Get Everything Done

As a businessman and stock trader, I've learned that thinking opposite to the crowd is often positive. For example: most individual traders loose most of their investment capital. Determine the common approach most individual traders use and "short" when they buy, etc...
This has got me to thinking, is there a way to re-think time managment? Can we reverse some failing methods? Can we think backwards?
Ideas?

Hi Tommy, every system talked about on this forum is eventually gamed by every individual who tries it. At first it's perfect, because it was populated using the person's situation as it is right then. Over time it goes wrong because there's a cost involved in using it and it diverges from the person's situation. Eventually the person will look for something new, and again finds the perfect system.

Playing this game is fun in its own right (it even has its own name, "Productivity Porn", google it), but it's not productive in the context of moving things along in life. Indeed tweaking and keeping a system up to date, and changing it yet again can make for weeks of procrastination per year.

These systems have a weakness - the human being whose brain responds chemically one way to the idea of surfing the Net, and another way to the idea of sorting out a pile of documents. Knowing that is the first step to managing it (because it cannot be overcome) and being productive AND mindful that committments to yourself and others are genuinely being met.

Tommy I've talked about this previously:

http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2133033#post2134240
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2413994#post2414772

Regards,
Chris

I'm figuratively describing the vast majority, including me, who flip flop between this system and that system, how they tried X and they're back on Y, then later how Y didn't work out and they're trying Y coupled with Z, then what if we did Z backwards, then what if we did Z on an iPad, then what if we did Y using Z's method on the iPad, then what if we use index cards and a space pen, then cards aren't working out, what if we give X another go, then later on it's not working again, what if we used dice with X, then what if we used dice with Y and Evernote, then... After a few years of this one has to wonder if thinking like this over and over is bordering on absolute madness! I asked myself that one difficult day.

It's all greatly distracting, pleasure-centre hitting "productivity porn" at the time but it's not making our actual life stressors go away because we really don't want to deal with them except at some abstract 'task' level which allows us to shield from them. Using an algorithmic system as a proxy for self control, which is what's going on here, only works until we adapt and game the system. I've seen, and done it myself, AF and FV gamed endlessly on here, for example trying to agree just how little of a task needs to be touched before it can be classed as "worked on" and re-written, rather than looking at the committment which the task represents and what kind of pain it's genuinely causing, getting it done with minimal handling and moving on.

As I've said before it's the same with diets for weight loss - a systematic approach to eating designed to take over the self control, but we end up cheating and adapting and then think we need a new diet rather than honestly re-thinking whether we do or don't want to face the reality of it head on.

Those posts I linked to were me describing my 'waking up' which may be of interest to some people, and Tommy they are my personal experience and interpretation of your opening post about re-thinking time management.

Chris

I'm interested, are you genuinely unable to understand the crux of what I'm saying, or is it just inconvenient for me to be saying it? I'm talking about anyone who is liable to addictive / reward-driven behaviour, that's almost anyone with a pre-frontal cortex and probably everyone in this self-selecting group, me included by the way. I have been over this at least twice previously so we're not doing it again. I'm responding to Tommy's interesting opening question.

Chris,

I would explain the flaw in your reasoning, but my algorithmic system (FV) is telling me I should do something more productive. :)

Mark: as I've said already google "productivity porn" and look into the way the brain causes addictive and reward-driven behaviour. Immediate gratification trumps distant gratification in pretty much everyone.

In otherwords, spending an hour surfing the Net gives an immediate hit, when there could be the greater feeling of happiness to be had from having the bathroom cleaned. Eating a bar of chocolate gives an immediate hit, when there could be the greater feeling of happiness to be had from having shed 5 stones. New year's resolutions are broken within days. Even worse, the knowledge that this longer term desire is going to be a long, hard slog, really amplifies the effect of immediate gratification. After all, there's always tomorrow, isn't there?

Then we have systems. Algorithmic productivity systems which take over the selection or which put the selction into context against others. And we have diets, which take over the selction or which mandate how you eat. We have resolutions. All designed to put a rigid framework around our behaviour so we can control it. So we tell ourselves, repeatedly.

But our brains still respond to that immediate hit. At first the system works, but we start working out how we can get the hits AND still follow the rules. Maybe this bit of chocolate will be okay, after all I've been good this week. Oh no, this damn tax return, what if I just get out my documents box, I can say I've "done something" with that tax return now and rewrite it for afterwards. Okay, I said I'd run every morning but it's really cold this morning, so I won't count today.

