Discussion Forum > I gave May 9th a good try...
Regarding the dynamics and psychology of how this all works...
There are some interesting dynamics with rule (2) -- << erase everything except the top 3-5 things >>, and I think this points to one of the key features of no-list.
Basically, it works like this. Let's say there are 10 things on my mind. So I write them all down. As I run a quick FVP-style prioritization on it, I find my mind already getting engaged with the top 3-5 things. The lower priority items just seem to fade from importance. If I keep them on the list anyway, this makes the list into a "to-do" list -- a collection of task debts -- which just weighs me down and distracts me from the top items that I've already determined need my attention right now. So I just erase them.
After I finish with the current no-list, I do the process again. Often, the things that come to mind, come out of the work that I just did -- natural follow-on work to whatever I have already started. And this is great! It keeps the work moving, it's engaging, it gets things done. I think this leads to the "emergent strategy" that Mark was talking about.
Sometimes the lower-priority items that I dropped from the previous list get added again. Sometimes they don't.
Either way, it's proof that there was no need for me to keep them on the list during the first round! If some of those things simply get dropped, that's exactly how it's supposed to happen. The list is not intended to help me remember things -- it's intended to help me get focused and engaged.
There are some interesting dynamics with rule (2) -- << erase everything except the top 3-5 things >>, and I think this points to one of the key features of no-list.
Basically, it works like this. Let's say there are 10 things on my mind. So I write them all down. As I run a quick FVP-style prioritization on it, I find my mind already getting engaged with the top 3-5 things. The lower priority items just seem to fade from importance. If I keep them on the list anyway, this makes the list into a "to-do" list -- a collection of task debts -- which just weighs me down and distracts me from the top items that I've already determined need my attention right now. So I just erase them.
After I finish with the current no-list, I do the process again. Often, the things that come to mind, come out of the work that I just did -- natural follow-on work to whatever I have already started. And this is great! It keeps the work moving, it's engaging, it gets things done. I think this leads to the "emergent strategy" that Mark was talking about.
Sometimes the lower-priority items that I dropped from the previous list get added again. Sometimes they don't.
Either way, it's proof that there was no need for me to keep them on the list during the first round! If some of those things simply get dropped, that's exactly how it's supposed to happen. The list is not intended to help me remember things -- it's intended to help me get focused and engaged.
June 16, 2016 at 16:19 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
"Let's say there are 10 things on my mind. So I write them all down... I find my mind already getting engaged with the top 3-5 things. The lower priority items just seem to fade from importance."
I don't find this to be the case in my life at all. To me all the tasks that need doing need doing. And often what you're referring to as "lower priority items" form the very foundation that allows everything else to be accomplished. If anything, the "higher priority items" are the easiest to remember and need no list at all, whereas the "lower-priority items" gain the most from being written down, and there are many of them, while relatively few "high priority items". With that said, "no-list" systems, as Mark has stated, are not a memory exercise. They really seem to be about letting go of the reigns of control and instead simply letting your mind transition to a new gear.
"After I finish with the current no-list, I do the process again. Often, the things that come to mind, come out of the work that I just did—natural follow-on work to whatever I have already started. And this is great! It keeps the work moving, it's engaging, it gets things done. I think this leads to the "emergent strategy" that Mark was talking about."
I don't think I agree with this. In my previous comment I wrote that those little tasks, the "lower priority items", are the very items that benefit most from being written down. This ensures that a strategy will naturally emerge—an emergent strategy—eventually becoming a routine that is easily followed. You'll then naturally get to the "higher priority items" while still accomplishing the small but necessary work. Often I find the "highest priority items" are done once, one way, and never need doing again—or never can be done again the same way—whereas the "lower priority items", of which there are many, need doing again and again and need a natural strategy to emerge.
"Let's say there are 10 things on my mind. So I write them all down... I find my mind already getting engaged with the top 3-5 things. The lower priority items just seem to fade from importance."
I don't find this to be the case in my life at all. To me all the tasks that need doing need doing. And often what you're referring to as "lower priority items" form the very foundation that allows everything else to be accomplished. If anything, the "higher priority items" are the easiest to remember and need no list at all, whereas the "lower-priority items" gain the most from being written down, and there are many of them, while relatively few "high priority items". With that said, "no-list" systems, as Mark has stated, are not a memory exercise. They really seem to be about letting go of the reigns of control and instead simply letting your mind transition to a new gear.
