Discussion Forum > Why do we feel so comfortable with list.
I don't claim to have a real answer, and especially about lists in general. But for me, the initial attraction to GTD was the beauty of a well-conceived data model. :-)
The idea of tasks being valid in different contexts, and belonging to specific projects, and how that should all be organized -- when presented this way, this is essentially a data modeling question, with associated data processing routines. And GTD approaches it this way. When David Allen says this is "just enough complexity", it seems to me he is saying they got the data model just perfect. And at first, I agreed with him. It just felt like a simple solution to a complex math problem. e^(pi*i)+1=0 <<< real beauty, that. :-)
It even has an "exception handling process" (the someday/maybe list), which every good data model and data process needs to have.
I think this is why so many "geeks" find GTD so appealing. It just feels so right. It is so easy to build apps around it. The fact that so many people say they bought a label-maker and started a new file system after reading GTD, may be more evidence that the organizational beauty of the system is what draws a lot of people to it.
The problem is that it doesn't put enough emphasis on actually taking action. It gets it all nicely organized but you still have to find the motivation to get things moving—hence, the "falling off the wagon" problem. The system addresses the organizational reasons why people feel overwhelmed and disorganized, but not the psychological reasons. For that, you need a very different approach—just coming up with the right data model isn't enough. In fact, it might not be the right data model at all!
The idea of tasks being valid in different contexts, and belonging to specific projects, and how that should all be organized -- when presented this way, this is essentially a data modeling question, with associated data processing routines. And GTD approaches it this way. When David Allen says this is "just enough complexity", it seems to me he is saying they got the data model just perfect. And at first, I agreed with him. It just felt like a simple solution to a complex math problem. e^(pi*i)+1=0 <<< real beauty, that. :-)
It even has an "exception handling process" (the someday/maybe list), which every good data model and data process needs to have.
I think this is why so many "geeks" find GTD so appealing. It just feels so right. It is so easy to build apps around it. The fact that so many people say they bought a label-maker and started a new file system after reading GTD, may be more evidence that the organizational beauty of the system is what draws a lot of people to it.
The problem is that it doesn't put enough emphasis on actually taking action. It gets it all nicely organized but you still have to find the motivation to get things moving—hence, the "falling off the wagon" problem. The system addresses the organizational reasons why people feel overwhelmed and disorganized, but not the psychological reasons. For that, you need a very different approach—just coming up with the right data model isn't enough. In fact, it might not be the right data model at all!
June 17, 2016 at 19:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Thinking about this topic some more...
Several times, Mark and the forum participants here have put together simple criteria for a successful time-management system. For the longest time, "catch all" was basically one of those criteria, usually in the form of "single place to write everything down" or something like that.
There is a sense of comfort in having everything written down. David Allen often talks about the sense of calm that comes from having transferred everything out of one's head into a "trusted system".
There is also a sense of simplicity in having a single place to capture everything.
But the comfort and simplicity hide many dangers that are continually brewing under the surface, such as resistance, growing task debt, overwhelm, disengaging from the work that is right in front of you in favor of a list of older ideas and concerns, treating life like an inbox, etc.
Several times, Mark and the forum participants here have put together simple criteria for a successful time-management system. For the longest time, "catch all" was basically one of those criteria, usually in the form of "single place to write everything down" or something like that.
There is a sense of comfort in having everything written down. David Allen often talks about the sense of calm that comes from having transferred everything out of one's head into a "trusted system".
There is also a sense of simplicity in having a single place to capture everything.
But the comfort and simplicity hide many dangers that are continually brewing under the surface, such as resistance, growing task debt, overwhelm, disengaging from the work that is right in front of you in favor of a list of older ideas and concerns, treating life like an inbox, etc.
June 19, 2016 at 19:28 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
@Seraphim Happy reading yours 2 posts. Thanks. I feel less alone ;-)
Anyway, since a few days I tested 2 crm. One is insightly the other is NIMBLE more about social networks, a little bit more complicated but very very efficient.
Treating tasks the basic idea is that they are relative to people or/ and opportunities and are planned day by day by start date. I use it because of the numbers of element I need about a projet or a person. I also like it because I can plan with NIMBLE the following of a target and follow her little by little.
It doesnt solve the question of list but it helps to stay on the flow.
Now said, I notice, reading all what I done and did these past monthes that even if I notes many things I only did really 5 or 10% of it. That's said I have the feeling on un achievement. But carefully lookin at the list I realised I did the best of it.
I think that the real question is not doing or not doing. Noting or not noting. The real question is how do you feel about your list, Even if it was un necessary to do it, even if it was ouside the box did you really do what you had to do. I mean really. The things which were necessary to make things advance.
