Discussion Forum > Little and Often with practicing
Some years ago, I was feeling bad about having not played any music in a long time, so I started playing the piano for 15 minutes a day.
It got an amazing amount done in those 15 minutes. I kept it up for over a year, maybe two.
If only I could take on dozens of favorite things in this way simultaneously, I'd be getting all kinds of stuff done!
It got an amazing amount done in those 15 minutes. I kept it up for over a year, maybe two.
If only I could take on dozens of favorite things in this way simultaneously, I'd be getting all kinds of stuff done!
January 24, 2019 at 20:18 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie wrote:
<< If only I could take on dozens of favorite things in this way simultaneously, I'd be getting all kinds of stuff done! >>
Yes exactly!! I had the exact same reaction. :-)
<< If only I could take on dozens of favorite things in this way simultaneously, I'd be getting all kinds of stuff done! >>
Yes exactly!! I had the exact same reaction. :-)
January 27, 2019 at 0:09 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Cameron, thanks for posting that article on practice. Lots of interesting ideas to ponder. This quote is a good summary:
<< The main principle behind the contextual interference effect is that practicing varied material leads to better retention than continuously repeating the same material. >>
The article emphasizes not only variation of material, but even *random* variation of material. This made me wonder if this is the same psychological phenomenon that makes the Randomizer method so successful at eliminating resistance.
In the comments below the article is some discussion on the conflict between practice as something you do to achieve a specific outcome, versus practice as something you do as an end in itself. Practice seems to be more effective when it is approached as an end in itself, without too much pressure to achieve a specific outcome. You can just get absorbed in the activity itself. You need to have some idea of the desired outcome in order to know what to practice, but too much pressure to achieve the outcome interferes with the practice itself and makes it dull and restrictive.
This seems very similar to the Focus vs Responsiveness conflict. It's important to stay in Flow -- but if all you do is stay focused in your flow state without ensuring you are working toward the right end, you will get all kinds of stuff accomplished and will feel great doing it, but when you step back and look at it all, you are not happy with the results. On the other hand, too much pressure to achieve specific outcomes takes away from flow and focus and generates resistance.
Lots of interesting ideas there. I'll have to read that article a few more times, I think. :-)
<< The main principle behind the contextual interference effect is that practicing varied material leads to better retention than continuously repeating the same material. >>
The article emphasizes not only variation of material, but even *random* variation of material. This made me wonder if this is the same psychological phenomenon that makes the Randomizer method so successful at eliminating resistance.
In the comments below the article is some discussion on the conflict between practice as something you do to achieve a specific outcome, versus practice as something you do as an end in itself. Practice seems to be more effective when it is approached as an end in itself, without too much pressure to achieve a specific outcome. You can just get absorbed in the activity itself. You need to have some idea of the desired outcome in order to know what to practice, but too much pressure to achieve the outcome interferes with the practice itself and makes it dull and restrictive.
This seems very similar to the Focus vs Responsiveness conflict. It's important to stay in Flow -- but if all you do is stay focused in your flow state without ensuring you are working toward the right end, you will get all kinds of stuff accomplished and will feel great doing it, but when you step back and look at it all, you are not happy with the results. On the other hand, too much pressure to achieve specific outcomes takes away from flow and focus and generates resistance.
Lots of interesting ideas there. I'll have to read that article a few more times, I think. :-)
January 27, 2019 at 0:53 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
And Cameron, to your original point -- yes, this is exactly what I experienced with AF1, which is where I first encountered Mark's ideas about "little and often".
It is so easy to stay in a flow state with "little and often" with AF1. Resistance melts away and things that have been stuck for years finally get moving and get completed.
But it broke down when too many things started getting the little-and-often treatment at the same time. Too much WIP, too much diffusion of focus. It would tend to lead to working a little on A, then a little on B, then a little on C, then a little on A again, then a little on D, then a little on E, then maybe B, etc. At least that's how it worked with me.
I think Bernie's articulation of the desired process is really good (in his F-task posts - http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2725530#post2731762 ). Work a little on the focus task. Then work a little on something else. Then work a little more on the focus task. Then work a little more on something else. Keep coming back to that focus area till you are done.
Mark has written somewhere recently that this is what he meant by "little and often" all along.
It is so easy to stay in a flow state with "little and often" with AF1. Resistance melts away and things that have been stuck for years finally get moving and get completed.
