Discussion Forum > Importance of structure/framework over motivation
Seraphim:
I vaguely remember making a comment along those lines, but I haven't been able to find the comment. I doubt if I'm going to have time over the next few days to expand on the idea - sorry.
I vaguely remember making a comment along those lines, but I haven't been able to find the comment. I doubt if I'm going to have time over the next few days to expand on the idea - sorry.
February 25, 2014 at 22:41 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think I may have found it:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2294165#post2294910
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2294165#post2294910
February 26, 2014 at 7:32 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I think the Randomizer method forces me to keep my priorities straight more than the other systems. It's more obviously Garbage In = Garbage Out than ones that rely on standing out in the moment. Early days yet.
February 28, 2014 at 16:09 |
Cricket
Cricket
Hi Cricket
I found the same result. When I NEED the randomizer, I'll make my MIT list PLUS some regular recurring and one offs that I might want to get done. It's not the same as WILL DO MIT's but they have status as being more logical to do than just anything else. If I'm having a really rough time, I'll break that list down into smaller lists and have them time bound in time blocks. Example: I might list 6 jobs with 2 spaces as my choice to comfort my mind that I have a chance to choose something important yet easier than higher resistance tasks. The smaller time blocks also give me a psychological edge knowing that they are doable for NOW. Even if I have about 2 to 3 hours of work to do, when I break it down into smaller blocks of time, it doesn't seem as onerous.
Sometimes, I'll use tags to denote the most important first task and maybe a second most important task. I have the choice to do the first tagged task or roll the dice. If I take a chance to roll the dice, I MUST do that task. That tagged task is always the "first and only choice" tag to start each roll until I either do it or it's the last one left in that block of time. Sometimes I get tired of avoiding that task and just do it so that I don't have to dread it for each time block. Then the second tagged task is the leader task. This really helps me on days that my judgement is weak. Also making smaller groups of tasks allows me to construct new lists to fit the time context. Example: wait until after noon to start dinner preparations or put in a laundry tickler to remember that I have a load in or to start another load. It really helps me to create determination in smaller units to add up to a whole day.
Today is Friday so I'm alternating tasks to include wiping out the yesterday pages I missed. It does double duty for my weekly review and to set up next week's weekly sheet. Thanks, Vegheadjones!
I found the same result. When I NEED the randomizer, I'll make my MIT list PLUS some regular recurring and one offs that I might want to get done. It's not the same as WILL DO MIT's but they have status as being more logical to do than just anything else. If I'm having a really rough time, I'll break that list down into smaller lists and have them time bound in time blocks. Example: I might list 6 jobs with 2 spaces as my choice to comfort my mind that I have a chance to choose something important yet easier than higher resistance tasks. The smaller time blocks also give me a psychological edge knowing that they are doable for NOW. Even if I have about 2 to 3 hours of work to do, when I break it down into smaller blocks of time, it doesn't seem as onerous.
Sometimes, I'll use tags to denote the most important first task and maybe a second most important task. I have the choice to do the first tagged task or roll the dice. If I take a chance to roll the dice, I MUST do that task. That tagged task is always the "first and only choice" tag to start each roll until I either do it or it's the last one left in that block of time. Sometimes I get tired of avoiding that task and just do it so that I don't have to dread it for each time block. Then the second tagged task is the leader task. This really helps me on days that my judgement is weak. Also making smaller groups of tasks allows me to construct new lists to fit the time context. Example: wait until after noon to start dinner preparations or put in a laundry tickler to remember that I have a load in or to start another load. It really helps me to create determination in smaller units to add up to a whole day.
Today is Friday so I'm alternating tasks to include wiping out the yesterday pages I missed. It does double duty for my weekly review and to set up next week's weekly sheet. Thanks, Vegheadjones!
February 28, 2014 at 16:26 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
p.s.