I really think that the real target is the one you achieve. Lost or win. Better it it won !
Anyway, since a few days I tested 2 crm. One is insightly the other is NIMBLE more about social networks, a little bit more complicated but very very efficient.
Treating tasks the basic idea is that they are relative to people or/ and opportunities and are planned day by day by start date. I use it because of the numbers of element I need about a projet or a person. I also like it because I can plan with NIMBLE the following of a target and follow her little by little.
It doesnt solve the question of list but it helps to stay on the flow.
Now said, I notice, reading all what I done and did these past monthes that even if I notes many things I only did really 5 or 10% of it. That's said I have the feeling on un achievement. But carefully lookin at the list I realised I did the best of it.
I think that the real question is not doing or not doing. Noting or not noting. The real question is how do you feel about your list, Even if it was un necessary to do it, even if it was ouside the box did you really do what you had to do. I mean really. The things which were necessary to make things advance.
I really think that the real target is the one you achieve. Lost or win. Better it it won !
June 20, 2016 at 14:11 |
Jupiter
Jupiter
>But the comfort and simplicity [of having everything written in the system] hide many dangers that are continually brewing under the surface, such as resistance, growing task debt, overwhelm, disengaging from the work that is right in front of you in favor of a list of older ideas and concerns, treating life like an inbox, etc.
I don't agree with how you characterize the problems. Resistance is something that always exists, but is unveiled by operating a system. Task debt is something you might create, but is not inherent. Overwhelm is something I find mitigated by use of a good system, not generated. Disengagement from current work for trivialities is real, and in other contexts is called procrastination. If following the rules contributes to procrastination, then this is a cause for reexamination of what's going on.
Treating life like an inbox - okay I acknowledge that one. There is definitely a feeling of rote operation when working off of a physical list. It's the one thing that causes me trouble and leads me to drop the list when it's otherwise helpful.
But on the whole I believe that an appropriately simple system is like doing math on paper vs. doing it in your head. If you can do it in your head, that's great. But in general you can handle more and better if you simply write things down.
I don't agree with how you characterize the problems. Resistance is something that always exists, but is unveiled by operating a system. Task debt is something you might create, but is not inherent. Overwhelm is something I find mitigated by use of a good system, not generated. Disengagement from current work for trivialities is real, and in other contexts is called procrastination. If following the rules contributes to procrastination, then this is a cause for reexamination of what's going on.
Treating life like an inbox - okay I acknowledge that one. There is definitely a feeling of rote operation when working off of a physical list. It's the one thing that causes me trouble and leads me to drop the list when it's otherwise helpful.
But on the whole I believe that an appropriately simple system is like doing math on paper vs. doing it in your head. If you can do it in your head, that's great. But in general you can handle more and better if you simply write things down.
June 20, 2016 at 20:50 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
About "Treating life like an inbox", musing here: I suppose the solution is simply to make it a part-time thing. I suspect if you follow a system regularly, yet not constantly, you won't fail to do the important things.
June 22, 2016 at 4:40 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu:
<< But on the whole I believe that an appropriately simple system is like doing math on paper vs. doing it in your head. If you can do it in your head, that's great. But in general you can handle more and better if you simply write things down. >>
I'm not sure about that simile, because of course in no-list you _do_ write things down. One at a time. It's like doing each maths problem as it comes up as opposed to saving up all your maths problems by writing them down without doing them at the time.
<< But on the whole I believe that an appropriately simple system is like doing math on paper vs. doing it in your head. If you can do it in your head, that's great. But in general you can handle more and better if you simply write things down. >>
I'm not sure about that simile, because of course in no-list you _do_ write things down. One at a time. It's like doing each maths problem as it comes up as opposed to saving up all your maths problems by writing them down without doing them at the time.
June 22, 2016 at 8:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Unless I misunderstand things, figuring out what you will do next is done in your head, and then you write that down. This I contrast with AutoFocus where the decision is made while looking at a list on paper.
June 23, 2016 at 3:10 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu wrote:
<< Resistance is something that always exists, but is unveiled by operating a system. >>
I think catch-all systems can cause resistance to linger, undetected, until you are forced to deal with it—for example, in AF1, by being prompted to dismiss a page. Until you get to that point, the resistance can remain hidden.
With no-list, Mark still recommends you use some kind of reminder system, and a list of projects. Those both tend to be rather short, making them easy to review frequently. If I am resisting something, it becomes clear right away.