"After I finish with the current no-list, I do the process again. Often, the things that come to mind, come out of the work that I just did—natural follow-on work to whatever I have already started. And this is great! It keeps the work moving, it's engaging, it gets things done. I think this leads to the "emergent strategy" that Mark was talking about."
I don't think I agree with this. In my previous comment I wrote that those little tasks, the "lower priority items", are the very items that benefit most from being written down. This ensures that a strategy will naturally emerge—an emergent strategy—eventually becoming a routine that is easily followed. You'll then naturally get to the "higher priority items" while still accomplishing the small but necessary work. Often I find the "highest priority items" are done once, one way, and never need doing again—or never can be done again the same way—whereas the "lower priority items", of which there are many, need doing again and again and need a natural strategy to emerge.
June 16, 2016 at 20:46 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Hm, I guess we think of "high priority" differently. :-)
Clearing my desk might be the number 1 priority sometimes, because if I don't clear my desk, I don't have any space to work. So sometimes it gets done first.
Clearing my email might be the number 1 priority sometimes, because if it piles up and becomes a backlog, it just slows everything else down. So sometimes it gets done first.
Often the things on my mind are maintenance items like this, or projects, or specific project tasks, or specific deadlines, or some interesting idea I happened to be thinking about when I woke up, or whatever. I dump all that onto the white board, and do a quick rough prioritization using the FVP algorithm, and erase everything but the top 3-5 items.
The FVP algorithm is really helpful for this quick prioritization. Sometimes I am surprised by what comes out on top, but it's always right.
For example -- usually that "great new idea" I just had, turns out to be a low priority -- so it doesn't get done. If it was REALLY a great new idea, it comes back. If it was NOT, then it just fades away.
Another example -- maybe my email is piling up, so I am thinking I need to clear it out right away. But when I do my brain dump, I realize I have an early meeting that needs some prep, a pressing call I need to make for an important project, and a couple quick tasks for my wife. Those all stay on the list, and email gets erased. But in the second round, maybe after the meeting, email pops into my head again -- and this time there isn't anything outranking it -- so it stays on the list.
Clearing my desk might be the number 1 priority sometimes, because if I don't clear my desk, I don't have any space to work. So sometimes it gets done first.
Clearing my email might be the number 1 priority sometimes, because if it piles up and becomes a backlog, it just slows everything else down. So sometimes it gets done first.
Often the things on my mind are maintenance items like this, or projects, or specific project tasks, or specific deadlines, or some interesting idea I happened to be thinking about when I woke up, or whatever. I dump all that onto the white board, and do a quick rough prioritization using the FVP algorithm, and erase everything but the top 3-5 items.
The FVP algorithm is really helpful for this quick prioritization. Sometimes I am surprised by what comes out on top, but it's always right.
For example -- usually that "great new idea" I just had, turns out to be a low priority -- so it doesn't get done. If it was REALLY a great new idea, it comes back. If it was NOT, then it just fades away.
Another example -- maybe my email is piling up, so I am thinking I need to clear it out right away. But when I do my brain dump, I realize I have an early meeting that needs some prep, a pressing call I need to make for an important project, and a couple quick tasks for my wife. Those all stay on the list, and email gets erased. But in the second round, maybe after the meeting, email pops into my head again -- and this time there isn't anything outranking it -- so it stays on the list.
June 17, 2016 at 0:51 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
I'm definitely with you on this!
I love to brainstorm frequently and keep a dynamic list of things I *might* do today (also on a mini whiteboard!). The key word is might - just by writing them down, I'm not committing to do them, I'm just getting them out of my head. As you say, some get done, some of them just fade away naturally, while others are saved for another day.
I think to make this system work you have to have a mindset that writing a task down doesn't commit you to do it, only to *consider* doing it.
I also agree about the repeated items, of which there has been a lot of debate about on the blog recently. I just do an item and cross it off. If I need to do it again later then I find it will come up in a later brainstorm, so doesn't need re-entering right away.
Thanks for your post!
I'm definitely with you on this!
I love to brainstorm frequently and keep a dynamic list of things I *might* do today (also on a mini whiteboard!). The key word is might - just by writing them down, I'm not committing to do them, I'm just getting them out of my head. As you say, some get done, some of them just fade away naturally, while others are saved for another day.