But it broke down when too many things started getting the little-and-often treatment at the same time. Too much WIP, too much diffusion of focus. It would tend to lead to working a little on A, then a little on B, then a little on C, then a little on A again, then a little on D, then a little on E, then maybe B, etc. At least that's how it worked with me.
I think Bernie's articulation of the desired process is really good (in his F-task posts - http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2725530#post2731762 ). Work a little on the focus task. Then work a little on something else. Then work a little more on the focus task. Then work a little more on something else. Keep coming back to that focus area till you are done.
Mark has written somewhere recently that this is what he meant by "little and often" all along.
January 27, 2019 at 1:00 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
So I guess the goal is to have just enough focus to keep coming back to the same focus areas so you get things completed, and get the results you want -- but not so much focus that it creates a sense of pressure -- because that leads to resistance.
There seem to be two lines of thought on the best way to maintain the best kind of focus:
-- One is to use some mechanism of the system to continually remind us where we should focus. -- The other leverages our intuitive ability to find the focus, but this requires a strong intuition for our whole context.
I personally prefer the latter method, because the first tends eventually to clash with what my intuition is telling me to do -- and so it leads to resistance. But the second can become stuck or aimless under periods of stress, high demand, high reactivity, etc.
But here is something weird. Lately I've been finding that the more chaotic the environment, the faster I am able to figure out where to focus. When things are fairly smooth and calm, there is still room to improve but it's actually harder to find and execute on those opportunities. When there is more chaos, it's actually easier to find the real bottlenecks and conflicts at the heart of it -- easier to see where to focus.
All kinds of seeming contradictions here...
Anyway, thanks Cameron for sparking several new ideas here. :-)
There seem to be two lines of thought on the best way to maintain the best kind of focus:
-- One is to use some mechanism of the system to continually remind us where we should focus. -- The other leverages our intuitive ability to find the focus, but this requires a strong intuition for our whole context.
I personally prefer the latter method, because the first tends eventually to clash with what my intuition is telling me to do -- and so it leads to resistance. But the second can become stuck or aimless under periods of stress, high demand, high reactivity, etc.
But here is something weird. Lately I've been finding that the more chaotic the environment, the faster I am able to figure out where to focus. When things are fairly smooth and calm, there is still room to improve but it's actually harder to find and execute on those opportunities. When there is more chaos, it's actually easier to find the real bottlenecks and conflicts at the heart of it -- easier to see where to focus.
All kinds of seeming contradictions here...
Anyway, thanks Cameron for sparking several new ideas here. :-)
January 27, 2019 at 1:11 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
More chaotic - easier to find the focus. Is this for the same reason that it's easy to start cleaning a messy room than neat? You just pick up the biggest thing and put it away. It gets harder only because you are getting ahead. Thus chaos is not helping you work, it's just a sign that you are farther behind.
January 28, 2019 at 0:42 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Seraphim:
<< Mark has written somewhere recently that this is what he meant by "little and often" all along. >>
I did?
<< Mark has written somewhere recently that this is what he meant by "little and often" all along. >>
I did?
January 28, 2019 at 11:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark -
I had in mind this post - http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2725530#post2725846
I couldn't find it earlier, so I was going from memory. It doesn't look like it applies as directly as I remembered it.
But maybe it is still relevant. I guess the thing that made me think of that post was the idea of doing a batch of work to completion, then doing something else to completion, then coming back and doing a batch of work to completion, etc. I.e., at each cycle of little and often, you should get something FINISHED, even if it's small -- not just push things forward with no real completion of anything.
Maybe there are two distinct ways of thinking about "little and often"?
-- The "seedbed" method - doing "little and often" on lots of different things to see what things get traction and thereby discover what is important and useful
-- The "completion" method - repeatedly doing "little and often" on a small number of things to move things toward completion without resistance
The "seedbed" method is more useful in a new or chaotic situation. New - such as you just finished a book and now you want to decide which book to read next. Chaotic - such as a situation where you have many large incoming demands and you need to figure out which ones really matter and which ones have the most risk. This aligns with MEPFED.
The "completion" method is more useful when the focus has already emerged - you've decided on the book you want to read - or you've done enough discovery work and now need to get the work finished. This aligns with WOPED.