<< Task debt is something you might create, but is not inherent. >>
Actually, I think it *is* inherent in a catch-all list. I collect all these "maybes" together with "must-dos" in an undifferentiated list of task debt. The debt might be only to review the maybes and make a decision. But it's still debt, and it piles up.
Perhaps we are using "task debt" to mean something different. I am using it to mean, the totality of my obligations that requires thinking or action or decisions—all the stuff I need to *do* something about.
I don't think task debt can be completely eliminated. But it can be kept small and focused. Catch-all lists, by their very nature, make it too easy to collect all these things and defer the decision-making. No-list makes it easier to say NO immediately and keep the list small.
<< Overwhelm is something I find mitigated by use of a good system, not generated. >>
If I am in an overwhelming situation, writing everything down can help me see it all laid out in front of me, think about it more clearly, and decide what to do. But I can do this very effectively with no-list. Even with entry-on-action-only methods, I can write down "get everything out of my head!" and then pour everything onto a Dynamic List and deal with it. The difference is that, after I've dealt with it, I *throw the list away*. It never has a chance to turn into debt and create more overwhelm.
If I take this tactical approach of writing things down to get on top of a situation, but then turn it into a general system, and catch EVERYTHING in my system by writing it down, I think it does start to exacerbate the problem. It's exacerbated because it piles up task-debt which eventually creates overwhelm. It's too easy to start things and not get them completed. Eventually this leads to little tiny bits of progress on lots and lots of different things—but not enough stuff getting COMPLETED. No-list does a much better job of limiting WIP and thus driving things to completion without overwhelm.
<< Disengagement from current work for trivialities is real, and in other contexts is called procrastination. >>
I didn't say disengagement from current work for trivialities—I said disengagement from current work in favor of older ideas and concerns. I think catch-all creates too much looking backwards, and not enough engagement with the current reality. Getting distracted with trivialities is a different problem.
<< But on the whole I believe that an appropriately simple system is like doing math on paper vs. doing it in your head. If you can do it in your head, that's great. But in general you can handle more and better if you simply write things down. >>
As Mark already replied, the problem isn't writing things down—the problem is in writing down EVERYTHING and then keeping it on the list while it awaits a decision or action.
<< Resistance is something that always exists, but is unveiled by operating a system. >>
I think catch-all systems can cause resistance to linger, undetected, until you are forced to deal with it—for example, in AF1, by being prompted to dismiss a page. Until you get to that point, the resistance can remain hidden.
With no-list, Mark still recommends you use some kind of reminder system, and a list of projects. Those both tend to be rather short, making them easy to review frequently. If I am resisting something, it becomes clear right away.
<< Task debt is something you might create, but is not inherent. >>
Actually, I think it *is* inherent in a catch-all list. I collect all these "maybes" together with "must-dos" in an undifferentiated list of task debt. The debt might be only to review the maybes and make a decision. But it's still debt, and it piles up.
Perhaps we are using "task debt" to mean something different. I am using it to mean, the totality of my obligations that requires thinking or action or decisions—all the stuff I need to *do* something about.
I don't think task debt can be completely eliminated. But it can be kept small and focused. Catch-all lists, by their very nature, make it too easy to collect all these things and defer the decision-making. No-list makes it easier to say NO immediately and keep the list small.
<< Overwhelm is something I find mitigated by use of a good system, not generated. >>
If I am in an overwhelming situation, writing everything down can help me see it all laid out in front of me, think about it more clearly, and decide what to do. But I can do this very effectively with no-list. Even with entry-on-action-only methods, I can write down "get everything out of my head!" and then pour everything onto a Dynamic List and deal with it. The difference is that, after I've dealt with it, I *throw the list away*. It never has a chance to turn into debt and create more overwhelm.
If I take this tactical approach of writing things down to get on top of a situation, but then turn it into a general system, and catch EVERYTHING in my system by writing it down, I think it does start to exacerbate the problem. It's exacerbated because it piles up task-debt which eventually creates overwhelm. It's too easy to start things and not get them completed. Eventually this leads to little tiny bits of progress on lots and lots of different things—but not enough stuff getting COMPLETED. No-list does a much better job of limiting WIP and thus driving things to completion without overwhelm.
<< Disengagement from current work for trivialities is real, and in other contexts is called procrastination. >>
I didn't say disengagement from current work for trivialities—I said disengagement from current work in favor of older ideas and concerns. I think catch-all creates too much looking backwards, and not enough engagement with the current reality. Getting distracted with trivialities is a different problem.