I think to make this system work you have to have a mindset that writing a task down doesn't commit you to do it, only to *consider* doing it.
I also agree about the repeated items, of which there has been a lot of debate about on the blog recently. I just do an item and cross it off. If I need to do it again later then I find it will come up in a later brainstorm, so doesn't need re-entering right away.
Thanks for your post!
June 17, 2016 at 6:45 |
DAZ
DAZ
Seraphim and all:
I think there is a lot in what Seraphim says (as usual). I'm currently trying to design a method that uses what he is saying but is slightly more in my style of working (I'm not really into whiteboards). If it seems to work ok, I'll post it on the blog.
I think there is a lot in what Seraphim says (as usual). I'm currently trying to design a method that uses what he is saying but is slightly more in my style of working (I'm not really into whiteboards). If it seems to work ok, I'll post it on the blog.
June 17, 2016 at 8:34 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
In my early youth I did something near that.
Each morning I droped on a sheet of paper all what is my mind. For an unknown reason I realised I had to number them from one to 10. At ten I stoped, Then I chose 3 item and made my priorities. I renumbered those 3. Began with one, then Two, Then Three. Then If something happened I added it to the list without numbering it. I realised at the end of the day that I almost did my 3 priorities but that most of the time all the rest was eliminated or undone. I also realised that I did somewhat was not numbered. The method was based on doing and acting on now events. The result was that I was almost up to date and there was no backlog. The difficulties came when I tried to make more rationality on the system. Ie adding projects, divide then liste from what I was attending, making contexts and so on...
Hope that's help
Each morning I droped on a sheet of paper all what is my mind. For an unknown reason I realised I had to number them from one to 10. At ten I stoped, Then I chose 3 item and made my priorities. I renumbered those 3. Began with one, then Two, Then Three. Then If something happened I added it to the list without numbering it. I realised at the end of the day that I almost did my 3 priorities but that most of the time all the rest was eliminated or undone. I also realised that I did somewhat was not numbered. The method was based on doing and acting on now events. The result was that I was almost up to date and there was no backlog. The difficulties came when I tried to make more rationality on the system. Ie adding projects, divide then liste from what I was attending, making contexts and so on...
Hope that's help
June 17, 2016 at 8:50 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
Seraphim: feels interesting from description. I'll try it (with workflowy instead of white board)
I'm already sort doing something similar. With only a few items on a NOW list.
I'm already sort doing something similar. With only a few items on a NOW list.
June 17, 2016 at 23:10 |
matthewS
matthewS
Seraphim:
"Hm, I guess we think of "high priority" differently. :-)"
Ah, I understand now. When I read your post initially I thought you were using "high priority" in the incorrect popular sense, as in "high impact". I imagined you were listing tasks like "Clean Office", "Write Report", and then erasing everything except tasks like, "Save the Planet", "Solve Penguin Flight Problem", etc. You were using "priority" in the correct sense, as in "what I want to do prior to everything else".
Now my highest priority is to re-read what you wrote!
"Hm, I guess we think of "high priority" differently. :-)"
Ah, I understand now. When I read your post initially I thought you were using "high priority" in the incorrect popular sense, as in "high impact". I imagined you were listing tasks like "Clean Office", "Write Report", and then erasing everything except tasks like, "Save the Planet", "Solve Penguin Flight Problem", etc. You were using "priority" in the correct sense, as in "what I want to do prior to everything else".
Now my highest priority is to re-read what you wrote!
June 18, 2016 at 2:19 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
DAZ -
<< I think to make this system work you have to have a mindset that writing a task down doesn't commit you to do it, only to *consider* doing it. >>
Actually, if I take this approach, but leave the item on the list, I find it doesn't work for me.
The fact that I wrote it down and gave it at least a moment's consideration is enough. If I don't plan to do it as one of my next 3-5 tasks, I just erase it. Otherwise it seems to masquerade as a task debt and continues to pester me -- for no good reason.
If it works for you to leave it on the list, great! :-)
<< I think to make this system work you have to have a mindset that writing a task down doesn't commit you to do it, only to *consider* doing it. >>
Actually, if I take this approach, but leave the item on the list, I find it doesn't work for me.
The fact that I wrote it down and gave it at least a moment's consideration is enough. If I don't plan to do it as one of my next 3-5 tasks, I just erase it. Otherwise it seems to masquerade as a task debt and continues to pester me -- for no good reason.
