already ruminated over improvements to SuperFocus and will he/has he beat us to the punch?>>
The ‘Review of the Sytems’ series is also a good place that indicates this. However, now that we’ve seen different these ‘improvements’, we have also seen flaws with them as well? Also, the Review of the systems, stopped after FV I believe.
No. Trust me, I love apps and I see what you mean by the text file. Eventually, I will use an app or a text file (really like the single text file idea btw). However, I want to focus on patching improvements to the system SF itself before the system is transposed to work on/ with an app. I don’t believe SF was complete as it should have been. I think it has a lot of potential but unfortunately, work revisions and fine tuning to it was halted prematurely due to the success of other systems after it. Those systems (including FV, SMEMA etc. ), I believe work differently and yield different results and in their own right have different potentials or are complete. FV for example, has been tweaked to death….and the system really is final. If you look at the forum, its evident that revisions have been exhausted (nothing wrong with that).
Michael B.:
<< Can additional findings from this article be integrated into SuperFocus?>>
Possibly. Great article btw. But before that is looked into deeper (and it should), perhaps, it is best to clarify what works with the SF system and what doesn’t. Luckily this system can be decomposed into rules.
As the system is composed of rules, (AF1 Rules plus 7 extra) are there any rules that could be focused in on/ edited or added to improve the system? I’m not condoning, screwing around with the system and modifying it. But bare in mind, that SF sprouted from necessary improvements to AF…I’m trying to repeat that process to resolve necessary improvements to SF.
I’m leaving this open to discussion or a poll as you will (for what works and what doesn’t) as its best to collect a set of opinions first as others may see positives I haven’t seen or negative’s I haven’t seen.
<<Has Mark already ruminated over improvements to SuperFocus and will he/has he beat us to the punch?>>
The ‘Review of the Sytems’ series is also a good place that indicates this. However, now that we’ve seen different these ‘improvements’, we have also seen flaws with them as well? Also, the Review of the systems, stopped after FV I believe.
August 14, 2013 at 16:35 |
GMBW
GMBW
Here are the advantages and disadvantages of SFv2 (not version 3) found here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/28/review-of-the-systems-superfocus.html For the most part, the conclusion was spot on and improvements were made in v3! There was hope in it being the perfect time management system. Was it? Can it? Will it?...Right now, I don’t believe anything will be ‘perfect’ but it can be the ‘best’ with some thought, assessment and revision.
So in the spirit of the ‘Review of the Systems’ series, here are my advantages and disadvantages (3 of each) :
---------------------
Advantages:
1. Excellent emphasis at ‘pushing’ unfinished tasks to completion. Enough eustress to keep the system fun and force you to buckle up and complete work.
2. Good method to flag and keep track of what ‘feels’ urgent or unfinished. Urgent tasks and Unfinished tasks are front and center in the second column.
3.Priority really ‘feels’ relative. The closed pages get smaller and smaller each cycle. The less tasks on each page, the easier the choice to make become. In this sense, you’re not looking at whats the top priority of all my tasks, but rather ‘whats ready to be done?’ or what feels like ‘ whats my priority on this page?’
Disadvantages:
1. Cycle speed slows down as pages increase giving a feeling of chasing the last page and feeling behind. Eventually leading to rushing.
2. Lack of clarity of what ‘unfinished’ means
3. Resisted items could stay in the system for a long time if ‘little and often’ is more like ‘too little and infrequent’. Not necessarily a problem, unless those resisted items are in fact high priority resisted items.
----------------------
Any others want to contribute (poll style)? it could be duplicates. What are your top 3 advantages and disadvantages from experience? (It would be interesting to see psychowith6's review for a week) We may determine a problem and solution here. :)
So in the spirit of the ‘Review of the Systems’ series, here are my advantages and disadvantages (3 of each) :
---------------------
Advantages:
1. Excellent emphasis at ‘pushing’ unfinished tasks to completion. Enough eustress to keep the system fun and force you to buckle up and complete work.