<< But on the whole I believe that an appropriately simple system is like doing math on paper vs. doing it in your head. If you can do it in your head, that's great. But in general you can handle more and better if you simply write things down. >>
As Mark already replied, the problem isn't writing things down—the problem is in writing down EVERYTHING and then keeping it on the list while it awaits a decision or action.
June 25, 2016 at 18:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan Baljeu wrote:
<< Unless I misunderstand things, figuring out what you will do next is done in your head, and then you write that down. This I contrast with AutoFocus where the decision is made while looking at a list on paper. >>
It doesn't ALL need to be done in one's head. With my own no-list method, I do write down everything on my mind -- but then I choose the top 3-5 items, erase everything else, and get started. The difference is that I am only working with the current work that my mind is already engaged with, rather than reviewing a list of concerns from days past. It's also a SHORT list, especially compared to AF, which can grow to scores or hundreds of items.
With Mark's write-each-item-when-you-start approach, you can still get everything out of your head and write it down on a side list if needed—but again, the trick is to throw it away when you are done—by end of day at the latest.
<< Unless I misunderstand things, figuring out what you will do next is done in your head, and then you write that down. This I contrast with AutoFocus where the decision is made while looking at a list on paper. >>
It doesn't ALL need to be done in one's head. With my own no-list method, I do write down everything on my mind -- but then I choose the top 3-5 items, erase everything else, and get started. The difference is that I am only working with the current work that my mind is already engaged with, rather than reviewing a list of concerns from days past. It's also a SHORT list, especially compared to AF, which can grow to scores or hundreds of items.
With Mark's write-each-item-when-you-start approach, you can still get everything out of your head and write it down on a side list if needed—but again, the trick is to throw it away when you are done—by end of day at the latest.
June 25, 2016 at 18:37 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan Baljeu:
<< Unless I misunderstand things, figuring out what you will do next is done in your head, and then you write that down. This I contrast with AutoFocus where the decision is made while looking at a list on paper. >>
In No-List you follow this sequence:
1. Decide task
2. Write it down.
3. Do it.
Doing a maths problem in your head follows this sequence
1. Identify problem
2. Solve it
3. Write the answer down
The equivalent in doing tasks would be:
1. Select task.
2. Do it.
3. Write it down.
I have in fact experimented with writing down the task after doing it instead of before doing it. It's more difficult doing it that way because it's much easier to get distracted. Much like mental arithmetic in fact.
<< Unless I misunderstand things, figuring out what you will do next is done in your head, and then you write that down. This I contrast with AutoFocus where the decision is made while looking at a list on paper. >>
In No-List you follow this sequence:
1. Decide task
2. Write it down.
3. Do it.
Doing a maths problem in your head follows this sequence
1. Identify problem
2. Solve it
3. Write the answer down
The equivalent in doing tasks would be:
1. Select task.
2. Do it.
3. Write it down.
I have in fact experimented with writing down the task after doing it instead of before doing it. It's more difficult doing it that way because it's much easier to get distracted. Much like mental arithmetic in fact.
June 25, 2016 at 21:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< With Mark's write-each-item-when-you-start approach, you can still get everything out of your head and write it down on a side list if needed—but again, the trick is to throw it away when you are done—by end of day at the latest. >>
You certainly can - but it's not what I recommend. The whole point of no-list methods is to build up routines which then form a strong basis from which you can improvise. A routine needs to be internalised, so selecting from a list gets in the way of this process.
I don't know if this is a helpful simile but to my mind it's like two different methods of language learning. In one you learn lots of isolated words, i.e. cat, house, cover, write, book, cup, lift, run, clock and then fit them together according to grammar rules which you've also learned. This is like selecting tasks off a list.
In the other method you only learn words in the context of sentences. This is how a child learns, and even with adults is a much quicker way to learn and makes you fluent much sooner. In fact years of study using the first method can leave you unable to conduct a conversation. The second method is more like no-list. You are learning "sentences" which you can then manipulate to produce the "meaning" you want.
<< With Mark's write-each-item-when-you-start approach, you can still get everything out of your head and write it down on a side list if needed—but again, the trick is to throw it away when you are done—by end of day at the latest. >>
You certainly can - but it's not what I recommend. The whole point of no-list methods is to build up routines which then form a strong basis from which you can improvise. A routine needs to be internalised, so selecting from a list gets in the way of this process.
I don't know if this is a helpful simile but to my mind it's like two different methods of language learning. In one you learn lots of isolated words, i.e. cat, house, cover, write, book, cup, lift, run, clock and then fit them together according to grammar rules which you've also learned. This is like selecting tasks off a list.