If it works for you to leave it on the list, great! :-)
June 18, 2016 at 16:06 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark Forster -
<< I'm currently trying to design a method that uses what he is saying but is slightly more in my style of working (I'm not really into whiteboards). If it seems to work ok, I'll post it on the blog. >>
Looking forward to see what you come up with!
I tried to do my method on paper, but it doesn't seem to work nearly as well. There is something about completely erasing things, and having no record of them anywhere, that helps engage my mind. But it is certainly more cumbersome than using paper & pen, and it doesn't give me a "DONE" list like a paper approach would.
<< I'm currently trying to design a method that uses what he is saying but is slightly more in my style of working (I'm not really into whiteboards). If it seems to work ok, I'll post it on the blog. >>
Looking forward to see what you come up with!
I tried to do my method on paper, but it doesn't seem to work nearly as well. There is something about completely erasing things, and having no record of them anywhere, that helps engage my mind. But it is certainly more cumbersome than using paper & pen, and it doesn't give me a "DONE" list like a paper approach would.
June 18, 2016 at 16:10 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Jupiter -
<< The difficulties came when I tried to make more rationality on the system. >>
That's funny, isn't it? Nassim Taleb writes about this quite a lot, especially in Antifragility. Sometimes by trying to come up with a "rational" method, we are really falling prey to the "narrative fallacy" -- falling into something that "should" work but really doesn't in practice. I think GTD's data model approach falls into this.
To counteract this tendency, I've been experimenting with something: just introduce randomness into my life, and see where it goes. For example, when driving around for an errand, if I have a few extra minutes, I will sometimes just take a random turn. I may lose a few minutes, but the GPS will set me straight eventually, and I will discover a new neighborhood -- maybe even a faster route that I had never even considered before -- maybe a new shop or park or something. In theory, this is making my errand-running less optimized, less efficient—but in practice, it makes it more alive, less abstract, more engaging, and leading to constant learning and improvement.
Another way to implement this is to look at almost everything as an experiment. Just try something. When I am considering how to solve a problem or get something done, it's fastest just to try the first idea that comes into my head. If it doesn't work, then I move on to the next thing. This gets things moving, helps me learn, helps me makes better choices the next time, and it's more fun. It even feels adventurous sometimes. And ultimately, it gets results much faster, and good results, too! Maybe it's not the "optimum" path, perhaps—but it would take a lot longer to find the optimum path, if such a thing even exists.
I used to consider all kinds of ideas, weighing pros and cons, before taking action. I'd do this with nearly everything—even things as simple as washing the dishes or feeding the dog. With dishes—I'd mentally ponder whether to use the right-hand sink for washing and the left-hand sink for rinsing, or vice-versa. Meanwhile the dishes just sit there. Now I just start washing and see what happens. Then try something different the next time. This gets things done faster and I find out, through practice and not through pre-conceived rational notions, what really works. It's more fun, too. In retrospect, my previous way of doing things looks ridiculous!
This is another reason why I am finding myself having no patience for algorithms (except a 10-second FVP scan to prioritize my short no-list). I am not sure that having an optimized filtering and prioritization algorithm is worth the complexity, especially now that we have no-list! :-)
I had already been playing with some of these ideas before no-list came along, but no-list has really made these ideas come alive and shown that they are extremely effective in practice.
<< The difficulties came when I tried to make more rationality on the system. >>
That's funny, isn't it? Nassim Taleb writes about this quite a lot, especially in Antifragility. Sometimes by trying to come up with a "rational" method, we are really falling prey to the "narrative fallacy" -- falling into something that "should" work but really doesn't in practice. I think GTD's data model approach falls into this.
To counteract this tendency, I've been experimenting with something: just introduce randomness into my life, and see where it goes. For example, when driving around for an errand, if I have a few extra minutes, I will sometimes just take a random turn. I may lose a few minutes, but the GPS will set me straight eventually, and I will discover a new neighborhood -- maybe even a faster route that I had never even considered before -- maybe a new shop or park or something. In theory, this is making my errand-running less optimized, less efficient—but in practice, it makes it more alive, less abstract, more engaging, and leading to constant learning and improvement.