Another thing that helps when using smaller time blocks is for me to categorize the entire small list. When I'm hurting or just in a stubborn, lazy mood, the first group will be my "start the day right" group of tasks. That might help me to then be up for choosing a group of office related tasks such as "knock out communication tasks:email and phone" or "financial paperwork up to date and properly filed". This way I can guarantee that my responsibilities are up to date yet done in doable units of time or guarantee that the CI is done today. (If it's a tough CI or I'm under the weather, I can't do a good job doing it first thing.) Example: I KNEW that the meds were going to make me green at the gills and useless because that's what always happens after surgical procedures. I stacked up the work ahead of the day so that my being nauseous and weak won't put me behind. Also, I set up a few little blocks of easier maintenance tasks to accommodate my condition and keep the ball barely rolling. LOL! On stronger days, I can pile on more work when I KNOW ahead of time that I can't keep the normal pace. The randomizer and stacking the tasks into doable units really helps me when I'm physically weak AND when my attitude is stalemating me. LOL!
Another thing that helps when using smaller time blocks is for me to categorize the entire small list. When I'm hurting or just in a stubborn, lazy mood, the first group will be my "start the day right" group of tasks. That might help me to then be up for choosing a group of office related tasks such as "knock out communication tasks:email and phone" or "financial paperwork up to date and properly filed". This way I can guarantee that my responsibilities are up to date yet done in doable units of time or guarantee that the CI is done today. (If it's a tough CI or I'm under the weather, I can't do a good job doing it first thing.) Example: I KNEW that the meds were going to make me green at the gills and useless because that's what always happens after surgical procedures. I stacked up the work ahead of the day so that my being nauseous and weak won't put me behind. Also, I set up a few little blocks of easier maintenance tasks to accommodate my condition and keep the ball barely rolling. LOL! On stronger days, I can pile on more work when I KNOW ahead of time that I can't keep the normal pace. The randomizer and stacking the tasks into doable units really helps me when I'm physically weak AND when my attitude is stalemating me. LOL!
February 28, 2014 at 16:55 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
The main thing I've learned from the Random systems is that our ages-old assumption that "force creates resistance" is not necessarily valid. The random systems function entirely by forcing you to do tasks, and they have proven to be resistance-melting.
February 28, 2014 at 17:37 |
Austin
Austin
Austin: I wouldn't agree that randomizing forces one to do a task. If anything, I'm acceding to a decision made by an external entity with which I've made an agreement (if you decide what I should work on, then I will agree to work on it).
I'd rephrase your idea to say "decision melts resistance." My first coach repeatedly said, "indecision causes suffering" -- and also resistance, I suppose. Deciding that I will use the randomizer for this block of time or tasks effectively means I've decided not to resist.
(This bloviated explication courtesy of my restless brain.)
I'd rephrase your idea to say "decision melts resistance." My first coach repeatedly said, "indecision causes suffering" -- and also resistance, I suppose. Deciding that I will use the randomizer for this block of time or tasks effectively means I've decided not to resist.
(This bloviated explication courtesy of my restless brain.)
February 28, 2014 at 17:46 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
Hi Mike
You stated:
"(This bloviated explication courtesy of my restless brain.)"
LOL! I should preface each of my posts with a similar sentence including the drugs effect.
I totally agree with you. It's far easier to approach a job when you're not building up more resistance to STARTING it. For me any, the difficulty is to break up the cognitive dissonance. "I want to get this done but I don't want to suffer while doing it." It's the process of making the decision to WILLFULLY start something that I actually dread to start. It's that decision to break the cognitive dissonance that tests my willpower and depletes cognitive energy. The randomizer puts me in a place where I am not focused on dreading one job in particular. When the resistance is that high I aide myself by creating a task on my list that is the smallest unit of the dreaded project and sprinkle a few on them on the list to ensure that 1) It WILL be approached a few times and 2) the odds increase that one of those tiny starter tasks might actually jump start my brain and find myself in flow with it. If that doesn't happen, I just keep adding tiny steps so that at least I've progressed somewhat. LOL!
Other people may have more rational brains. I've found time and time again that the dread of WILLFULLY STARTING what I dread takes up far more cognitive energy than actually doing the work. If I set up the list to ensure a few tiny starts to that the actual resistance is negligible and allow the randomizer to do the actual choosing to start, I save lots of cognitive energy that I can devote to the work itself because it wasn't depleted on choosing to start what my brain is telling me to avoid!
You stated:
"(This bloviated explication courtesy of my restless brain.)"
LOL! I should preface each of my posts with a similar sentence including the drugs effect.