In the other method you only learn words in the context of sentences. This is how a child learns, and even with adults is a much quicker way to learn and makes you fluent much sooner. In fact years of study using the first method can leave you unable to conduct a conversation. The second method is more like no-list. You are learning "sentences" which you can then manipulate to produce the "meaning" you want.
June 25, 2016 at 21:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<<In No-List you follow this sequence:
1. Decide task
2. Write it down.
3. Do it.
Doing a maths problem in your head follows this sequence
1. Identify problem
2. Solve it
3. Write the answer down
>>
I understand this distinction, and I get the benefit of writing down your next task before you start, but I'm not comparing "Do it" to "Solve it". Understand I'm not talking about arithmetic where you just go through the steps. Rather I'm talking about something more intricate whose steps are not known in advance.
Thus I'm comparing "Decide Task" to "Solve it". Just as you don't know all your tasks at the outset, you don't know exactly how you will solve a problem at the outset. These are the mental challenges of each, and I repeat, "Decide task" is easier with the tasks written to choose from, just as "Solve it" is easier if you write down the parts of the problem to work on.
Perhaps your experience is different, but to me there's no question.
To Seraphim you wrote:
<<The whole point of no-list methods is to build up routines which then form a strong basis from which you can improvise. A routine needs to be internalised, so selecting from a list gets in the way of this process.>>
Food for thought, and not something I had considered before about the no-list scheme. To the extent you do this, you are metaphorically reducing complex math problems to arithmetic. In the context of routine activity I can absolutely do the deciding in my head.
I just don't have enough routine for this to account for much of my life.
1. Decide task
2. Write it down.
3. Do it.
Doing a maths problem in your head follows this sequence
1. Identify problem
2. Solve it
3. Write the answer down
>>
I understand this distinction, and I get the benefit of writing down your next task before you start, but I'm not comparing "Do it" to "Solve it". Understand I'm not talking about arithmetic where you just go through the steps. Rather I'm talking about something more intricate whose steps are not known in advance.
Thus I'm comparing "Decide Task" to "Solve it". Just as you don't know all your tasks at the outset, you don't know exactly how you will solve a problem at the outset. These are the mental challenges of each, and I repeat, "Decide task" is easier with the tasks written to choose from, just as "Solve it" is easier if you write down the parts of the problem to work on.
Perhaps your experience is different, but to me there's no question.
To Seraphim you wrote:
<<The whole point of no-list methods is to build up routines which then form a strong basis from which you can improvise. A routine needs to be internalised, so selecting from a list gets in the way of this process.>>
Food for thought, and not something I had considered before about the no-list scheme. To the extent you do this, you are metaphorically reducing complex math problems to arithmetic. In the context of routine activity I can absolutely do the deciding in my head.
I just don't have enough routine for this to account for much of my life.
June 26, 2016 at 5:33 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu:
<< I just don't have enough routine for this to account for much of my life. >>
I don't know anything about your life and work, but I've never met a work or life situation yet that wouldn't be improved by being routinized.
For example:
Housework
Bringing up children
Teaching
Marketing
Writing
Fitness
Learning anything
Singing
Painting
Therapy
Running a country
Reading
Client records
Public relations
Publishing a monthly magazine
Ice skating
Anything military
Flying a plane
Playing a musical instrument
Researching
Police work
Medical
Auditioning
Maintaining friendships and relationships
Running a shop or restaurant
Manufacturing
Design and testing
I could go on for ever. In all of these your success will be highly dependent on how good your routines are. There are other important factors of course, but it's basically the routines that make the difference between success and failure.
<< I just don't have enough routine for this to account for much of my life. >>
I don't know anything about your life and work, but I've never met a work or life situation yet that wouldn't be improved by being routinized.
For example:
Housework
Bringing up children
Teaching
Marketing
Writing
Fitness
Learning anything
Singing
Painting
Therapy
Running a country
Reading
Client records
Public relations
Publishing a monthly magazine
Ice skating
Anything military
Flying a plane
Playing a musical instrument
Researching
Police work
Medical
Auditioning
Maintaining friendships and relationships
Running a shop or restaurant
Manufacturing
Design and testing
I could go on for ever. In all of these your success will be highly dependent on how good your routines are. There are other important factors of course, but it's basically the routines that make the difference between success and failure.
June 26, 2016 at 7:51 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster wrote:
<< The whole point of no-list methods is to build up routines which then form a strong basis from which you can improvise. A routine needs to be internalised, so selecting from a list gets in the way of this process. >>
Could you write more about this, or perhaps give an example? I've found this to be true myself, when working my no-list method: I start to see patterns emerging, from which I can derive routines, habits, or checklists.