Another way to implement this is to look at almost everything as an experiment. Just try something. When I am considering how to solve a problem or get something done, it's fastest just to try the first idea that comes into my head. If it doesn't work, then I move on to the next thing. This gets things moving, helps me learn, helps me makes better choices the next time, and it's more fun. It even feels adventurous sometimes. And ultimately, it gets results much faster, and good results, too! Maybe it's not the "optimum" path, perhaps—but it would take a lot longer to find the optimum path, if such a thing even exists.
I used to consider all kinds of ideas, weighing pros and cons, before taking action. I'd do this with nearly everything—even things as simple as washing the dishes or feeding the dog. With dishes—I'd mentally ponder whether to use the right-hand sink for washing and the left-hand sink for rinsing, or vice-versa. Meanwhile the dishes just sit there. Now I just start washing and see what happens. Then try something different the next time. This gets things done faster and I find out, through practice and not through pre-conceived rational notions, what really works. It's more fun, too. In retrospect, my previous way of doing things looks ridiculous!
This is another reason why I am finding myself having no patience for algorithms (except a 10-second FVP scan to prioritize my short no-list). I am not sure that having an optimized filtering and prioritization algorithm is worth the complexity, especially now that we have no-list! :-)
I had already been playing with some of these ideas before no-list came along, but no-list has really made these ideas come alive and shown that they are extremely effective in practice.
June 18, 2016 at 16:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
matthewS and Michael B. -- let us know how it works out for you!
June 18, 2016 at 16:32 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< Looking forward to see what you come up with! >>
My first attempt was a complete failure - so you may be waiting for a bit yet!
<< Looking forward to see what you come up with! >>
My first attempt was a complete failure - so you may be waiting for a bit yet!
June 18, 2016 at 17:09 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< when driving around for an errand, if I have a few extra minutes, I will sometimes just take a random turn. I may lose a few minutes, but the GPS will set me straight eventually, >>
I do this a lot both with a car and walking. For me one of the major advantages of GPS is that it means I can deliberately get lost - without having to worry about how to get home.
<< when driving around for an errand, if I have a few extra minutes, I will sometimes just take a random turn. I may lose a few minutes, but the GPS will set me straight eventually, >>
I do this a lot both with a car and walking. For me one of the major advantages of GPS is that it means I can deliberately get lost - without having to worry about how to get home.
June 18, 2016 at 17:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< just introduce randomness into my life, and see where it goes. For example, >>
Of course there's always the old Diceman method. Write six tasks down and then throw a die to choose between them. The tasks should range between the sensible and the outrageous and the odds can be adjusted if you wish by giving, say, one task 3 chances, another 2 and a third 1.
The only rule is that you should never write a task down that you're not prepared to do.
<< just introduce randomness into my life, and see where it goes. For example, >>
Of course there's always the old Diceman method. Write six tasks down and then throw a die to choose between them. The tasks should range between the sensible and the outrageous and the odds can be adjusted if you wish by giving, say, one task 3 chances, another 2 and a third 1.
The only rule is that you should never write a task down that you're not prepared to do.
June 18, 2016 at 17:17 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I had fun with this method today. I like how it differentiates between what you really want to do and saying no to the rest for now.
Actually I started by making a list of 3 quick tasks I wanted to do first and did those.
Next I brainstormed 10 items, used FVP to convert it into a top 3 list, drew a big X over the list of 10 (since I was using paper and not a whiteboard) and worked the list of 3. I did several sets like this.
But I also spent most of my time not working the list at all today. I suppose I could always resolve not to work outside the list (which applies to any method).
Actually I started by making a list of 3 quick tasks I wanted to do first and did those.
Next I brainstormed 10 items, used FVP to convert it into a top 3 list, drew a big X over the list of 10 (since I was using paper and not a whiteboard) and worked the list of 3. I did several sets like this.
But I also spent most of my time not working the list at all today. I suppose I could always resolve not to work outside the list (which applies to any method).
June 19, 2016 at 5:53 |
Don R
Don R
Sorry for 3 quick posts in a row, but: something I thought about right away when using this method is it reminds me of Mark's suggestion for being creative from his latest book, which is to start with a new piece of paper each day and write a list of ideas related to the question you are pondering. When you generate your list from scratch each time (several times a day for Seraphim's whiteboard method) you are being creative related to the topic of what to work on, so you probably come up with a better choice than you would otherwise.
