Discussion Forum > Two Minute Task Shredder
I haven't read all of the rules for every single system on here yet, but your system doesn't appear to be a ripoff of any of Mark's stuff, mostly because Mark's systems never (from what I've seen so far) have you tackling every item on your list in order, unless it's the kind of list where you hand-pick a few tasks from a master list. So it's unique in that way.
It also addresses the fact that getting started is the hardest part of tackling an undesirable task. No matter how fearsome the task is, the assurance that you can stop after two minutes makes it less intimidating - like kicking a sleeping monster and running away. It's also a Jedi mind trick in that we know that it's often hard to stop at two minutes, even when the task is ugly; and then we end up getting a lot done on something we originally didn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole.
I've heard of things where you can work in chunks of five minutes at a time, but those always struck me as ludicrous. I don't quite understand why I think a five-minute commitment is ludicrous and two minutes isn't, but maybe it's because five minutes is just long enough to seem threatening and two minutes seems harmless.
I've been doing AF for a week now, and I've got nine active pages. I have a long holiday weekend coming up and few firm plans. This might be a good time to try out this two-minute extravaganza and see if I will in fact be able to dip my toe into some of my longest-delayed projects, or if my commitment to this scheme will dissolve before the first 120 seconds are up.
It also addresses the fact that getting started is the hardest part of tackling an undesirable task. No matter how fearsome the task is, the assurance that you can stop after two minutes makes it less intimidating - like kicking a sleeping monster and running away. It's also a Jedi mind trick in that we know that it's often hard to stop at two minutes, even when the task is ugly; and then we end up getting a lot done on something we originally didn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole.
I've heard of things where you can work in chunks of five minutes at a time, but those always struck me as ludicrous. I don't quite understand why I think a five-minute commitment is ludicrous and two minutes isn't, but maybe it's because five minutes is just long enough to seem threatening and two minutes seems harmless.
I've been doing AF for a week now, and I've got nine active pages. I have a long holiday weekend coming up and few firm plans. This might be a good time to try out this two-minute extravaganza and see if I will in fact be able to dip my toe into some of my longest-delayed projects, or if my commitment to this scheme will dissolve before the first 120 seconds are up.
May 21, 2015 at 21:21 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
Hi Liverpool Dreamer, I like it! A simple list and a JFDI approach to what's on it. And it gets started on everything, sometimes the hardest thing to do for something. I'll try a spot of shredding on my text file list.
Chris (from Anfield, Liverpool, coincidentally!)
Chris (from Anfield, Liverpool, coincidentally!)
May 21, 2015 at 21:33 |
Chris
Chris
I "invented" a similar approach awhile back, called TATT (Touch All Tasks Today). See
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1907896
It's a little more complicated than your 2MTS, in that it has both min- and max-timers (to avoid spending too much time on enjoyable tasks), and handles out-of-context and urgent tasks by moving them about in the list. I designed it for electronic processing, but one could also do it with index cards (1 task per card).
I think this started as a joke on another thread, where I raised the question: Why not just write everything down and then plow through the list in order?
Cheers!
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1907896
It's a little more complicated than your 2MTS, in that it has both min- and max-timers (to avoid spending too much time on enjoyable tasks), and handles out-of-context and urgent tasks by moving them about in the list. I designed it for electronic processing, but one could also do it with index cards (1 task per card).
I think this started as a joke on another thread, where I raised the question: Why not just write everything down and then plow through the list in order?
Cheers!
May 21, 2015 at 22:00 |
ubi
ubi
Forgot to mention - I'm an INTP, so if it works for you, Liverpool Dreamer, I'll be surprised if it doesn't work for me.
I intend to use this only as an occasional trick, not as my full-time MO. But I'm wondering if having a bell ring after two minutes will also, mercifully, pull me back from the brink of the abyss that I often fall into soon after I start something. I tend to "hyperfocus" and stick with something much longer than I should, even when I don't like it. And I already know that five minutes, if I can hang on for that long, is enough time to fall into that abyss.