Congratulations, we have now gamed the system. But do we think that? No, we get a sense of deep down remorse, something's "not working" with this system, and decide a new system is needed. A new diet because the old one "didn't work". A new productivity system because the old one "got stale". Redo the resolution in a few months, right now "it's not the right time of year". And the new one does work, for a while. Rinse and repeat. In my case, for years until I decided no more, it stops now.

This behaviour is observed in pretty much everyone all over the place. In here we have a self-selecting group of people who like playing with productivity systems, and that's fine as a creative exercise and some things will get done. If we want to run every morning then we have to put on our running clothes and run every morning, not "just get out the water bottle", to paraphrase, because that's giving us room to make an excuse, and there will be no shortage of those when the rain's coming down.

Avrum: You're absolutely right about the "so long as" sentiment. If you feel happy that the way you approach your stuff is getting it done, if it feels right in your life, then it is right. If it feels deep down that it's missing something then that for me was an almost subsconscious awareness that I was letting immediate gratification cloud my more pressing work and that I'd gamed the system to the point it 'allowed' me to behave that way. I fixed it repeatedly for a long time with a new system, which always felt good for a while then went the same way.

Tommy: thanks for a fascinating question. The answer is yes, there are ways to rethink time management. Thinking about tasks in terms of risk/reward/perception shows how, in many cases, addictive reward-driven behaviour prevents efficient progress of far off goals, and how we often mask this by using a productivity system as a substitute for changing our behaviour. And what are we actually trying to do with "time management"? Get everything done? Get the most important things done? Get as little done as we can get away with? Not let work prevent home from getting done? It's different things to different people but I bet we don't really try and define it to ourselves, so how can we measure its success without first defining our personal success criteria?

Incidentally I'm also a stock trader (on a personal level). It took me a while to see that making money in trading comes from being okay taking small, stop-driven losses, since these are offset by larger wins over time. And getting the right tools to enable you to do it the right way, like decent company data, charts, access to Level 2, etc. Most amateurs like me won't trade like that, they do it the opposite way around like you say. They don't research, they don't use stops and will grab immediate profits and leave losses on paper until forced to consolidate, kicking themselves because they could have done it earlier.

It's the same part of the brain in action again, emotionally clouding logic and judgement with a desire for immediate reward over longer-term benefit. Small wins are immediate gratification. Losses are 'out there' somewhere.

Human behaviour and perceptions, this is fascinating stuff! It must stem from some evolutionary benefit in reacting like that, eg immediate reward meant you were alive right now rather than possibly dying while waiting to be better off later on. And since it's with us it did indeed confer an advantage. And now, in the developed world, we wrestle with it.

Hi Mark, I qualified that assertion and then twice explained it in detail.

Chris

In a way, a TM system is a way to organize things, and it is utterly unrealistic to expect to organize any group of things once and for all. Organization systems fall apart all the time, sometimes from changes (major or minor) in life or circumstances, and sometimes because the novelty is gone and our bad habits reassert themselves. (I'm speaking about physical organization as well as task organization.) Pretending that a new system will solve our problems forever is self-delusion because no system can do that ever. But using a new system to get ourselves moving when we've stagnated is a logical and sensible use of the tools available to us.

In fact, I'd assert that the idea that we should find a single system and use it all the time is one of the bits of conventional wisdom that we should possibly be re-thinking and looking at backwards. Why not a weekend system and a weekday system? Why not choose from a handful of faithful and practiced tools at will? (Many of Mark's long-list systems can be switched up without any overhead or task loss.) If the goal is to get things done and not just play with getting things done, then anything that actually gets stuff done is fair game.

I find the question of looking at conventional wisdom and turning it upside down very interesting in general. I think that Neil Fiore's idea of scheduling play first is an example of doing it backwards. And Mark's "standing out" task choice method and the idea of little and often might be anti-conventional as well.

I guess the starting point of that conversation is: what is conventional wisdom about task-management in the first place? Do important stuff first. Do deadline items first. Set deadlines. Write things down.

Okay, "write things down" is one you can pry from my cold, dead hands. I am a person who thinks in words, not pictures, and writing things down is the way I process and remember best, and I've GOT to have reminders. But maybe others could make audio notes on a recorder? Draw pictures? Do interpretive dance? I don't even know, they're all so alien to the way I think.

What are the other conventional ideas we should be poking at?

Yeah, the more I thought about that, the more I lost confidence in the assertion.