2. Good method to flag and keep track of what ‘feels’ urgent or unfinished. Urgent tasks and Unfinished tasks are front and center in the second column.
3.Priority really ‘feels’ relative. The closed pages get smaller and smaller each cycle. The less tasks on each page, the easier the choice to make become. In this sense, you’re not looking at whats the top priority of all my tasks, but rather ‘whats ready to be done?’ or what feels like ‘ whats my priority on this page?’
Disadvantages:
1. Cycle speed slows down as pages increase giving a feeling of chasing the last page and feeling behind. Eventually leading to rushing.
2. Lack of clarity of what ‘unfinished’ means
3. Resisted items could stay in the system for a long time if ‘little and often’ is more like ‘too little and infrequent’. Not necessarily a problem, unless those resisted items are in fact high priority resisted items.
----------------------
Any others want to contribute (poll style)? it could be duplicates. What are your top 3 advantages and disadvantages from experience? (It would be interesting to see psychowith6's review for a week) We may determine a problem and solution here. :)
August 14, 2013 at 17:07 |
GMBW
GMBW
@Michael B re "procrastinatables"
another article: http://www.yorku.ca/rkenedy/critical_skills/student/time_management/procrastination.html suggests putting the task "procrastinate" on your closed-list(!) in order to
1. discover what you avoid when you procrastinate (mood, thought, feeling, people...)
2. what the self-talk is
Perhaps one needs a "focus" list and a "delay/avoid" list to make more conscious decisions about what is avoided from fears versus what is postponed or delayed for convenience.
another article: http://www.yorku.ca/rkenedy/critical_skills/student/time_management/procrastination.html suggests putting the task "procrastinate" on your closed-list(!) in order to
1. discover what you avoid when you procrastinate (mood, thought, feeling, people...)
2. what the self-talk is
Perhaps one needs a "focus" list and a "delay/avoid" list to make more conscious decisions about what is avoided from fears versus what is postponed or delayed for convenience.
August 29, 2013 at 19:46 |
michael
michael
I'm perhaps not the one to answer as I found the system troublesome. For a while I thought it would be good, but in the end it proved distracting in its complexity. In particular, the decision of when something is done or to be resumed was a problem, and the obligation to monitor each of the column 2 items in rough sequence was a nuisance. I think this adaptation would work cleaner, but I'm not going for any such system myself:
Instead of a column 2, have a bookmark. Alternate work between the current page and the bookmark. Anything worked on that you want to resume goes on the bookmark. Turn the page when a Page scan yields nothing to work on. When you do, immediately work the bookmark then scan the page. Bookmark tasks are static until removed. Occasionally rewrite remaining stuff to a new bookmark.
That would eliminate questions of "is it done enough", and reduce the pressure to work all column 2 items, increase the rate through the pages, and be simpler to follow.
Instead of a column 2, have a bookmark. Alternate work between the current page and the bookmark. Anything worked on that you want to resume goes on the bookmark. Turn the page when a Page scan yields nothing to work on. When you do, immediately work the bookmark then scan the page. Bookmark tasks are static until removed. Occasionally rewrite remaining stuff to a new bookmark.
That would eliminate questions of "is it done enough", and reduce the pressure to work all column 2 items, increase the rate through the pages, and be simpler to follow.
August 29, 2013 at 22:57 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
That article on Less Wrong looks worth reading more carefully. Tomorrow. I hadn't separated procrastination into separate reasons before, but it makes sense. We need to identify today's weak link in the chain and fix it. Fixing an already-strong link makes no sense -- but most articles lump them all together.
The article doesn't give solutions for Delay (as in delayed payoff), but I think that's a common weak link for me. That's probably why milestones are so effective (celebrate early and often).
Recurring tasks (such as cleaning or filing) have several weak links. Valuable only to me (unless I let them go way too long, and even then, well, teenagers). I expect that, even if I do a really thorough job this time, I'll have to do most of it again in a week.