So this will really be TWO real tests for me:
1. Is two minutes really long enough to start a project and/or make meaningful progress?
2. Can I stay out of the rabbit-hole for two minutes?
Ubi, the "joke" of plowing through items in order sounds a lot like the initial "inbox" processing for GTD. You're supposed to address each item in order, either categorizing it in some way for future action, or acting on it immediately if it's a less than two-minute task.
(Now I'm asking myself why I rejected that idea, yet I'm considering this one. Probably because GTD depends on splitting things into more lists, filing things into various folders, and having daily/weekly reviews. There's no specific prohibition against the "little and often" concept, but it's formalized into a "project plan" and "next actions." Talk about falling down a rabbit hole - it might work for some people, but I could easily mushroom that into a huge cloud of busywork.)
I intend to use this only as an occasional trick, not as my full-time MO. But I'm wondering if having a bell ring after two minutes will also, mercifully, pull me back from the brink of the abyss that I often fall into soon after I start something. I tend to "hyperfocus" and stick with something much longer than I should, even when I don't like it. And I already know that five minutes, if I can hang on for that long, is enough time to fall into that abyss.
So this will really be TWO real tests for me:
1. Is two minutes really long enough to start a project and/or make meaningful progress?
2. Can I stay out of the rabbit-hole for two minutes?
Ubi, the "joke" of plowing through items in order sounds a lot like the initial "inbox" processing for GTD. You're supposed to address each item in order, either categorizing it in some way for future action, or acting on it immediately if it's a less than two-minute task.
(Now I'm asking myself why I rejected that idea, yet I'm considering this one. Probably because GTD depends on splitting things into more lists, filing things into various folders, and having daily/weekly reviews. There's no specific prohibition against the "little and often" concept, but it's formalized into a "project plan" and "next actions." Talk about falling down a rabbit hole - it might work for some people, but I could easily mushroom that into a huge cloud of busywork.)
May 21, 2015 at 22:18 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
I'll be fascinated, if anyone does try it, to hear if it shreds tasks for you too or if I am some kind of wierdo.... I means uniquely wonderful individual!
(Chris I'm by the big red cathedral a couple of miles away!... looking forward to the visit of the "3 Queens" this weekend)
(Chris I'm by the big red cathedral a couple of miles away!... looking forward to the visit of the "3 Queens" this weekend)
May 21, 2015 at 22:42 |
Liverpool Dreamer
Liverpool Dreamer
I've done this type of thing before, but not in this exact way. What I usually do it start a list on graph paper (or notebook paper and try to follow a grid), and add checkboxes for each pass through the list. It made me run around like crazy starting on so many different things (I never lasted more than a day this way). But if the list is short enough, I have used it successfully to clean up different areas of the house. I have used a similar checklist to do the "spinning plates" method that Mark Forster wrote about a while ago. (This lasted longer, a few days. Also used this to kick off some imported self improvement projects.) I've also used it to try to do at least a minimal amount of work or build habits by doing the items on the list every day. (Lasted a few weeks this way, and started to see some consistency... until I stopped.)
May 22, 2015 at 5:22 |
Don R
Don R
JulieBulie:
<< I haven't read all of the rules for every single system on here yet, but your system doesn't appear to be a ripoff of any of Mark's stuff, mostly because Mark's systems never (from what I've seen so far) have you tackling every item on your list in order >>
Actually this is very similar to the system I described fifteen years ago in my book "Get Everything Done and Still Have Time to Play", except that I used longer fixed time intervals (5 minutes increasing by 5 minutes each time).
There was also a book published around the same time by a guy (can't remember his name unfortunately) who recommended a minimum of 30 seconds! I think it was called something like the 30 Second Rule - but I can't find it on Amazon.