(What follows is a bit rambly, sorry, as I'm working out what I think as I go. If it seems like I'm contradicting myself, I probably am. I'm arguing with myself and trying to work out what I think. I've tried to make it intelligible.)

I made the assertion because I'm pretty badly disorganized with regard to stuff, personally, and an organizing blogger I read (who is getting more organized but not there yet) shared her excitement to learn that it is perfectly okay to not have The One System that works forever and ever. Needing to re-organizing a space is not a symptom of failure, or at least, not a permanent one.

If you were running in the morning and then get a dog, your system to get yourself run may need to change. But that may not apply to systems dealing with life as a whole. Hm. If your system is one where you keep it in your head and do what needs to be done, then it makes sense that a life change would make that fall apart but a more robust system would stay generally stable.

I was feeling like I see people who don't take into account the differences caused by changes in jobs or family or housing, and then they blame themselves when the old ways stop working.[1] Now I'm wondering how often the system they're using is one of those no-system "just do it" systems. Or maybe I'm purely mistaken about how common the problem is.

When I thought of the holes in my position I was thinking of libraries and Dewey Decimal and how that system is mostly unchanged. Maybe we're discounting small changes in the systems we're calling unchanged? I know Dewey has probably added categories for Computers since it was invented. Whether that counts as a change is debatable, I suppose. Maybe systems for an organization (like a library or a church) can persist unchanged in a way personal ones cannot? But your wife is an argument against that.

I'm not sure I'd agree that your wife organizes things EXACTLY the same as she always did - I think you have children, yes? A family with an infant, or a toddler, or a teen, or a family with adult children living away from home would be organized differently. But that's a distinction that I know is irrelevant - I'm sure she's using the same principles to derive her organization, and there are lots of bits the kiddos didn't affect at all. If principles stay stable while the details change that is basically no change.

I always wonder about people who seem to be naturally organized. I really don't want to believe that the issue is one of simple willpower, though it could be. Unfortunately they frequently can't articulate the differences in what they're doing either.

[1] Like Chris, I don't have any numbers, it's an impression from some sites on the internet. Also like Chris, what I think I see is what was my worst habit which I'm getting better at managing. Could it be that Chris and I both have a hammer and think we see lots of nails? I certainly am beginning to seriously doubt my perceptions as I think about it.

<<Most of the ideas on this website came from doing precisely that.>>

Very true, the more I think about it. It is what attracted many of us to your methods. A few examples of Mark's advice that runs directly contrary to mainstream productivity advice:

Stay on top of all your work by putting it off until tomorrow ("Do It Tomorrow")
Don't prioritize by importance ("Get Everything Done" and elsewhere)
"I'll do it when I feel like doing it, and not sooner." ("How to Make your Dreams Come True")

That is just to scratch the surface.

Hi matthewS, I don't have any ulterior motive and I think you're reading my posts as being 'anti-system', which they are not. I'm simply answering Tommy's question in a way which draws on my own personal journey and which is meaningful to me. In answer to his question "is there a way to re-think time management?" I say yes, in the kind of people for whom improving productivity means putting together some new system of task management, looking open-mindedly at the underlying behaviour that leads to system-hopping can yield interesting insights.

Hi Chris

Thanks for sharing for experience. It took me a while but ultimately reached the same conclusion. Reading your post was validating and inspiring.

Regarding the question of evidence:

Isn't the evidence on the wall?
the evolution website is not evidence?

(The presentation of a new system, afterwards the presentation of modified and improved versions (tweaks) of the system ( af 1 af2 etc)

After a while a new system is presented (dwm ) than some tweaks follow and after a while a new system is presented (utms)

Is this not what Chris described?
Or perhaps I completely misunderstand the question)

Mark:

Thanks for the reply & the clarification regarding your role. Indeed your role is different. Perhaps the statement " every system... by every person" is an over_generalization / exaggeration. Indeed The 40 or 50 contributors do not reflect what people in general do. Maybe it's an indication of what "many people do with many systems?"
All the best

I've qualified that statement enough by now, and there is plenty of evidence of people gaming the systems and system-hopping on this forum. If you don't agree that's fine, we'll have to agree to disagree.

It also makes a difference how often one is switching systems. Switching once every few days is a recipe for disaster. Switching after a few months of sustained use doesn't seem to cause a problem, and that's what many people even on this forum do.