That also reminds me of a post I ran across the other day about generating lots of ideas and then narrowing it down into fewer options. https://nickbentleygames.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/the-100-10-1-method-for-game-design/ Specifically it is generating 100 board game ideas, choosing 10 to prototype, and then 1 to turn into a finished product. So the timeline is vastly different but I think the principle that applies is you would come up with a better idea by generating more options up front than you actually choose to do.
That also reminds me of a post I ran across the other day about generating lots of ideas and then narrowing it down into fewer options. https://nickbentleygames.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/the-100-10-1-method-for-game-design/ Specifically it is generating 100 board game ideas, choosing 10 to prototype, and then 1 to turn into a finished product. So the timeline is vastly different but I think the principle that applies is you would come up with a better idea by generating more options up front than you actually choose to do.
June 19, 2016 at 6:13 |
Don R
Don R
Seraphim:
<<
<< I think to make this system work you have to have a mindset that writing a task down doesn't commit you to do it, only to *consider* doing it. >>
Actually, if I take this approach, but leave the item on the list, I find it doesn't work for me. >>
I only meant that in the brainstorming phase people need to be prepared to write *anything* down ... there seems to be a lot of resistance to writing things down on a 'list' because it causes some sort of commitment.
<<
<< I think to make this system work you have to have a mindset that writing a task down doesn't commit you to do it, only to *consider* doing it. >>
Actually, if I take this approach, but leave the item on the list, I find it doesn't work for me. >>
I only meant that in the brainstorming phase people need to be prepared to write *anything* down ... there seems to be a lot of resistance to writing things down on a 'list' because it causes some sort of commitment.
June 19, 2016 at 13:41 |
DAZ
DAZ
I've not been able to make Seraphim's method above work for me. But what I have found works well is a similar method I suggested months ago, which Seraphim tried for a bit and I think developed his present method from. That is to write down five tasks, select one and do it. Then write down another list of five tasks without referring to the previous list and again select one and do it. And so on. This works brilliantly, but unfortunately involves a lot of writing and a lot of paper. I haven't been able to think of a way to shorten the procedure.
June 19, 2016 at 13:59 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Don R wrote:
<< But I also spent most of my time not working the list at all today. >>
With this method, I do find myself going "off list" more often than with other methods. At first I thought this was a problem, but now I've come to think maybe it's a feature, not a bug. :-)
Usually it happens because I am just "following the work", and there isn't any real need to write it down. This method creates a lot of momentum, which makes it easy to just keep plowing through more and more work, breaking down resistance. If the work is going in the right direction, then what's the problem? I'd actually LIKE to get to a point where I can get momentum and flow and results, without any particular TM system at all. No-list seems to be getting closer to that state than any other method I've tried.
It is true that this can sometimes devolve into a tendency to wander. If I find that happening, I try to take a quick break (get away from my desk for a few minutes, or from whatever I've wandered into), then come back directly to my whiteboard and start the brainstorming process again. That usually gets me right back on track.
<< I suppose I could always resolve not to work outside the list (which applies to any method). >>
I'm not sure it's really necessary unless you find yourself wandering.
<< But I also spent most of my time not working the list at all today. >>
With this method, I do find myself going "off list" more often than with other methods. At first I thought this was a problem, but now I've come to think maybe it's a feature, not a bug. :-)
Usually it happens because I am just "following the work", and there isn't any real need to write it down. This method creates a lot of momentum, which makes it easy to just keep plowing through more and more work, breaking down resistance. If the work is going in the right direction, then what's the problem? I'd actually LIKE to get to a point where I can get momentum and flow and results, without any particular TM system at all. No-list seems to be getting closer to that state than any other method I've tried.
It is true that this can sometimes devolve into a tendency to wander. If I find that happening, I try to take a quick break (get away from my desk for a few minutes, or from whatever I've wandered into), then come back directly to my whiteboard and start the brainstorming process again. That usually gets me right back on track.
<< I suppose I could always resolve not to work outside the list (which applies to any method). >>
I'm not sure it's really necessary unless you find yourself wandering.
June 19, 2016 at 16:04 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark Forster wrote:
<< Of course there's always the old Diceman method. Write six tasks down and then throw a die to choose between them. >>
Yes, this approach can be fun and helpful—your Randomizer approach was amazing at how resistance would just disappear.