<< I haven't read all of the rules for every single system on here yet, but your system doesn't appear to be a ripoff of any of Mark's stuff, mostly because Mark's systems never (from what I've seen so far) have you tackling every item on your list in order >>
Actually this is very similar to the system I described fifteen years ago in my book "Get Everything Done and Still Have Time to Play", except that I used longer fixed time intervals (5 minutes increasing by 5 minutes each time).
There was also a book published around the same time by a guy (can't remember his name unfortunately) who recommended a minimum of 30 seconds! I think it was called something like the 30 Second Rule - but I can't find it on Amazon.
May 22, 2015 at 10:37 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark
You may be thinking of "The 15 Second Principle" by Al Secunda.
You may be thinking of "The 15 Second Principle" by Al Secunda.
May 22, 2015 at 10:57 |
Caibre65
Caibre65
I have also found two minute to be an optimal amount of time for eliminating resistance on most tasks. It is so short that there is no psychological expectation of actually finishing, and takes advantage of the "I can do anything for just two minutes" feeling.
With the way my brain works, five minutes seems like an eternity, and I'll often procrastinate for the first 30-60 seconds of a five-minute burst. With two minutes, I'm forced to get right to work. Two minutes of focused effort is enough to make progress and get the task activated/started.
When I'm feeling especially overwhelmed with too many "must do" things. I'll use a randomizer and a two-minute timer.
With the way my brain works, five minutes seems like an eternity, and I'll often procrastinate for the first 30-60 seconds of a five-minute burst. With two minutes, I'm forced to get right to work. Two minutes of focused effort is enough to make progress and get the task activated/started.
When I'm feeling especially overwhelmed with too many "must do" things. I'll use a randomizer and a two-minute timer.
May 22, 2015 at 11:04 |
JeffN
JeffN
Liverpool Dreamer:
With the proviso that you shouldn't let anything I say stop you from doing something that works for you, I'd like to make a few comments on your idea. I've got a lot of experience with this sort of system.
As you've found, giving your list a few blasts of 2 mins' minimum is a very good way of starting to get moving on stuff which has been blocked.
What it isn't so good at is being a long-term time management program.
Simple maths will tell you that if you have a list of 60 tasks (and most people have at least that), then even if every task is worked on for only the 2 minute minimum it will take two hours (plus breaks) to get through the whole list.
Since you'll almost certainly work for longer than 2 minutes on most tasks, we are probably talking about only getting through the list about twice a day. So if you, for instance, do 2 minutes work on your email you are only going to come back to it one more time that day.
Doing tasks in the order you've written them down always falls into the trap that if you spend a long time on a individual tasks it takes forever to get round the list, but if you spend a short time on individual tasks then it takes forever to see any results.
And if you work a long time on some tasks but the minimum on others, then there's not much difference at the end of the day from working on some tasks and not on others. So we're back to the question of how you select the tasks you work on.
With the proviso that you shouldn't let anything I say stop you from doing something that works for you, I'd like to make a few comments on your idea. I've got a lot of experience with this sort of system.
As you've found, giving your list a few blasts of 2 mins' minimum is a very good way of starting to get moving on stuff which has been blocked.
What it isn't so good at is being a long-term time management program.
Simple maths will tell you that if you have a list of 60 tasks (and most people have at least that), then even if every task is worked on for only the 2 minute minimum it will take two hours (plus breaks) to get through the whole list.
Since you'll almost certainly work for longer than 2 minutes on most tasks, we are probably talking about only getting through the list about twice a day. So if you, for instance, do 2 minutes work on your email you are only going to come back to it one more time that day.
Doing tasks in the order you've written them down always falls into the trap that if you spend a long time on a individual tasks it takes forever to get round the list, but if you spend a short time on individual tasks then it takes forever to see any results.
And if you work a long time on some tasks but the minimum on others, then there's not much difference at the end of the day from working on some tasks and not on others. So we're back to the question of how you select the tasks you work on.
May 22, 2015 at 11:07 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Caibre65:
<< You may be thinking of "The 15 Second Principle" by Al Secunda. >>
Yes, that's the one! Thanks for identifying it.
