Discussion Forum > An Easy Challenge - Have you tried it?
It is interesting that this relic of a post is still on the site, without a specific date or any place for reader comments. How did you find it?
It's also interesting that the focus was on completing tasks (as phrased), not just making incremental progress a la "little and often."
I try to 'score' three points each day, by marking the 'Big 3' tasks on my list. #1 is some sort of physical exercise in the morning, and is easily finished, once started. #2 and #3 are work-related which I try to take action on before noon. But now I realize that I often give myself too much credit on #2 or #3, by allowing any small action to count as a point. I should phrase any such important task specifically, so that it may be scored meaningfully as done or not.
It's also interesting that the focus was on completing tasks (as phrased), not just making incremental progress a la "little and often."
I try to 'score' three points each day, by marking the 'Big 3' tasks on my list. #1 is some sort of physical exercise in the morning, and is easily finished, once started. #2 and #3 are work-related which I try to take action on before noon. But now I realize that I often give myself too much credit on #2 or #3, by allowing any small action to count as a point. I should phrase any such important task specifically, so that it may be scored meaningfully as done or not.
May 28, 2015 at 2:05 |
ubi
ubi
Ubi,
Thanks for sharing. I have sometimes found the three-MIT approach helpful as well.
I found the article under the Archives tab, but I believe the Articles tab would also find it if you went back far enough. It I one of several articles from Mark's old newsletter that he republished here as articles in the early days of the site.
I do not think defining tasks such that they have a definite completion is inconsistent with little and often. Little and often can be achieved by further breakdown of tasks while still always phrasing sub-tasks such that they have a clear completion criteria.
Thanks for sharing. I have sometimes found the three-MIT approach helpful as well.
I found the article under the Archives tab, but I believe the Articles tab would also find it if you went back far enough. It I one of several articles from Mark's old newsletter that he republished here as articles in the early days of the site.
I do not think defining tasks such that they have a definite completion is inconsistent with little and often. Little and often can be achieved by further breakdown of tasks while still always phrasing sub-tasks such that they have a clear completion criteria.
May 28, 2015 at 3:31 |
Austin
Austin
ubi:
It's interesting that you use the method as "the 3-MIT approach" with a static target of three points, rather than the way the article envisaged of increasing the number of points scored each day.
I guess you could claim that the task "Do some work on Project X" is fulfilled by doing any small action, but the idea was really to define a precise target (however small) and only count the point if you achieved it.
The article was later incorporated into my book "Do It Tomorrow" (pp. 41-42 in the print edition) as an exercise intended to help us to realize how little we write our to do lists for the day in the expectation of finishing them.
It's interesting that you use the method as "the 3-MIT approach" with a static target of three points, rather than the way the article envisaged of increasing the number of points scored each day.
I guess you could claim that the task "Do some work on Project X" is fulfilled by doing any small action, but the idea was really to define a precise target (however small) and only count the point if you achieved it.
The article was later incorporated into my book "Do It Tomorrow" (pp. 41-42 in the print edition) as an exercise intended to help us to realize how little we write our to do lists for the day in the expectation of finishing them.
May 28, 2015 at 10:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
http://markforster.squarespace.com/easy-challenge/