It works best for me when this cycle is FAST. Use something like MEPFED to find the focus QUICKLY, even if it's not perfect, and then use WOPED to get the focus work completed. Then re-assess and start the cycle again.
It breaks down when either of the two approaches dominates too much. Too much "seedbed"/MEPFED and the focus is diffused and nothing significant is ever accomplished. Too much "completion"/WOPED and resistance builds up.
I had in mind this post - http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2725530#post2725846
I couldn't find it earlier, so I was going from memory. It doesn't look like it applies as directly as I remembered it.
But maybe it is still relevant. I guess the thing that made me think of that post was the idea of doing a batch of work to completion, then doing something else to completion, then coming back and doing a batch of work to completion, etc. I.e., at each cycle of little and often, you should get something FINISHED, even if it's small -- not just push things forward with no real completion of anything.
Maybe there are two distinct ways of thinking about "little and often"?
-- The "seedbed" method - doing "little and often" on lots of different things to see what things get traction and thereby discover what is important and useful
-- The "completion" method - repeatedly doing "little and often" on a small number of things to move things toward completion without resistance
The "seedbed" method is more useful in a new or chaotic situation. New - such as you just finished a book and now you want to decide which book to read next. Chaotic - such as a situation where you have many large incoming demands and you need to figure out which ones really matter and which ones have the most risk. This aligns with MEPFED.
The "completion" method is more useful when the focus has already emerged - you've decided on the book you want to read - or you've done enough discovery work and now need to get the work finished. This aligns with WOPED.
It works best for me when this cycle is FAST. Use something like MEPFED to find the focus QUICKLY, even if it's not perfect, and then use WOPED to get the focus work completed. Then re-assess and start the cycle again.
It breaks down when either of the two approaches dominates too much. Too much "seedbed"/MEPFED and the focus is diffused and nothing significant is ever accomplished. Too much "completion"/WOPED and resistance builds up.
January 28, 2019 at 15:58 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim,
Perhaps we are always in both modes: working to complete our WOPED's with a MEPFED eye open for the next prospects. After all, we can't work on that WOPED every minute of the day. We need something to do with the rest of our time, so in addition to maintenance tasks, perhaps there should always be some MEPFED running in the background.
Actually, I *can* work on the WOPED every minute of the day. It's how I did everything before I found this site! I called it "big and rare," in contrast to "little and often." The problem was that the rest of my life fell apart while I WOPEDaled speedily along.
Again, middle ground!
Perhaps we are always in both modes: working to complete our WOPED's with a MEPFED eye open for the next prospects. After all, we can't work on that WOPED every minute of the day. We need something to do with the rest of our time, so in addition to maintenance tasks, perhaps there should always be some MEPFED running in the background.
Actually, I *can* work on the WOPED every minute of the day. It's how I did everything before I found this site! I called it "big and rare," in contrast to "little and often." The problem was that the rest of my life fell apart while I WOPEDaled speedily along.
Again, middle ground!
January 28, 2019 at 19:11 |
Bernie
Bernie
Yes, definitely. There are always new incoming opportunities and demands contending with the things we are already working on. Focus vs Responsiveness - again. :-)
January 29, 2019 at 15:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I've been busy working lots of things in the past week but not really following any system. This happens to me sometimes when the system feels cumbersome.
To get back on track, I just finished a thorough cleaning, and crossed off everything that either I expect I will remember without being listed, or that I won't regret if I forget. This includes all my recurring tasks.
I hope this will get me back. I intend to follow the no-list/AF2 system: Each day start a new page. Add things as they come to mind. Cycle the last page until nothing stands out, then scan the whole list in reverse for things that stand out.
The difference from all previous usage is I will not retain most recurring items. They will be added by schedule or by inspiration on the day they are required. So scanning the whole list will only find big projects and one-off items and should be very speedy, getting me back to whatever is my focus of the day (and the routine items of the day).
To get back on track, I just finished a thorough cleaning, and crossed off everything that either I expect I will remember without being listed, or that I won't regret if I forget. This includes all my recurring tasks.
I hope this will get me back. I intend to follow the no-list/AF2 system: Each day start a new page. Add things as they come to mind. Cycle the last page until nothing stands out, then scan the whole list in reverse for things that stand out.
The difference from all previous usage is I will not retain most recurring items. They will be added by schedule or by inspiration on the day they are required. So scanning the whole list will only find big projects and one-off items and should be very speedy, getting me back to whatever is my focus of the day (and the routine items of the day).