For example, it helped me establish a better wake-up routine; a better start-work routine; and a better overall cadence through the day. I think I'll write a separate post about this.
You have mentioned this effect several times, but haven't really written much about the dynamics of it: how it works, how no-list has produced this kind of effect for you, how to get the most out of it. I'd love to read more of your thoughts about this.
<< I don't know if this is a helpful simile but to my mind it's like two different methods of language learning. >>
Yes, I think it's a helpful simile.
Speed-chess might also be a helpful simile, compared to the more plodding way of playing chess. I'm not an expert in either, but the thing I found in speed-chess is that I started becoming much more aware of how a series of moves combines into an overall result—it allowed me to see how the moves all fit together to create an overall strategy—to see how things can play out two or three moves in advance—to anticipate what the opponent will do, and play accordingly, giving me much more control over the game. This is like no-list. It moves quickly, stays engaged with the work, sees where the work is going. Like I wrote above, I start to see patterns emerge, and can then make use of those patterns, turn them into routines or habits or checklists.
<< The second method is more like no-list. You are learning "sentences" which you can then manipulate to produce the "meaning" you want. >>
I think my "get everything out of my head then choose the top things to focus on" approach is a lot more similar to your "don't write it down till you are ready to act on it" approach, than you may realize. It gets a lot of these same effects. In fact, one reason I could not get your approach to work for me, is that it seemed to treat each task in isolation—like isolated words rather than sentences. I would write down the task that seemed most pressing to me—but there were so many other tasks in my mind that also needed attention, and various threads connecting these different tasks, which I felt I had to set aside. I just couldn't do that effectively. I have to get it all down where I can see it. That's when I can start seeing things in natural groupings and batches, and things form a kind of priority on their own—like words in the natural context of sentences.
I am not sure this is completely valid, but here is a thought. Maybe I naturally think of things with smaller granularity or more detail than you do, and that's why I need to do it this way. For example, I've noticed in your task list examples over the years, that you are very succinct and often very general in what you write down, like "PR campaign". That isn't how my mind works—I am thinking of the 3-5 details that need to be done for the PR campaign, specific people I need to call, specific documents I need to write, specific work that I am resisting, etc., and that's how I normally populate my lists. So I write things like "Call John RE meeting for PR deadlines" and "Finish updates to the petition, make sure to include XYZ", or "Rewrite the update for Facebook for the petition" or whatever. With several active projects, I can easily think of 10-15 tasks like this off the top of my head, and that's where my mind normally goes. I need to get it all written down so I can look it over and decide where to start. I can write all that out in a minute or two, and as I am doing that, I already start to see what needs to be done, and what can be erased, and I use the FVP algorithm as a quick confirmation of that. So what I end up with is often a short list of pressing tasks for the most pressing project, perhaps with a maintenance item or two that needs to be gotten out of the way first.
<< The whole point of no-list methods is to build up routines which then form a strong basis from which you can improvise. A routine needs to be internalised, so selecting from a list gets in the way of this process. >>
Could you write more about this, or perhaps give an example? I've found this to be true myself, when working my no-list method: I start to see patterns emerging, from which I can derive routines, habits, or checklists.
For example, it helped me establish a better wake-up routine; a better start-work routine; and a better overall cadence through the day. I think I'll write a separate post about this.
You have mentioned this effect several times, but haven't really written much about the dynamics of it: how it works, how no-list has produced this kind of effect for you, how to get the most out of it. I'd love to read more of your thoughts about this.
<< I don't know if this is a helpful simile but to my mind it's like two different methods of language learning. >>
Yes, I think it's a helpful simile.
Speed-chess might also be a helpful simile, compared to the more plodding way of playing chess. I'm not an expert in either, but the thing I found in speed-chess is that I started becoming much more aware of how a series of moves combines into an overall result—it allowed me to see how the moves all fit together to create an overall strategy—to see how things can play out two or three moves in advance—to anticipate what the opponent will do, and play accordingly, giving me much more control over the game. This is like no-list. It moves quickly, stays engaged with the work, sees where the work is going. Like I wrote above, I start to see patterns emerge, and can then make use of those patterns, turn them into routines or habits or checklists.
