Discussion Forum > Theory: "No list" systems work because they are incomplete by themselves
nuntym:
I note that you had a rocky start using the no-list approach with household chores and errands but it then started to work surprisingly well.
An alternative explanation to the one you give is that after a few days you had got used to the tasks you were putting on the list and it had developed into a routine.
I don't personally find that I use the "other systems" you refer to any more than I did when I was using a catch-all approach.
I note that you had a rocky start using the no-list approach with household chores and errands but it then started to work surprisingly well.
An alternative explanation to the one you give is that after a few days you had got used to the tasks you were putting on the list and it had developed into a routine.
I don't personally find that I use the "other systems" you refer to any more than I did when I was using a catch-all approach.
February 22, 2016 at 9:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
>I don't personally find that I use the "other systems" you refer to any more than I did when I was using a catch-all approach
I would wager many people used other systems less than you, and this is a critical difference.
I would wager many people used other systems less than you, and this is a critical difference.
February 22, 2016 at 13:46 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu:
<< I would wager many people used other systems less than you, and this is a critical difference. >>
Just because I write an article about something doesn't mean that I use it all the time. They are tools to be used as needed.
I've been working a no-list system all day today and I haven't used any of these other systems at all, except to note from my calendar that I've got a committee meeting tomorrow evening which I need to do some preparation for.
<< I would wager many people used other systems less than you, and this is a critical difference. >>
Just because I write an article about something doesn't mean that I use it all the time. They are tools to be used as needed.
I've been working a no-list system all day today and I haven't used any of these other systems at all, except to note from my calendar that I've got a committee meeting tomorrow evening which I need to do some preparation for.
February 22, 2016 at 18:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I agree with the general gist of all that has being said.
For many of us there was a time when we were trying to do GTD. Usually that time coincides with the tim when GTD was all the rage in the part of the internet where people talk about tools and apps, hacks and crafts. Part of that scene was to discuss with what array of tools one would do GTD and how awesome all that was.
Then came Autofocus - (and let's face it: we were here because we were on the search for more of that productivity reading material) - and with the promise of a simple system. One list, one tool and that's it!
So, in regards to what Nyntum said, I would say that for a certain sub-group of MT's fans (me included), we _purposefully_ tried to avoid all the other systems when doing a AF variant. So it's even worse than he said!
I think a lot of that comes simply from the fact that the usability of most computer apps is very bad. In fact, there are vast offers for training course just to learn computer apps all over the world! Think about that!
Now with the no-list approach it becomes apparent that the todo list alone cannot do it.
However, I have to disagree on the last conclusion of Nyntums post, I don't know exactly why, but with FVP there was no resistence left for me. FVP worked perfect for me. On paper and with a digital list.
Both DIT and FVP worked for me. With those systems my biggest problem was sheer exhaustion from doing all the work! I found DIT a bit boring though, because there is no cool crossing-the-item-off game inbuilt.
For many of us there was a time when we were trying to do GTD. Usually that time coincides with the tim when GTD was all the rage in the part of the internet where people talk about tools and apps, hacks and crafts. Part of that scene was to discuss with what array of tools one would do GTD and how awesome all that was.
Then came Autofocus - (and let's face it: we were here because we were on the search for more of that productivity reading material) - and with the promise of a simple system. One list, one tool and that's it!
So, in regards to what Nyntum said, I would say that for a certain sub-group of MT's fans (me included), we _purposefully_ tried to avoid all the other systems when doing a AF variant. So it's even worse than he said!
I think a lot of that comes simply from the fact that the usability of most computer apps is very bad. In fact, there are vast offers for training course just to learn computer apps all over the world! Think about that!
Now with the no-list approach it becomes apparent that the todo list alone cannot do it.
However, I have to disagree on the last conclusion of Nyntums post, I don't know exactly why, but with FVP there was no resistence left for me. FVP worked perfect for me. On paper and with a digital list.
Both DIT and FVP worked for me. With those systems my biggest problem was sheer exhaustion from doing all the work! I found DIT a bit boring though, because there is no cool crossing-the-item-off game inbuilt.
February 23, 2016 at 6:55 |
Christopher
Christopher
Christopher:
<< Both DIT and FVP worked for me. >>
And still will, I'm sure. As I often say, if I come up with a new system it doesn't stop any of the old systems from working!
<< Both DIT and FVP worked for me. >>
And still will, I'm sure. As I often say, if I come up with a new system it doesn't stop any of the old systems from working!
February 23, 2016 at 8:38 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
The experience led me to hypothesize that maybe "no lists" work better than other systems simply because (among other things) they are incomplete by themselves, which force us to turn to other systems to supplement them like the dynamic lists, calendars, project files, etc. and thus take advantage of all of them.
Such is not so with the "catch all" systems like the Autofocuses and FV/FVP. Since the "catch all" systems capture all tasks that we want to do, we also want and tend to use them in ways that they were not designed to do like as daily reminders and project planners. Add the fact that "catch all" lists become large and fairly complex to the point that using them plus using calendars, project files, and the like becomes tedious, we start to use the "catch all" system more frequently and the other systems less. The ending result would be that we rely on the "catch all" system too much and the other systems too infrequently to the point that everything breaks down, hence, resistance.
Thoughts?