I'd add another factor: Familiarity. My daughter says it's fun to clean the bathrooms -- but she doesn't want it as a permanent job because then it won't be new and fun anymore. Once your brain has experienced a few "I cleaned the bathroom!" successes, they get boring.
AF3 keeps projects moving, so you expect to finish them sooner. Highly motivating.
I like the bookmark idea rather than columns. No problem with a filled column. Only rewrite when the bookmark is messy, rather than when you turn the page; rewrite as often as you want and you won't fill the column. I need to stick with my "typical day" for a season, but the bookmark might creep in. (Counting hours until I won't get interrupted by TV and loud kids. If it were permanent I'd find a solution, but we were only home 4 weeks this summer.)
The article doesn't give solutions for Delay (as in delayed payoff), but I think that's a common weak link for me. That's probably why milestones are so effective (celebrate early and often).
Recurring tasks (such as cleaning or filing) have several weak links. Valuable only to me (unless I let them go way too long, and even then, well, teenagers). I expect that, even if I do a really thorough job this time, I'll have to do most of it again in a week.
I'd add another factor: Familiarity. My daughter says it's fun to clean the bathrooms -- but she doesn't want it as a permanent job because then it won't be new and fun anymore. Once your brain has experienced a few "I cleaned the bathroom!" successes, they get boring.
AF3 keeps projects moving, so you expect to finish them sooner. Highly motivating.
I like the bookmark idea rather than columns. No problem with a filled column. Only rewrite when the bookmark is messy, rather than when you turn the page; rewrite as often as you want and you won't fill the column. I need to stick with my "typical day" for a season, but the bookmark might creep in. (Counting hours until I won't get interrupted by TV and loud kids. If it were permanent I'd find a solution, but we were only home 4 weeks this summer.)
August 30, 2013 at 4:48 |
Cricket
Cricket
Here's an idea I think might be promising. Mark recently introduced what we have been calling "UTMS" (short for "The Ultimate Time Management System?")-- a modification for AF4 in which unfinished items are left on the Old list rather than rewritten at the end of the New list -- or alternatively such items could simply be dotted rather than rewritten for notebook use. Several of us have found UTMS to be very effective.
Suppose we did that with Superfocus instead. Then column 2 would be reserved only for *urgent* tasks, not unfinished ones. Unfinished tasks would be dotted and left on their current page.
Anyone want to try it?
Suppose we did that with Superfocus instead. Then column 2 would be reserved only for *urgent* tasks, not unfinished ones. Unfinished tasks would be dotted and left on their current page.
Anyone want to try it?
September 3, 2013 at 23:46 |
Austin
Austin
GMBW:
"...determine what...worked and what didn’t work with SFv3 and how we can fix it."
What works:
• Compulsion to finish what you start, and quickly.
• Groups unfinished items together in a heads-up display seen at nearly all times.
• Groups urgent items together in a heads-up display seen at all times.
• Automatically adjusts your workload via dismissal when you have a lot of unfinished tasks, projects, and urgent items to handle.
• One-page at a time. Narrows choices, improves decision making speed, minimizes feelings of being overwhelmed — a root cause of unneccesary delay.
• Keeps up momentum as you are driven forward through your list.
• Keeps only what you get started on and clears out the rest.
• Uses the threat of dismissal to compell you to take action.
• And more...
Next...what doesn't work.
"...determine what...worked and what didn’t work with SFv3 and how we can fix it."
What works:
• Compulsion to finish what you start, and quickly.
• Groups unfinished items together in a heads-up display seen at nearly all times.
• Groups urgent items together in a heads-up display seen at all times.
• Automatically adjusts your workload via dismissal when you have a lot of unfinished tasks, projects, and urgent items to handle.
• One-page at a time. Narrows choices, improves decision making speed, minimizes feelings of being overwhelmed — a root cause of unneccesary delay.