<< The second method is more like no-list. You are learning "sentences" which you can then manipulate to produce the "meaning" you want. >>
I think my "get everything out of my head then choose the top things to focus on" approach is a lot more similar to your "don't write it down till you are ready to act on it" approach, than you may realize. It gets a lot of these same effects. In fact, one reason I could not get your approach to work for me, is that it seemed to treat each task in isolation—like isolated words rather than sentences. I would write down the task that seemed most pressing to me—but there were so many other tasks in my mind that also needed attention, and various threads connecting these different tasks, which I felt I had to set aside. I just couldn't do that effectively. I have to get it all down where I can see it. That's when I can start seeing things in natural groupings and batches, and things form a kind of priority on their own—like words in the natural context of sentences.
I am not sure this is completely valid, but here is a thought. Maybe I naturally think of things with smaller granularity or more detail than you do, and that's why I need to do it this way. For example, I've noticed in your task list examples over the years, that you are very succinct and often very general in what you write down, like "PR campaign". That isn't how my mind works—I am thinking of the 3-5 details that need to be done for the PR campaign, specific people I need to call, specific documents I need to write, specific work that I am resisting, etc., and that's how I normally populate my lists. So I write things like "Call John RE meeting for PR deadlines" and "Finish updates to the petition, make sure to include XYZ", or "Rewrite the update for Facebook for the petition" or whatever. With several active projects, I can easily think of 10-15 tasks like this off the top of my head, and that's where my mind normally goes. I need to get it all written down so I can look it over and decide where to start. I can write all that out in a minute or two, and as I am doing that, I already start to see what needs to be done, and what can be erased, and I use the FVP algorithm as a quick confirmation of that. So what I end up with is often a short list of pressing tasks for the most pressing project, perhaps with a maintenance item or two that needs to be gotten out of the way first.
June 26, 2016 at 22:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< I've noticed in your task list examples over the years, that you are very succinct and often very general in what you write down, like "PR campaign". >>
It's not so different from what you are saying. A task like "PR campaign" means either writing a series of tasks on the list itself (if I'm using a catch-all list), or writing a dynamic list (if I'm using a no-list method) or taking the next action in a sequence I have already planned (either type of system).
<< I've noticed in your task list examples over the years, that you are very succinct and often very general in what you write down, like "PR campaign". >>
It's not so different from what you are saying. A task like "PR campaign" means either writing a series of tasks on the list itself (if I'm using a catch-all list), or writing a dynamic list (if I'm using a no-list method) or taking the next action in a sequence I have already planned (either type of system).
June 27, 2016 at 1:13 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark,
About the value of routines I can see that it might be as you say. However I actually find routine an extremely <adjective here> thing. I am always doing things different each time, even the drive to work I often vary the routefor no good reason other than variety. I should perhaps strive to be more routine in some respects, but sticking to that is quite ay odds with my character.
Would you persuade me to try, and if so where?
About the value of routines I can see that it might be as you say. However I actually find routine an extremely <adjective here> thing. I am always doing things different each time, even the drive to work I often vary the routefor no good reason other than variety. I should perhaps strive to be more routine in some respects, but sticking to that is quite ay odds with my character.
Would you persuade me to try, and if so where?
June 27, 2016 at 2:34 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu:
<< I am always doing things different each time, even the drive to work I often vary the route for no good reason other than variety. >>
A routine doesn't mean that you do everything exactly the same way every time. The item "Drive to work" doesn't have to specify a route - though you might want it to in the interests of speed or fuel economy - or it might actually specify varying it if you are concerned about security or staying awake on a long journey. Other things it might do are to specify "Check fuel level", "Visually check tyres", "If it's Thursday, then check oil level", etc. The drive home might specify "Tidy car interior". All of these things would become second nature very quickly.
Of course driving to work is not an example of a routine you'd build up by using no-list methods. I only mention it because you did.
<< Would you persuade me to try, and if so where? >>
Where you have a time management problem. If you have no problems then you should be running this website, not me! But there's no compulsion. Just because I'm using something doesn't mean everyone else has to. I'm still very much in the experimental stage with all this.
<< I am always doing things different each time, even the drive to work I often vary the route for no good reason other than variety. >>
A routine doesn't mean that you do everything exactly the same way every time. The item "Drive to work" doesn't have to specify a route - though you might want it to in the interests of speed or fuel economy - or it might actually specify varying it if you are concerned about security or staying awake on a long journey. Other things it might do are to specify "Check fuel level", "Visually check tyres", "If it's Thursday, then check oil level", etc. The drive home might specify "Tidy car interior". All of these things would become second nature very quickly.
Of course driving to work is not an example of a routine you'd build up by using no-list methods. I only mention it because you did.
<< Would you persuade me to try, and if so where? >>
Where you have a time management problem. If you have no problems then you should be running this website, not me! But there's no compulsion. Just because I'm using something doesn't mean everyone else has to. I'm still very much in the experimental stage with all this.