I totally agree with you. It's far easier to approach a job when you're not building up more resistance to STARTING it. For me any, the difficulty is to break up the cognitive dissonance. "I want to get this done but I don't want to suffer while doing it." It's the process of making the decision to WILLFULLY start something that I actually dread to start. It's that decision to break the cognitive dissonance that tests my willpower and depletes cognitive energy. The randomizer puts me in a place where I am not focused on dreading one job in particular. When the resistance is that high I aide myself by creating a task on my list that is the smallest unit of the dreaded project and sprinkle a few on them on the list to ensure that 1) It WILL be approached a few times and 2) the odds increase that one of those tiny starter tasks might actually jump start my brain and find myself in flow with it. If that doesn't happen, I just keep adding tiny steps so that at least I've progressed somewhat. LOL!
Other people may have more rational brains. I've found time and time again that the dread of WILLFULLY STARTING what I dread takes up far more cognitive energy than actually doing the work. If I set up the list to ensure a few tiny starts to that the actual resistance is negligible and allow the randomizer to do the actual choosing to start, I save lots of cognitive energy that I can devote to the work itself because it wasn't depleted on choosing to start what my brain is telling me to avoid!
February 28, 2014 at 18:02 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Mike Brown,
<<Austin: I wouldn't agree that randomizing forces one to do a task.>>
The same logic could be applied to the "force" element of any system. We could say that FV doesn't force you to do the first task because you have chosen to use FV. Or my recent system doesn't force you to do the first task because you have chosen to use the system. That is all very well, but we need a way of distinguishing between tasks that the system we have chosen puts in front of us to be done next by our own choosing of the task (e.g., by standing out) and those which are selected without our explicit input, which we call "forced."
In the past, systems on this forum have tended to proceed under the assumption that we should try to limit the forced tasks (you can call them "surprise" tasks if you like that better) on the grounds that they put resistance into the system, though they are necessary to get anything done. My point was that the Randomizer contains a lot of this element of "force," but it reduces rather than increasing resistance, contrary to past ideas. This suggests that there are ways to harness force in such a way that (a) it makes sure important things get done, as it always has, and (b) it reduces rather than increases resistance. That combination is powerful, and until lately most of us thought it more or less impossible.
<<Austin: I wouldn't agree that randomizing forces one to do a task.>>
The same logic could be applied to the "force" element of any system. We could say that FV doesn't force you to do the first task because you have chosen to use FV. Or my recent system doesn't force you to do the first task because you have chosen to use the system. That is all very well, but we need a way of distinguishing between tasks that the system we have chosen puts in front of us to be done next by our own choosing of the task (e.g., by standing out) and those which are selected without our explicit input, which we call "forced."
In the past, systems on this forum have tended to proceed under the assumption that we should try to limit the forced tasks (you can call them "surprise" tasks if you like that better) on the grounds that they put resistance into the system, though they are necessary to get anything done. My point was that the Randomizer contains a lot of this element of "force," but it reduces rather than increasing resistance, contrary to past ideas. This suggests that there are ways to harness force in such a way that (a) it makes sure important things get done, as it always has, and (b) it reduces rather than increases resistance. That combination is powerful, and until lately most of us thought it more or less impossible.
February 28, 2014 at 19:35 |
Austin
Austin
Hi Austin
I've had this problem since I was young so I learned that I will need to apply active effort to start work that I dread. I never had the fantasy that any system will change how my brain is hard-wired. I've learned lots of tricks to help me cope but I never believed the posted testimonies that X system finally cures the resistance problem. I know myself. I also know that time context influences what is worthy work to do today or NOW. I can't feel safe just working a random list especially if it's too long and is mixed with leisure tasks. LOL! I NEED tight lists and fewer temptations. I do leisure stuff on my breaks. Others can pull if off but I know how my brain works. If I'm feeling high resistance, I don't want options that will dilute my determination.