But I actually had something else in mind—I've been trying not to think too hard whether I've got the right task—I think of the task itself more as an experiment—in contrast to << you should never write a task down that you're not prepared to do >>, which almost seems to make it a prerequisite that you've thought very carefully about what tasks to put on that list of six.
In other words, I am not sure I have the right task—but I go with it anyway. The results are often surprising—both positive surprises, where things work out much better than I would have expected; and negative surprises, where things that looked like an easy success turned out not to work well at all. If I am just trying it for a short time, it's very low risk, and I can quickly change if things don't work out.
Hmm, maybe sometime, just for fun, I should try doing my little brainstorm routine, then choose the top 3 tasks based on three rolls of the dice, rather than using the FVP algorithm. :-)
<< Of course there's always the old Diceman method. Write six tasks down and then throw a die to choose between them. >>
Yes, this approach can be fun and helpful—your Randomizer approach was amazing at how resistance would just disappear.
But I actually had something else in mind—I've been trying not to think too hard whether I've got the right task—I think of the task itself more as an experiment—in contrast to << you should never write a task down that you're not prepared to do >>, which almost seems to make it a prerequisite that you've thought very carefully about what tasks to put on that list of six.
In other words, I am not sure I have the right task—but I go with it anyway. The results are often surprising—both positive surprises, where things work out much better than I would have expected; and negative surprises, where things that looked like an easy success turned out not to work well at all. If I am just trying it for a short time, it's very low risk, and I can quickly change if things don't work out.
Hmm, maybe sometime, just for fun, I should try doing my little brainstorm routine, then choose the top 3 tasks based on three rolls of the dice, rather than using the FVP algorithm. :-)
June 19, 2016 at 16:26 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark Forster wrote:
<< what I have found works well is a similar method I suggested months ago, which Seraphim tried for a bit and I think developed his present method from. That is to write down five tasks, select one and do it. Then write down another list of five tasks without referring to the previous list and again select one and do it. And so on >>
Yes, I did try that; we discussed it briefly a few threads back.
Erasing all but one task does't work so well when I write down several short items, erase all but one, spend 3 minutes doing that one item, then repeat the whole process—it's just too much writing and erasing. So when I am doing this erase-all-but-one approach, I tend to treat a bunch of small items as a "batch", and just get them all done at once.
Once I get ready to start a task that's going to take me some time and creativity/concentration, I'm probably going to want to start from scratch anyway once I am finished with that task. So at that point, I do consider erasing everything else.
If I find myself NOT wanting to erase everything else, then there's probably a reason for that. Maybe several of these other items are pressing—and if I allow myself to get too absorbed in one hard creative task, the other items will get neglected, and that can be a problem. This might prompt me to set a time limit on the creative work—maybe give it a pomodoro and then come back to the no-list. Or it might prompt me to restart my FVP selection altogether, and do some of those other, pressing tasks first, so I can be free to get absorbed into the deep work.
<< This works brilliantly, but unfortunately involves a lot of writing and a lot of paper. I haven't been able to think of a way to shorten the procedure. >>
The procedure does get shorter when you limit this strategy only to when most of the routine stuff is out of the way. Or to do the shorter things in a batch.
Another way to do it, is to use stickies, or scraps of paper, instead of a notebook.
<< what I have found works well is a similar method I suggested months ago, which Seraphim tried for a bit and I think developed his present method from. That is to write down five tasks, select one and do it. Then write down another list of five tasks without referring to the previous list and again select one and do it. And so on >>
Yes, I did try that; we discussed it briefly a few threads back.
Erasing all but one task does't work so well when I write down several short items, erase all but one, spend 3 minutes doing that one item, then repeat the whole process—it's just too much writing and erasing. So when I am doing this erase-all-but-one approach, I tend to treat a bunch of small items as a "batch", and just get them all done at once.
Once I get ready to start a task that's going to take me some time and creativity/concentration, I'm probably going to want to start from scratch anyway once I am finished with that task. So at that point, I do consider erasing everything else.
If I find myself NOT wanting to erase everything else, then there's probably a reason for that. Maybe several of these other items are pressing—and if I allow myself to get too absorbed in one hard creative task, the other items will get neglected, and that can be a problem. This might prompt me to set a time limit on the creative work—maybe give it a pomodoro and then come back to the no-list. Or it might prompt me to restart my FVP selection altogether, and do some of those other, pressing tasks first, so I can be free to get absorbed into the deep work.