<< You may be thinking of "The 15 Second Principle" by Al Secunda. >>
Yes, that's the one! Thanks for identifying it.
May 22, 2015 at 11:09 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
"Simple maths will tell you that if you have a list of 60 tasks (and most people have at least that), then even if every task is worked on for only the 2 minute minimum it will take two hours (plus breaks) to get through the whole list."
However if you select a few of those which matter now to get done in the short term, and then apply the shredding to those few things, you'll get going, and break any starting resistance, on some things which matter now. You can't boil the ocean but you can take a pan of water from it and boil that today.
However if you select a few of those which matter now to get done in the short term, and then apply the shredding to those few things, you'll get going, and break any starting resistance, on some things which matter now. You can't boil the ocean but you can take a pan of water from it and boil that today.
May 22, 2015 at 13:27 |
Chris
Chris
Chris:
<< However if you select a few of those which matter now to get done in the short term, and then apply the shredding to those few things, you'll get going, and break any starting resistance, on some things which matter now. >>
Agreed.
<< However if you select a few of those which matter now to get done in the short term, and then apply the shredding to those few things, you'll get going, and break any starting resistance, on some things which matter now. >>
Agreed.
May 22, 2015 at 14:06 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thank you Mark! That hasn't been my experience but helps me to see why this system may not work so well for many others.
1. I use it regularly but not constantly. I like working intuitively just deciding "I am going to work on X now". I have found myself much freer to enjoy doing that knowing that I will also use this system to shred my way through the list.
2. My list is much shorter. Seldom more than 25 tasks, 16 on the list right now. That's probably because I do plenty of stuff which never makes it onto the list (I'm not obsessive about capturing every task onto the list before just doing it) and I use regular routines and scheduling for many others. I write on the list anything I want to remember to do later or know I need to remember to do later.
That said it still easily takes half a day to cycle through the list. But that hasn't been a problem and I can't quite see why it would. If one does the quick scan at the start of each working session to (i) spot anything urgent and (ii) reinforce the pulling power of the carrot tasks further down the list.
Of course it doesn't matter when you stop. Whenever you come back to the list it's just quick scan and then goto first task which hasn't been crossed out.
Trying to think if I am overlooking any other reasons that it is so effective for me. I can't identify any at the moment.
Cheers
1. I use it regularly but not constantly. I like working intuitively just deciding "I am going to work on X now". I have found myself much freer to enjoy doing that knowing that I will also use this system to shred my way through the list.
2. My list is much shorter. Seldom more than 25 tasks, 16 on the list right now. That's probably because I do plenty of stuff which never makes it onto the list (I'm not obsessive about capturing every task onto the list before just doing it) and I use regular routines and scheduling for many others. I write on the list anything I want to remember to do later or know I need to remember to do later.
That said it still easily takes half a day to cycle through the list. But that hasn't been a problem and I can't quite see why it would. If one does the quick scan at the start of each working session to (i) spot anything urgent and (ii) reinforce the pulling power of the carrot tasks further down the list.
Of course it doesn't matter when you stop. Whenever you come back to the list it's just quick scan and then goto first task which hasn't been crossed out.
Trying to think if I am overlooking any other reasons that it is so effective for me. I can't identify any at the moment.
Cheers
May 22, 2015 at 16:57 |
Liverpool Dreamer
Liverpool Dreamer
Fifteen to 30 seconds? That's a bit too brief for me, even with my gnatlike attention span. It takes longer than that to GET my attention!
I haven't read "Get Everything Done" yet, but my order of "Do It Tomorrow" finally arrived yesterday, and I'll probably read most of it this weekend. (Hopefully not just in two-minute increments!)
Finally: in light of Mark's comments on this two-minute shredder, and after reviewing what's on my list, I'm certainly going to limit the tasks in my shredder to those that I keep skipping on my AF list, muttering "I'd love to, but not right now" because they are scary in some vague way or other. I'll round all of them up, which will take them out of the otherwise soothing context of my other AF tasks, and get ready to chip away at them.