Secondly, my only goal is to complete the WILL DO list. Doing more work is pure gravy. I don't care how I decide to do it. The system is secondary to getting the work done. I've found that hard rules that aren't contextually based either hinder my choice to do better work or invite me to choose work that's not really appropriate to do before the WILL DO list. I choose some other tasks that will serve as buffers to help me stay on task overall to complete my day's work. If my attitude stinks, I need the structure of a good list and the structure of time to help me with enough flexibility that allows me to stay at it versus abandoning a list with too much resistance. LOL! Ideally, I prefer days where I just do the list without work arounds. Many days, I need the work arounds to avoid bailing on tasks that I can rationalize away to that nebulous black hole of "Later". Later doesn't happen until the urgency approaches VERY SOON or NOW. I need to avoid that! LOL! Having the flexibility to create doable lists and my choice of methods helps me get over the hump when my logic alone isn't strong enough. I don't need to rely on my brain when it's too weak. This forum has gifted me with many work arounds that I can choose to match my current capabilities including a polluted attitude. LOL!
It's people like you who share ideas that help the rest of us. Thanks!
I've had this problem since I was young so I learned that I will need to apply active effort to start work that I dread. I never had the fantasy that any system will change how my brain is hard-wired. I've learned lots of tricks to help me cope but I never believed the posted testimonies that X system finally cures the resistance problem. I know myself. I also know that time context influences what is worthy work to do today or NOW. I can't feel safe just working a random list especially if it's too long and is mixed with leisure tasks. LOL! I NEED tight lists and fewer temptations. I do leisure stuff on my breaks. Others can pull if off but I know how my brain works. If I'm feeling high resistance, I don't want options that will dilute my determination.
Secondly, my only goal is to complete the WILL DO list. Doing more work is pure gravy. I don't care how I decide to do it. The system is secondary to getting the work done. I've found that hard rules that aren't contextually based either hinder my choice to do better work or invite me to choose work that's not really appropriate to do before the WILL DO list. I choose some other tasks that will serve as buffers to help me stay on task overall to complete my day's work. If my attitude stinks, I need the structure of a good list and the structure of time to help me with enough flexibility that allows me to stay at it versus abandoning a list with too much resistance. LOL! Ideally, I prefer days where I just do the list without work arounds. Many days, I need the work arounds to avoid bailing on tasks that I can rationalize away to that nebulous black hole of "Later". Later doesn't happen until the urgency approaches VERY SOON or NOW. I need to avoid that! LOL! Having the flexibility to create doable lists and my choice of methods helps me get over the hump when my logic alone isn't strong enough. I don't need to rely on my brain when it's too weak. This forum has gifted me with many work arounds that I can choose to match my current capabilities including a polluted attitude. LOL!
It's people like you who share ideas that help the rest of us. Thanks!
February 28, 2014 at 20:18 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Perhaps the word "demand" is better than "force". The system "demands" that we take certain actions, but we are still capable of ignoring that demand.
The Randomizer is more like playing a game of ball. It throws something at you and asks you to catch it. It seems like a fun game, so you catch it and throw it back (i.e., take what the system gives you, and deal with it). It's still "demanding" that you catch the ball - it doesn't ask you what ball to throw, it just throws it, and you need to catch it. But it makes it fun.
AF "standing out" is different. The system says, "Go through this list and tell me what task you'd like to do next". And then it expects you to follow through. But if you delay and defer your choice, then eventually you face consequences. If AF1, if you ignore certain tasks long enough, they are simply taken off the list. In Austin's FV+AF1 variant, if you ignore a task so long that it finds its way to the top of the list, then the system finally demands that you take action or delete.
Choosing to follow a system is like entering into a contract. The contract gives you certain choices, and certain demands, and certain "rights". You can still violate the terms of the contract, if you want, but you also have to face the consequences. If the contract was poorly written, or didn't cover all situations adequately, then maybe violating the contract is the best option.
It's only when the constable shows up with a court order that any real "force" is applied. Maybe Beeminder can play the role of the constable with the court order. :-)
The Randomizer is more like playing a game of ball. It throws something at you and asks you to catch it. It seems like a fun game, so you catch it and throw it back (i.e., take what the system gives you, and deal with it). It's still "demanding" that you catch the ball - it doesn't ask you what ball to throw, it just throws it, and you need to catch it. But it makes it fun.