<< This works brilliantly, but unfortunately involves a lot of writing and a lot of paper. I haven't been able to think of a way to shorten the procedure. >>
The procedure does get shorter when you limit this strategy only to when most of the routine stuff is out of the way. Or to do the shorter things in a batch.
Another way to do it, is to use stickies, or scraps of paper, instead of a notebook.
June 19, 2016 at 16:49 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
DAZ wrote:
<< I only meant that in the brainstorming phase people need to be prepared to write *anything* down ... there seems to be a lot of resistance to writing things down on a 'list' because it causes some sort of commitment. >>
Yes, I agree with that! Using a whiteboard or scraps of paper instead of a notebook can somehow make it easier to do this. Especially if it's a NICE notebook like a Moleskine or something.
I don't think this method is well-suited for a notebook, unless it's a cheap scrappy kind of notebook and you don't mind having a lot of mostly-empty pages, lots of things not started or crossed out, lots of things being ignored. This process has you saying NO to almost everything. Having a record of it on a page is a problem for me, because I keep thinking I need to review it for any "good ideas" or "things to remember". Erasing it / throwing it away completely prevents that distraction / temptation.
<< I only meant that in the brainstorming phase people need to be prepared to write *anything* down ... there seems to be a lot of resistance to writing things down on a 'list' because it causes some sort of commitment. >>
Yes, I agree with that! Using a whiteboard or scraps of paper instead of a notebook can somehow make it easier to do this. Especially if it's a NICE notebook like a Moleskine or something.
I don't think this method is well-suited for a notebook, unless it's a cheap scrappy kind of notebook and you don't mind having a lot of mostly-empty pages, lots of things not started or crossed out, lots of things being ignored. This process has you saying NO to almost everything. Having a record of it on a page is a problem for me, because I keep thinking I need to review it for any "good ideas" or "things to remember". Erasing it / throwing it away completely prevents that distraction / temptation.
June 19, 2016 at 16:59 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Don R wrote:
<< I like how it differentiates between what you really want to do and saying no to the rest for now. >>
Yes, I am beginning to realize this is one of the real strengths of this method. It has you saying NO to almost everything.
A catch-all list has you initially saying MAYBE to almost everything, and slowly converting the MAYBEs into YESes, and slowly turning some of them into NOs. Even with such excellent systems like AF1, it can be really difficult to get oneself to accept the NO decision implicit with "dismissal"—I know I was not alone in feeling very uncomfortable when it came time to dismiss a page.
Why is it so easy and engaging to say NO with no-list, but so hard with catch-all? I think I'll start another thread for that. :-)
<< I like how it differentiates between what you really want to do and saying no to the rest for now. >>
Yes, I am beginning to realize this is one of the real strengths of this method. It has you saying NO to almost everything.
A catch-all list has you initially saying MAYBE to almost everything, and slowly converting the MAYBEs into YESes, and slowly turning some of them into NOs. Even with such excellent systems like AF1, it can be really difficult to get oneself to accept the NO decision implicit with "dismissal"—I know I was not alone in feeling very uncomfortable when it came time to dismiss a page.
Why is it so easy and engaging to say NO with no-list, but so hard with catch-all? I think I'll start another thread for that. :-)
June 19, 2016 at 17:08 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
So I am back to doing my brainstorm-and-do-it no-list method:
1. Write down everything on my mind on a little whiteboard.
2. If necessary, erase everything except the top 3-5 things.
3. Do each item.
4. Erase and start over at any time, if the list feels stale or just doesn't seem right.
5. Repeat from (1.)
One reason the May 9th version didn't seem to work, is because I don't normally repeat each item. I just do as much work as I want on the item, then delete the item. This usually means I am done for the day with that item -- unless I happen to re-enter it later. So, all the rules about re-entering and rewriting just seemed like unnecessary complexity. I never could get the feel for how those rules would improve the flow of work.
Another reason it didn't seem to work is that it would start to feel like a mini catch-all list -- several items I was "forced" to consider and do or delete -- rather than simply staying engaged with the work and going with the natural flow of it.
If May 9th works for you, great!!
I'd be interested in hearing peoples' thoughts either way! And especially, I am really interested in the dynamics of how this works and why it is so engaging.