(These are mainly household projects, like an old computer cart overloaded with miscellaneous non-computer stuff in the corner of my kitchen. The cart is blocking a closet. I need to figure out what to do with all the stuff on the cart, and what to do with the cart. It's not urgent, but it's important if I ever want to be able to use that closet. This sort of thing is easy for some people, but for me it is a minefield of difficult decisions.)
I very well realize that there's theoretically no reason not to just do two minutes at a time on those very same tasks without making a Big Shredder Event of it. Or, I could break them down into smaller tasks ("process one item on cart") and list them that way. But I've had a week to try it that way and it hasn't happened. I really think that this is a context issue; I need to approach these kinds of tasks in a different way that most of the things I do. and just as some items get parked on an AF page solely to remind me to put them on a calendar, shopping list, etc., maybe other types of items on an AF page will be redirected to the Shredder because I just cannot seem to deal with them in any other way.
And, again, the Shredder (for me, as I see myself using it) is just a trick to get me started. Two minutes, and then I can quit if I want to. Once these things get started, they probably won't be hard to finish.
I shall report at the end of the weekend.
I haven't read "Get Everything Done" yet, but my order of "Do It Tomorrow" finally arrived yesterday, and I'll probably read most of it this weekend. (Hopefully not just in two-minute increments!)
Finally: in light of Mark's comments on this two-minute shredder, and after reviewing what's on my list, I'm certainly going to limit the tasks in my shredder to those that I keep skipping on my AF list, muttering "I'd love to, but not right now" because they are scary in some vague way or other. I'll round all of them up, which will take them out of the otherwise soothing context of my other AF tasks, and get ready to chip away at them.
(These are mainly household projects, like an old computer cart overloaded with miscellaneous non-computer stuff in the corner of my kitchen. The cart is blocking a closet. I need to figure out what to do with all the stuff on the cart, and what to do with the cart. It's not urgent, but it's important if I ever want to be able to use that closet. This sort of thing is easy for some people, but for me it is a minefield of difficult decisions.)
I very well realize that there's theoretically no reason not to just do two minutes at a time on those very same tasks without making a Big Shredder Event of it. Or, I could break them down into smaller tasks ("process one item on cart") and list them that way. But I've had a week to try it that way and it hasn't happened. I really think that this is a context issue; I need to approach these kinds of tasks in a different way that most of the things I do. and just as some items get parked on an AF page solely to remind me to put them on a calendar, shopping list, etc., maybe other types of items on an AF page will be redirected to the Shredder because I just cannot seem to deal with them in any other way.
And, again, the Shredder (for me, as I see myself using it) is just a trick to get me started. Two minutes, and then I can quit if I want to. Once these things get started, they probably won't be hard to finish.
I shall report at the end of the weekend.
May 22, 2015 at 17:44 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
Julie,
Won't limiting it to those tasks remove the "pull" factor of the task you really want to do. The carrots that you can't eat until you have done at least 2mins on each previous task?
Won't limiting it to those tasks remove the "pull" factor of the task you really want to do. The carrots that you can't eat until you have done at least 2mins on each previous task?
May 22, 2015 at 17:59 |
Liverpool Dreamer
Liverpool Dreamer
In advance of the Shred-O-Rama Event, the "pull" factor is the anticipation of the admittedly mundane series of "battles" ahead of me, and the feeling of satisfaction I know I'll have once I've made a respectable dent in several daunting tasks. (This is already so much better than my Saturday ritual of looking at the to-do list and trying to pick a single task that I'll "focus" on, only to spend the rest of the weekend finding ways to avoid doing it.)
At the start of each task, the "pull" will be the hope that I will make a good start, and the knowledge that it all can stop after two minutes if it's as horrible as I fear.