Personally, the times I've dropped systems and taken a "just work hard on what you know matters" approach, I've found I can game that much more easily and fall into lethargy than when I'm using one of Mark's systems. Sustained use of one system takes determination too, and it has the advantage that I actually remember everything, and I make sustained progress on projects that would have been drowned out by pseudo-urgencies if I were working off-system and "just rolling up my sleeves."

Mark: "I don't think that what 40 or 50 people do on this forum is evidence of what people in general do."

You've missed the point. The people in this forum who play with systems for pleasure are not representative of "what people in general do" but I didn't say they were. I said "on this forum" to make that clear in my original statement and in the last reply. I've already explained my stance which is "in the kind of people, for whom improving productivity means putting together some new system of task management, looking open-mindedly at the underlying behaviour that leads to system-hopping can yield interesting insights."

In my case that was, years down the line, letting go of the reward-driven compulsive gaming behaviour and a perceived need for a rules-driven task management system and reverting to what you now just described as "people in general". I get much, much more done now, stuff that actually matters, by rolling up my sleeves for the committments that matter than I ever did pretending to myself that I was getting stuff done by drawing dots and rolling dice and playing lots of little games with lots of different rules.

One has to ask, if you don't think that what the people in this forum do represents what people in general do, who exactly are you aiming your work at? Because I rather thought you felt your work could help people in general, not just 40 individuals.

Hi Chris
You stated (rather rudely)
"I get much, much more done now, stuff that actually matters, by rolling up my sleeves for the committments that matter than I ever did pretending to myself that I was getting stuff done by drawing dots and rolling dice and playing lots of little games with lots of different rules.

I've been using the same system since 2007 based on Mark's DIT. Before the auto accident, I pushed myself hard via living out of my calendar because I've always been highly ambitious. Part of the reason that I pushed myself so hard is that I have always had a horrible time dealing with boredom. After the wreck, I lost several years because of many surgeries, rehabilitation and traumatic brain damage rehabilitation and adjustment therapy. That's when I saw the piles and piles of paperwork. Although all of this made me far better off than before, I was still adjusting to permanent damages and chronic pain. I absolutely did not want to be in others' care. I resolved to prove that I was capable of keeping my legal freedoms and take care of myself. I never had any backlogs before. Needless to say, I was overwhelmed. I found Mark's site and he generously taught me how to clear the backlog incrementally and systematically (little and often). My old methods of living out of a calendar were useless to me. My brain and body is too unreliable to stick to scheduling. I decided to try Mark's DIT. It went well for me because I related to his principles. It was my saving grace in my mission to stay a free agent taking care of my own money and affairs and personal care. All my life I followed the "conventional rules" of time management. I'm not exaggerating when I say that slogging through boredom was especially painful to me. Worse, I worked my list in order. It was torture to stay on the most important thing for hours on end. I'd use over-time to get the small but important responsibilities out of the way. Mark's DIT was a revelation to me. I had the same WILL DO concept as before except little and often allowed me to work my list however I wanted. It felt like a huge burden was lifted when I realized that I could do a bit of a hated job and then switch to a less onerous task. In fact, it didn't matter how I decided to do it as long as I finished it each day. It's still like that!
I spent decades accomplishing my goals using the conventional method. I only wish that I learned about these things decades ago. I complete my list every day as I always have. There are huge differences now.
I'm NOT PRETENDING to get things done by putting a blue dot next to the most hated task or a pink dot next to another MIT on today's list. I'm getting it done with far less anxiety and cognitive depletion. Better yet, I no longer have to castigate myself when my broken brain accidentally goes off on a tangent. I just redirect myself to my WILL DO list. Call it silly or pretending, but it's not. My list gets done every day because of learning Mark's principles and various coping strategies. I never was much of a rule follower but Mark has never said that my modifying his system ruins it. When I feel resistance, I don't care how I manage to get over the hump.
I usually enjoy your inspiring posts. Now I feel insulted…but I shouldn't. Even if I wasn't fighting cancer and being held together with dozens of sutures and 24 staples and medicine protocol that leaves me green at the gills and fatigued, I'd STILL USE THE DICE, MARK THE TASKS, OR CHALLENGE/GAMIFY TODAY'S LIST to complete my list. It's sometimes my only win for the day. It's not pretending. It's my lifeline to a maintaining a bit of pride and keeping my affairs in order just in case my docs and I actually beat the cancer. This isn't pretend. To me, it's high stakes.
BTW, if you tried some of tricks instead of ridiculing them, you might not have had to close off all communications for an entire day in a reactive environment. Instead of ignoring it "for a couple of months", 15 or so minutes a few times a week during lunch or before or after hours would have seen the thing done.