• Keeps up momentum as you are driven forward through your list.
• Keeps only what you get started on and clears out the rest.
• Uses the threat of dismissal to compell you to take action.
• And more...
Next...what doesn't work.
October 4, 2013 at 13:33 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
I am willing to test this as I don't think I ever did. The problem is that a week will not demonstrate the problems with it which is the growing length of the list. I think having better control of what goes on the list would help me.
October 8, 2013 at 4:06 |
Melanie Wilson
Melanie Wilson
Melanie:
Looking forward to it! I've wanted to hear your thoughts on Superfocus.
Looking forward to it! I've wanted to hear your thoughts on Superfocus.
October 8, 2013 at 6:11 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
I'm going to start by using Mark's two rule changes for Autofocus listed here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/3/25/catch-all-revisited.html I have since decided to amend them both for Superfocus' two columns as follows:
1. No dismissal process for Column 1.
2. All C2 items must be actioned on a visit to a page. If not, they are re-written at the end of the list into Column 1.
1. No dismissal process for Column 1.
2. All C2 items must be actioned on a visit to a page. If not, they are re-written at the end of the list into Column 1.
March 26, 2016 at 4:11 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
A few things to note about this experimental version of Superfocus:
1. Column 2 is the main focus: what you started that needs continuing today, and what's urgent at the moment.
2. Column 1 is primarily for capture. On each visit to a page, cycle through Column 1 first and start whatever stands out to you. If it needs more work today, rewrite it on the next active page into Column 2. If it does not need more work today, rewrite it at the end of the list into Column 1.
3. As in 5T, urgent items are generated by what's on your mind at the moment. As in Superfocus (Version 3), write urgent items into Column 2 of the page you're on.
1. Column 2 is the main focus: what you started that needs continuing today, and what's urgent at the moment.
2. Column 1 is primarily for capture. On each visit to a page, cycle through Column 1 first and start whatever stands out to you. If it needs more work today, rewrite it on the next active page into Column 2. If it does not need more work today, rewrite it at the end of the list into Column 1.
3. As in 5T, urgent items are generated by what's on your mind at the moment. As in Superfocus (Version 3), write urgent items into Column 2 of the page you're on.
March 26, 2016 at 5:10 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/7/superfocus-instructions-third-revision.html?currentPage=2
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/1/superfocus-v-3-notebook.html
Out of all the systems I’ve tried (unfortunately, I’ve tried alot) Superfocus, was the most fun to use and most productive for me. The problem with Superfocus was that it was best used with pen and paper. I didn’t like to carry a book with me everywhere, especially when I had a computer, laptop and smartphone loaded with apps and widgets in todays digital world. So, I ended up settling with other better catered to systems that didnt necessarily work for me all while hoping things sync’d with eachother, worked on my phone, worked on my operating system, had the features i wanted etc. On top of that, I’ve yet to see a simple task list/todo list app that supports two columns or closed pages as SF requires.
Short summary, SF was perfect for me, I abandoned it and now in my new job, I want it back as my go to tool for its simplicity and productivity.
In my opinion, the following was covered really well:
urgency---every column 2
unfinished---every column 2
new--every column 1
old---archive and rethink
closed list--a page
What was slightly problematic for me, was the speed of the system. Its fast, but as the list grew, the rate at which I cycled back to the beginnig slowed down (or at least felt like it), which led to chasing the next page and constantly feeling behind.
Were there any other disadvantages? Can we as a community repair SF v3? Leave (preferably clear concise ) suggestions below.
ps. There were a few systems after it, including the well known FV. but there was something special about SF that makes it feel like a very distant ‘relative’ of the others. I’m trying to go back to basics here and fix this specific system. I don’t want this to become a seed for several systems “SF v4 or FV2 or___my system etc.” , but rather a brainstorm to determine what exactly worked and what didn’t work with SFv3 and how we can fix it.