AF "standing out" is different. The system says, "Go through this list and tell me what task you'd like to do next". And then it expects you to follow through. But if you delay and defer your choice, then eventually you face consequences. If AF1, if you ignore certain tasks long enough, they are simply taken off the list. In Austin's FV+AF1 variant, if you ignore a task so long that it finds its way to the top of the list, then the system finally demands that you take action or delete.
Choosing to follow a system is like entering into a contract. The contract gives you certain choices, and certain demands, and certain "rights". You can still violate the terms of the contract, if you want, but you also have to face the consequences. If the contract was poorly written, or didn't cover all situations adequately, then maybe violating the contract is the best option.
It's only when the constable shows up with a court order that any real "force" is applied. Maybe Beeminder can play the role of the constable with the court order. :-)
February 28, 2014 at 20:51 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Hi Seraphim
That was a well written post. We want to do the right thing but sometimes we need a little bit of help. We create a game that we can honestly win. The reward is doing what we set out to do and the confidence and pride that helps us carry that into the next rotation, next day, next week, etc. Whether it's explicitly stated or not, we are always negotiating implied contracts with ourselves and others. I'd much rather put my all into a job that fails and I have to start over than rationalize stupid plausible sounding excuses of why I'm not doing it. Mark's little and often really removes most excuse making and keeps most work away from same day urgent. These little rule sets or various work arounds are a great way to help us honor our best intentions overall. They're also great for getting back to doing the right work when we veer off. Veering off can happen without me even realizing it. Instead of getting all twisted in a knot, I can just start again and again until my mind is settled after completing the will do list. I used to feel shame when my mind wouldn't serve me well. Now I've learned aides to help me. Mostly importantly, I feel that there's no dishonor in starting again when I veer off. The only dishonor is when I try con myself with flimsy excuses, weak lists and rules with too many loopholes. LOL!
Thanks for the great post. I'm copying it to my inspiration journal. It's far more succinct than I could ever hope to be. LOL!
That was a well written post. We want to do the right thing but sometimes we need a little bit of help. We create a game that we can honestly win. The reward is doing what we set out to do and the confidence and pride that helps us carry that into the next rotation, next day, next week, etc. Whether it's explicitly stated or not, we are always negotiating implied contracts with ourselves and others. I'd much rather put my all into a job that fails and I have to start over than rationalize stupid plausible sounding excuses of why I'm not doing it. Mark's little and often really removes most excuse making and keeps most work away from same day urgent. These little rule sets or various work arounds are a great way to help us honor our best intentions overall. They're also great for getting back to doing the right work when we veer off. Veering off can happen without me even realizing it. Instead of getting all twisted in a knot, I can just start again and again until my mind is settled after completing the will do list. I used to feel shame when my mind wouldn't serve me well. Now I've learned aides to help me. Mostly importantly, I feel that there's no dishonor in starting again when I veer off. The only dishonor is when I try con myself with flimsy excuses, weak lists and rules with too many loopholes. LOL!
Thanks for the great post. I'm copying it to my inspiration journal. It's far more succinct than I could ever hope to be. LOL!
February 28, 2014 at 21:08 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
This discussion reminds me of the Sleep Cycle app for iOS. You tell it the final time when you must wake up, and then you give it a "wake up phase" duration, usually 30 minutes.
Here is how it works. Let's say I set the "must wake up" time to 5:30am, and set the wake-up phase to 30 minutes. At 5:00, it starts to monitor whether I am in a state of semi-wakefulness or light sleep -- i.e., I can be easily awakened without too much stress. Let's say at 5:10, it thinks I am already semi-awake; so it starts to ring a gentle alarm to wake me up. I can still choose to smack the phone and put it into "snooze" mode for another few minutes. It will then try to wake me up gently again - and I can smack it into another "snooze" if I want.
But finally, at 5:30, it will not allow me to snooze anymore - smacking the phone does nothing, it just keeps getting louder till I turn it off.
Likewise, if I never reached a phase of semi-wakefulness, it will still start ringing loudly at 5:30, no matter what.
Bottom line: It tries to prompt me gently into waking up, but gets more and more demanding till finally, at the deadline I previously established, it relentlessly demands that I wake up.
I suppose a good TM system works the same way. And this ties into the title of this thread: the structure/framework is really the most important factor.