June 27, 2016 at 8:38 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<< Of course driving to work is not an example of a routine you'd build up by using no-list methods. >>
What kind of routine would you build up with no-list methods, and how does that work?
What makes some kind of routines suited for building up using no-list, and others not do well suited?
Thanks!
What kind of routine would you build up with no-list methods, and how does that work?
What makes some kind of routines suited for building up using no-list, and others not do well suited?
Thanks!
June 27, 2016 at 16:27 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< What makes some kind of routines suited for building up using no-list, and others not do well suited? >>
To answer your second question first, it's just a matter of whether the component parts of a routine would go into your no-list list. You'd be unlikely to put "Check Fuel Level", "Visually Check Tyres" etc on your list. You'd be more likely to design a routine for your driving and, if necessary, keep a separate list in the glove compartment (and you'd only need that for a very short time).
<< What kind of routine would you build up with no-list methods, and how does that work? >>
The converse of my answer to the previous question. The kind of routine you'd build up with no-list methods is where the component parts would appear on the no-list list. So for example when I first experimented with no-list methods I found I was putting the following tasks down first thing in the morning as I sat down at my desk:
Check diary
Comments
Email
Evernote
Tidy desk
Computer Housekeeping
Breakfast
Wash up
That's just solidified into a routine. I don't have to think about it. I find I just naturally do those things now. There's nothing spectacular about it. But it means that I don't miss appointments during the day, I answer comments quickly, I'm always up to date with my email, everything I put into Evernote gets properly tagged and filed, my desk is tidy, my computer doesn't have any viruses or malware and is still pretty quick, I have breakfast at a reasonable time, and the dishes are done straight away and don't build up.
I have plenty more routines during the day of course.
I could of course, like the car example, have designed these as routines. But I find it's more effective to let them build up naturally - they are better internalised. And because no-list lets you look at what you have done, if for instance I think on reflection that breakfast would be better straight after "Check Diary" I can just start doing that and within a few days it will be a habit.
<< What makes some kind of routines suited for building up using no-list, and others not do well suited? >>
To answer your second question first, it's just a matter of whether the component parts of a routine would go into your no-list list. You'd be unlikely to put "Check Fuel Level", "Visually Check Tyres" etc on your list. You'd be more likely to design a routine for your driving and, if necessary, keep a separate list in the glove compartment (and you'd only need that for a very short time).
<< What kind of routine would you build up with no-list methods, and how does that work? >>
The converse of my answer to the previous question. The kind of routine you'd build up with no-list methods is where the component parts would appear on the no-list list. So for example when I first experimented with no-list methods I found I was putting the following tasks down first thing in the morning as I sat down at my desk:
Check diary
Comments
Evernote
Tidy desk
Computer Housekeeping
Breakfast
Wash up
That's just solidified into a routine. I don't have to think about it. I find I just naturally do those things now. There's nothing spectacular about it. But it means that I don't miss appointments during the day, I answer comments quickly, I'm always up to date with my email, everything I put into Evernote gets properly tagged and filed, my desk is tidy, my computer doesn't have any viruses or malware and is still pretty quick, I have breakfast at a reasonable time, and the dishes are done straight away and don't build up.
I have plenty more routines during the day of course.
I could of course, like the car example, have designed these as routines. But I find it's more effective to let them build up naturally - they are better internalised. And because no-list lets you look at what you have done, if for instance I think on reflection that breakfast would be better straight after "Check Diary" I can just start doing that and within a few days it will be a habit.
June 27, 2016 at 20:58 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Nothing special happened today. I had to make an analysis for a client and it took me 3 hours.
Except that I was not on mood about working. Nothing special just fed up of the week and need for a rest.
So I looked at my list perfectly ordered by context. Too pefectly. I felt stuck. No willing to do them. I realised I was procratinating. So I decided something may be silly. I just took the lists and put it on a google doc page one by one dividing the list in 3 and trashed it.
So my doc was looking like this :
Today :
Next week :
General List :
July :
September :
It was a kind of Michel linnenerger list…
So I decided it was a not to do list. I was not engaged to do it. I put on the general list things by projects as they came. Dividing them by global step. The idea was not to force me to do anything. Just drop ideas as they came.
I also decided I was only engaged to do what was on today's list. I could take any item if I whish from anywhere. Advance on a future project. Act as I feel like but do what was only necessary.
The result was nice. I did everything I wanted to do and I was quiet at the end of the day.
I decided to review it each night, eliminate and complete little by little
Why do I (we) so much like list ?
Thoughts ?