January 30, 2019 at 2:46 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu -
<< The difference from all previous usage is I will not retain most recurring items. They will be added by schedule or by inspiration on the day they are required. So scanning the whole list will only find big projects and one-off items and should be very speedy, getting me back to whatever is my focus of the day (and the routine items of the day). >>
Yes, that's been my experience as well! I keep critical reminders in Outlook (for important recurring tasks that DON'T tend to come to mind automatically, and for other important reminders), and when they pop up, I just add them to my list. It keeps the list lighter and faster.
<< The difference from all previous usage is I will not retain most recurring items. They will be added by schedule or by inspiration on the day they are required. So scanning the whole list will only find big projects and one-off items and should be very speedy, getting me back to whatever is my focus of the day (and the routine items of the day). >>
Yes, that's been my experience as well! I keep critical reminders in Outlook (for important recurring tasks that DON'T tend to come to mind automatically, and for other important reminders), and when they pop up, I just add them to my list. It keeps the list lighter and faster.
January 30, 2019 at 4:16 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Bernie wrote:
>> I called it "big and rare," in contrast to "little and often."
>> The problem was that the rest of my life fell apart while I WOPEDaled speedily along.
This seems to be the crux of the matter. Otherwise we just could WOPEdale through out days mad scientist style.
How can we find how many parallel threads we need per day, per week or in general more abstract terms, to prevent out life falling apart?
>> I called it "big and rare," in contrast to "little and often."
>> The problem was that the rest of my life fell apart while I WOPEDaled speedily along.
This seems to be the crux of the matter. Otherwise we just could WOPEdale through out days mad scientist style.
How can we find how many parallel threads we need per day, per week or in general more abstract terms, to prevent out life falling apart?
January 30, 2019 at 14:25 |
Christopher
Christopher
Alan,
"I intend to follow the no-list/AF2 system... I will not retain most recurring items..."
My Day-Page-plus-Long-List is gradually morphing into this, because I find it surprisingly hard to stay focused on more than one list, even when both are open on my desk side by side. Well, I often end up stacking them due to space limitations... hmm, maybe I should quit doing that...
Christopher,
"How can we find how many parallel threads we need per day, per week or in general more abstract terms, to prevent out life falling apart?"
I completely agree!
"I intend to follow the no-list/AF2 system... I will not retain most recurring items..."
My Day-Page-plus-Long-List is gradually morphing into this, because I find it surprisingly hard to stay focused on more than one list, even when both are open on my desk side by side. Well, I often end up stacking them due to space limitations... hmm, maybe I should quit doing that...
Christopher,
"How can we find how many parallel threads we need per day, per week or in general more abstract terms, to prevent out life falling apart?"
I completely agree!
January 31, 2019 at 4:52 |
Bernie
Bernie
<< How can we find how many parallel threads we need per day, per week or in general more abstract terms, to prevent out life falling apart? >>
I tend to repeat this cycle:
1. I am working on one or two focus areas that are generating substantial results in line with my goals.
2. More incoming work arrives (opportunities to seize, or threats to eliminate). Some of the new work represents obstacles encountered while trying to bring about my desired outcomes - need to work through them. Some of it is perfectly in line with the work I am already doing. Some of it may offer a better path to my ultimate goal, so it's worth considering. Some of it may seem completely unrelated to my current focus but still attractive for some reason.
3. I take on some of this new work. The number of parallel threads increases.
4. At first, I am happy. I can still stay focused, still generate substantial results. And I'm dealing with all this other stuff as well. I feel on top of it all.
5. Sooner or later, I start to feel I am losing focus. I am not getting the results I want. Or I feel pulled in too many directions. There is a niggling sense of worry that can grow to anxiety and resistance.
6. I step back and assess. I realize that there is really only a handful of things that are generating the results I want. The rest are either extra, or will be handled automatically in due course. I can let them go. I re-establish focus. It's almost always different than the original focus I had at step (1.). The *outcomes* I am pursuing remain fairly constant -- but to achieve those outcomes, I need to change my focus, since the context has changed somehow, either new threats, new opportunities, new ideas, a better way; or simply, an obstacle has been overcome, now we're moving onward to the next obstacle.