Here is how it works. Let's say I set the "must wake up" time to 5:30am, and set the wake-up phase to 30 minutes. At 5:00, it starts to monitor whether I am in a state of semi-wakefulness or light sleep -- i.e., I can be easily awakened without too much stress. Let's say at 5:10, it thinks I am already semi-awake; so it starts to ring a gentle alarm to wake me up. I can still choose to smack the phone and put it into "snooze" mode for another few minutes. It will then try to wake me up gently again - and I can smack it into another "snooze" if I want.
But finally, at 5:30, it will not allow me to snooze anymore - smacking the phone does nothing, it just keeps getting louder till I turn it off.
Likewise, if I never reached a phase of semi-wakefulness, it will still start ringing loudly at 5:30, no matter what.
Bottom line: It tries to prompt me gently into waking up, but gets more and more demanding till finally, at the deadline I previously established, it relentlessly demands that I wake up.
I suppose a good TM system works the same way. And this ties into the title of this thread: the structure/framework is really the most important factor.
February 28, 2014 at 21:09 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Hi Seraphim
You are really on a roll today! Again, I'm copying your post to my inspiration journal. In my usual semi-coherent way, this is what I was trying to explain. I try start use of little and often early enough so that the job is completed BEFORE it hits the urgency range. (To me that means the latest that I can start it and barely get it done in time without much respect for unexpected contingencies, change in my abilities, changing circumstances that can block me, etc.) To use your alarm example, I actually use my old fashioned double alarm the same way. I set one to go off X minutes before the other one is set to go off. The second one means get up now, brush my teeth, shower, dress, gather my stuff I need to take with me in less than 30 minutes to be out the door. HOPEFULLY, I'll avoid that rude assault by getting up within one or two snoozes of the first alarm going off. That gives me time to LEISURELY do all of that plus have coffee and/or a meal, check my email, make sure everything I need has been set up from the night before, or whatever I want to do to leave in plenty of time without worrying about traffic versus running like a chicken with my head cut off and taking a chance that I remembered everything and traffic goes just as I command. LOL! I never thought about actually using an alarm for work. I use fake work hours. Sometimes, I'll make a fake deadline or two before noon and then one or two more after noon but before whenever I need to get dinner going. Those interim deadlines helps me to keep pace or pick up the slack. LOL!
I should write a list of things that I can't articulate well and have you write it for me. LOL!
Again, thanks for the great post!
You are really on a roll today! Again, I'm copying your post to my inspiration journal. In my usual semi-coherent way, this is what I was trying to explain. I try start use of little and often early enough so that the job is completed BEFORE it hits the urgency range. (To me that means the latest that I can start it and barely get it done in time without much respect for unexpected contingencies, change in my abilities, changing circumstances that can block me, etc.) To use your alarm example, I actually use my old fashioned double alarm the same way. I set one to go off X minutes before the other one is set to go off. The second one means get up now, brush my teeth, shower, dress, gather my stuff I need to take with me in less than 30 minutes to be out the door. HOPEFULLY, I'll avoid that rude assault by getting up within one or two snoozes of the first alarm going off. That gives me time to LEISURELY do all of that plus have coffee and/or a meal, check my email, make sure everything I need has been set up from the night before, or whatever I want to do to leave in plenty of time without worrying about traffic versus running like a chicken with my head cut off and taking a chance that I remembered everything and traffic goes just as I command. LOL! I never thought about actually using an alarm for work. I use fake work hours. Sometimes, I'll make a fake deadline or two before noon and then one or two more after noon but before whenever I need to get dinner going. Those interim deadlines helps me to keep pace or pick up the slack. LOL!
I should write a list of things that I can't articulate well and have you write it for me. LOL!
Again, thanks for the great post!
March 1, 2014 at 0:15 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
It was something about how the Randomizer system proves the importance of the overall structure and framework for managing your work, over and above the motivation / means of selecting individual tasks. If you choose good things to put into your list, the Randomizer will make sure they get done with minimal friction.
Do you remember where that post is?
Or, even better, could you elaborate on this idea some more? You've discussed this in your DIT book and several times on this site, and it would be great to hear any additional insights you may have had in this regard, as a result of working with the Randomizer system.
Thanks!!