Your post on this thread you referred to above:

http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2413994


I occasionally block time where needed. I've got something I need to do at work which will take around 12-16 hours and has been outstanding, but not urgent, for a couple of months. It's starting to become more urgent but the reason it's not been done yet is because of reactive things taking precedence (which is fine because that's the nature of my job). So I've decided I'm doing it tomorrow. I've blocked out the day, will set my out of office, disconnect Outlook from Exchange, close Lync, put the phone on do not disturb (which is great because if there's a second call within a few minutes it does ring) and get it all done. There are already some ongoing more urgent things which would take precedence if I didn't, but they'll survive one day.
October 13, 2014 at 14:30 | Chris

Sorry about the rant. Much of what you present, I totally agree with….for me, not for everybody else. What I don't agree with is your holier than thou insults. Face it, Chris. You're one of us and that's not a bad thing. Many of these regulars are highly accomplished, successful people.
Thank you, Mark and all the other regulars for the immense help and support. Especially, thank you for your kindness despite my terrible posts.

I don't game the systems. Au contraire, I try to stick as hard to the rules as I can possibly manage. That way I often have to change me ("stretch my muscles".) And this in turn let's my learn something. Every of Mark's systems I tried for a prolonged period of time taught me something about time management. Even the classic systems from Covey, Robbins and Allen gave me big lessons. But this worked precisely because I did NOT game the systems.

I switched systems often for the search of stability as another poster has so well described, but also to find systems with greater fun factors. I am a list nerd and I don't use a list because it helps me (however great a benefit that is), but because it is _fun_.

----

@learning:

You once stated that DIT is Mark's masterpiece. I cannot say I disagree per se, but the Autofocus algorythms are genius, aren't they? However, with DIT you finally have that "today list" thing working properly. None of the classic time management systems accomplished that.

Anyway, with your above post I finally could understand more about where you were coming from with that. A good post, IMHO.

Hi Mark
LOL! In truth, I can't fault anybody for visiting this site. This is my favorite place on the net. The only reason I have only lurked lately is because I had about three dozen sutures plus an additional 24 staples in my arm. Even moving my fingers aggravated it. I wasn't alone. As you stated, there were about 12K plus lurkers this month.

I'm not claiming that the genesis of our challenges are the same, but what we do share in common is our gratitude to your generous spirit. You've helped thousands of people through your books, seminars and this website. The regulars have also contributed to the wealth of knowledge and support your wonderful website offers. (I also love the spirit of camaraderie and the wonderful personalities.)

THANK YOU MARK AND THE REGULARS for teaching me the various tricks that help me to complete my WILL DO list each day. Especially, thank you Mark for sharing the overriding principles that help me tremendously. Probably the best gifts I have received by visiting this site is 1) When I veer off course, there's no purpose in castigating myself. I know how to get myself back on course. There's also no need to shroud my guilt in plausible excuses. Because of what I've learned here, shame or guilt doesn't last too long because I don't need to ignore work because there are too many ways to get it done on time without putting myself through too much agony. LOL! hmmm....back to the die and the list with colored dots. Let me set my timer...

Hi Mark

You stated:
"It's always good to hear that I've succeeded in helping someone!"

You have helped thousands of people. The internet is loaded with people on various sites extolling the virtues of your principles, systems and tricks and giving testimony of how much you have helped them. Some of the posts have such zeal that it almost sounds like a form of proselytizing! LOL!


I suppose that this is as good a time as any to correct a type/ omission. (I'll ignore the fact that I forgot to break it down into paragraphs. LOL )
*** I forgot to number the second gift.

*** 2) There's also no need to shroud my guilt in plausible excuses. Because of what I've learned here, shame or guilt doesn't last too long because I don't need to ignore work because there are too many ways to get it done on time without putting myself through too much agony. LOL! hmmm....back to the die and the list with colored dots. Let me set my timer...

Christopher
I always completed my will do lists but it was far more torturous! Mark's DIT principles allowed me to accomplish the same thing with far less smoke blowing out of my nostrils! LOL!

Personally, I think everything Mark offers us has a spark of genius. Whether we personally benefit from the various things he offers does not change it's overall value. He offers so many options because he wants to address many peoples' challenges…..and he does just that brilliantly. pssst….I also love his subtle yet very wicked sense of humor. LOL!