The ultimate "pull" will be the freedom to go back to my AF pages without having to look at these tasks again. There will be some finishing-up tasks left over that I can do later, but those won't be so discouraging to see on a list. And I can finally do something fun or relaxing without feeling guilty that I've put these things off yet again.
The only carrots that mean anything to me, with regard to these tasks, are the carrots of having done them. Does that make any sense? When I face these tasks, everything around me starts to look like a carrot. I don't LOVE to iron, but I'll iron everything in sight for the rest of the day to avoid doing some other thing, and tell myself I'm being productive. (I think this is a twisted version of FV, yes? Sort of? Get a miserable task done by putting it in front of an even worse one? Except that I stall on the least-miserable one.)
So the way I see it, this is a chance to earn the very rare and tasty carrot of having started six annoying, long-delayed projects in one weekend, as opposed to the pointless, easily-obtained carrot of wrinkle-free socks, re-alphabetized DVDs that weren't previously out of order, and so on... but no real accomplishments, no fun, and lots of regret.
If the Shredder works, I will finally have a tool to deal with them, and I won't feel such an urge to iron sweatpants. I can always find more monster tasks to add to my list.
I hope I'm not being overly optimistic about this, but the more I've tried to "push" my way through the things that I don't like to do, the better I've gotten at putting them off. There has to be a way to redirect that momentum. This is the first time in forever that I've felt motivated to grit my teeth and go all in on the very worst things that I've dared to write down!
(Now let's just hope I still feel that way tomorrow!)
At the start of each task, the "pull" will be the hope that I will make a good start, and the knowledge that it all can stop after two minutes if it's as horrible as I fear.
The ultimate "pull" will be the freedom to go back to my AF pages without having to look at these tasks again. There will be some finishing-up tasks left over that I can do later, but those won't be so discouraging to see on a list. And I can finally do something fun or relaxing without feeling guilty that I've put these things off yet again.
The only carrots that mean anything to me, with regard to these tasks, are the carrots of having done them. Does that make any sense? When I face these tasks, everything around me starts to look like a carrot. I don't LOVE to iron, but I'll iron everything in sight for the rest of the day to avoid doing some other thing, and tell myself I'm being productive. (I think this is a twisted version of FV, yes? Sort of? Get a miserable task done by putting it in front of an even worse one? Except that I stall on the least-miserable one.)
So the way I see it, this is a chance to earn the very rare and tasty carrot of having started six annoying, long-delayed projects in one weekend, as opposed to the pointless, easily-obtained carrot of wrinkle-free socks, re-alphabetized DVDs that weren't previously out of order, and so on... but no real accomplishments, no fun, and lots of regret.
If the Shredder works, I will finally have a tool to deal with them, and I won't feel such an urge to iron sweatpants. I can always find more monster tasks to add to my list.
I hope I'm not being overly optimistic about this, but the more I've tried to "push" my way through the things that I don't like to do, the better I've gotten at putting them off. There has to be a way to redirect that momentum. This is the first time in forever that I've felt motivated to grit my teeth and go all in on the very worst things that I've dared to write down!
(Now let's just hope I still feel that way tomorrow!)
May 22, 2015 at 21:17 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
I've put "Two-Minute Task Shredder" on my FVP list with the intention of having a session on any tasks and projects which I feel are not getting as much attention as they should. I'll be interested to see how it goes.
May 23, 2015 at 12:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Very much to my surprise, that experiment didn't last very long! I found that, even with two minutes minimum, I was resisting doing the tasks on my list. I don't really have much doubt that I will get them done through FVP without any problem.
May 23, 2015 at 13:36 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I have been doing something similar. Doing items for 1-2 minutes. It works best when I am resisting, or not at my peak, on mindless tasks. I use this early in the morning when I can't think straight yet, for daily routine items, cleaning/sorting, etc. I have a checklist of things, if it doesn't need doing, i skip it, otherwise I spend 1 minute on the items I can do in a minute. I might cycle throught the list and spend 2 minutes, maybe then 5 minutes. After I get going, I might dispense with the time intervals altogether, or get on to more important tasks. Like a crutch or scaffolding. I use it until I don't need it.
If I am extremely fatigued or sick, I might work on something for a minute and stop and rest and then continue for 1 minute intervals.
If the resistance is very great on doing a task, I might start with 1 minute, and increase the intervals by 1 minute, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.etc. Sometimes you don't feel like doing something until you start to do it. I am a musician, and if I have to practice for a 3 hour session, but don't want to, I might start this way, and give it up when I have the urge to continue. The music takes hold of me.
This is not the most effective or efficient method, but will work on some tasks.
It is one tool, just as there different size screwdrivers in a tool kit.
It doesn't help with large projects over hours or days, that I am resisting, the 1-2 minute intervals I don't find enough to build momentum to complete it.
If I am extremely fatigued or sick, I might work on something for a minute and stop and rest and then continue for 1 minute intervals.
If the resistance is very great on doing a task, I might start with 1 minute, and increase the intervals by 1 minute, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.etc. Sometimes you don't feel like doing something until you start to do it. I am a musician, and if I have to practice for a 3 hour session, but don't want to, I might start this way, and give it up when I have the urge to continue. The music takes hold of me.
This is not the most effective or efficient method, but will work on some tasks.
It is one tool, just as there different size screwdrivers in a tool kit.
It doesn't help with large projects over hours or days, that I am resisting, the 1-2 minute intervals I don't find enough to build momentum to complete it.
May 23, 2015 at 16:13 |
mark h.
mark h.
I really hope it works for you Julie but that wouldn't for me and I am not surprised it didn't for you Mark (F) for two reasons
1. I'd personally lose the will to live pretty quickly if it did this system just with a stack of tasks I had been avoiding/resisting. It only works for me because I do it with my whole list.
2. I'm pretty sure it won't suit all or even most temperaments.i don't know why I think that just do. I reckon FVP is probably far more widely useful. I shared shared this one on here in case there are others like me for whom it could be equally revolutionary.
1. I'd personally lose the will to live pretty quickly if it did this system just with a stack of tasks I had been avoiding/resisting. It only works for me because I do it with my whole list.
2. I'm pretty sure it won't suit all or even most temperaments.i don't know why I think that just do. I reckon FVP is probably far more widely useful. I shared shared this one on here in case there are others like me for whom it could be equally revolutionary.
May 23, 2015 at 18:25 |
Liverpool Dreamer
Liverpool Dreamer
Some things came up this weekend that took me far, far away from my original plan. Even so, I can't quite call it a failure.
Saturday: After poking at a few tasks, not even in proper order, I quickly realized that I hadn't defined my list of shreddables very well. If you're hoping to cycle through a group of tasks in very brief increments, it's better if they're all in the same vicinity. Especially if there is a lot of stair-climbing and you have bad knees. So, instead, I went through my AF notebook and picked out a few groups of tasks based on their location. I also closed out my first few pages and dismissed some items for the very first time. And I read the first third of DIT.
Then I picked up my list of basement shreddables and did only one task - but I finished it! I'd been putting it off for more than a year. I also finished up a few more tasks that were in my AF but not shreddable. I told myself, "there's always Monday."
Sunday: I already had commitments for this day, but I also remembered a big task that I'd neglected to put in my notebook. That became the big activity for Monday.
Monday (holiday): Yardwork. Took longer than expected, because it was the first warm day this year that I was able to spend outdoors.
Monday night: Gazed with shame at the kitchen cart, which now seemed 10 feet taller and had even bigger teeth and claws than before. I realized that if I moved the table out of the way, the cart would be easier to get to. So, I moved the table. Clever strategic move, or a mere delaying tactic? You be the judge!
Tuesday morning: Thought I'd take a stab at some shreddables before going to work. I tackled the first (non-cart) task and finished it in ten minutes.
So, I didn't exactly shred. And I certainly didn't do anything in the order that it appeared on my list - or on my revised list, for that matter. (I seldom do, so perhaps it was unrealistic to think that it would be different this time.) But the two-minute commitment did make certain items much easier to approach, and thus I completed two tasks that had been needlessly delayed for a long time. I also got started on a few others, but quit after two minutes.
And, in reviewing my notebook, I gained some insights about the way I perceive tasks based on the way they're written. But that's probably a topic for a different thread.
Saturday: After poking at a few tasks, not even in proper order, I quickly realized that I hadn't defined my list of shreddables very well. If you're hoping to cycle through a group of tasks in very brief increments, it's better if they're all in the same vicinity. Especially if there is a lot of stair-climbing and you have bad knees. So, instead, I went through my AF notebook and picked out a few groups of tasks based on their location. I also closed out my first few pages and dismissed some items for the very first time. And I read the first third of DIT.
Then I picked up my list of basement shreddables and did only one task - but I finished it! I'd been putting it off for more than a year. I also finished up a few more tasks that were in my AF but not shreddable. I told myself, "there's always Monday."
Sunday: I already had commitments for this day, but I also remembered a big task that I'd neglected to put in my notebook. That became the big activity for Monday.
Monday (holiday): Yardwork. Took longer than expected, because it was the first warm day this year that I was able to spend outdoors.
Monday night: Gazed with shame at the kitchen cart, which now seemed 10 feet taller and had even bigger teeth and claws than before. I realized that if I moved the table out of the way, the cart would be easier to get to. So, I moved the table. Clever strategic move, or a mere delaying tactic? You be the judge!
Tuesday morning: Thought I'd take a stab at some shreddables before going to work. I tackled the first (non-cart) task and finished it in ten minutes.
So, I didn't exactly shred. And I certainly didn't do anything in the order that it appeared on my list - or on my revised list, for that matter. (I seldom do, so perhaps it was unrealistic to think that it would be different this time.) But the two-minute commitment did make certain items much easier to approach, and thus I completed two tasks that had been needlessly delayed for a long time. I also got started on a few others, but quit after two minutes.
And, in reviewing my notebook, I gained some insights about the way I perceive tasks based on the way they're written. But that's probably a topic for a different thread.
May 26, 2015 at 19:13 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
But... I have been using a ridiculously simple, way less cool and way less clever system which is just so perfect for me and has been so powerful that I am not tempted to switch. In case it's helpful for others I list it below (I am an INTJ in Myers Briggs, I am a mild not chronic procrastinator and reasonably but not very organised in case those are factors - I don't know)
Two Minute Task Shredder...
Uses one list. (I only use it at work)
1. Scan through whole list very quickly
2. Start at first task on the list. You MUST work on it before moving on, though only for at least two minutes and in whatever way you can move it at least slightly forward.
3. After however long you want to work on it, cross it out. If it is not complete, rewrite at the end of the list, rephrasing if helpful to take account of progress made so that the next action is going to be different.
4. Move on to the next item and again you MUST work on it (for at least 2 mins though as long as you like)
5. Continue to end of list!
If you can't work on a task due to context or waiting for something else fine just move on and leave it not crossed out.
If you could work on a task but can't bring yourself to do at least 2 mins, cross it out (dismiss it). In my experience this usually motivates me to do something on it,
If something further down the list is genuinely urgent (not just appealing), then do it.
Note: The quick scan will alert you to urgent tasks but more often will alert you to "carrots", things you want to do but can't until you have done at least 2 mins on each previous tasks.
Be sure to move on after once you want to, as long as you have done 2 mins. It is astonishing though how often I think "want" to do a lot more.
I don't use it for scheduled tasks which I diary or use followupthen emails for as appropriate.
This has been shredding it's way through tasks and projects I had avoided for months.
(Apologies if this system is in fact a rip off of another one on here or elsewhere. That is a genuine mistake and hopefully Mark will not allow this to stay on the forum if it is copying something else.)