7. This brings me full cycle back to step 1.
Pondering this, I realized there is a key to #6. For me, the new open threads represent **variety not volume**. In other words, the new open threads are NEW threats and NEW opportunities. They are not merely an increase in volume of my existing work. Thus they represent a change in my landscape, a change in the overall context. This changes they dynamics of what the focal point should be that will generate the best outcomes. It allows me to use the Pareto Principle to find that core 20% that generates 80% of the results.
If it was only "more work", the dynamic would be completely different. For example, I used to be a technical writer. I always had a pile of documents that needed formatting and editing and publishing. Sometimes a new load of work would arrive, and the pile would get bigger. But the pile getting bigger didn't change my working methods. I would generally work FIFO, or in order of deadline. I would work on one thing at a time. I would let the doc owner know the expected wait time. We could negotiate the priority of their work. But I wouldn't just keep stopping and starting all the time. Each one had to get done. The best way to do it was like the mechanic in the DIT book - one at a time, predictably. Or maybe I'd work on a project till I hit an obstacle (waiting for an approval or a review or a missing graphic or something), and then I'd switch. I might keep 2-3 open threads like that. But here's the key -- simply adding more volume of work did NOT translate into more open threads. It seems to be VARIETY that causes the number of parallel threads to increase, NOT VOLUME.
So I think the question of how many open loops is ideal applies when we are dealing with a new mix of work, a new variety of work, not just "more work". And the answer is: when you start feeling anxious about it, that means you have too many open threads. And not only do you have too many open threads, you have too much misalignment between the threads and your real goals, and most of those threads will not contribute to your goals, or at least they will not contribute equally. In a situation with lots of variation, the Pareto Principle will apply -- it's a mathematical certainty. So it's time to refocus on the things that really matter, the things that will make a significant difference, and cut or reduce the rest.
In writing this, I started wondering, maybe there's an easier way -- maybe it doesn't need to get to the point of creating anxiety, before we re-establish the focus. But on thinking through it, I think the anxiety is a key element, an important element. It's a sign that the context has substantially changed, and the focus that was working previously is no longer the right focus. If there isn't any anxiety about all the parallel threads, then it's likely the previous focus is still the right focus. Keep moving forward. But when the anxiety arrives, then it's time to look for the new focus.
What do you think? Does this resonate with your experience also?
I tend to repeat this cycle:
1. I am working on one or two focus areas that are generating substantial results in line with my goals.
2. More incoming work arrives (opportunities to seize, or threats to eliminate). Some of the new work represents obstacles encountered while trying to bring about my desired outcomes - need to work through them. Some of it is perfectly in line with the work I am already doing. Some of it may offer a better path to my ultimate goal, so it's worth considering. Some of it may seem completely unrelated to my current focus but still attractive for some reason.
3. I take on some of this new work. The number of parallel threads increases.
4. At first, I am happy. I can still stay focused, still generate substantial results. And I'm dealing with all this other stuff as well. I feel on top of it all.
5. Sooner or later, I start to feel I am losing focus. I am not getting the results I want. Or I feel pulled in too many directions. There is a niggling sense of worry that can grow to anxiety and resistance.
6. I step back and assess. I realize that there is really only a handful of things that are generating the results I want. The rest are either extra, or will be handled automatically in due course. I can let them go. I re-establish focus. It's almost always different than the original focus I had at step (1.). The *outcomes* I am pursuing remain fairly constant -- but to achieve those outcomes, I need to change my focus, since the context has changed somehow, either new threats, new opportunities, new ideas, a better way; or simply, an obstacle has been overcome, now we're moving onward to the next obstacle.
7. This brings me full cycle back to step 1.
Pondering this, I realized there is a key to #6. For me, the new open threads represent **variety not volume**. In other words, the new open threads are NEW threats and NEW opportunities. They are not merely an increase in volume of my existing work. Thus they represent a change in my landscape, a change in the overall context. This changes they dynamics of what the focal point should be that will generate the best outcomes. It allows me to use the Pareto Principle to find that core 20% that generates 80% of the results.
If it was only "more work", the dynamic would be completely different. For example, I used to be a technical writer. I always had a pile of documents that needed formatting and editing and publishing. Sometimes a new load of work would arrive, and the pile would get bigger. But the pile getting bigger didn't change my working methods. I would generally work FIFO, or in order of deadline. I would work on one thing at a time. I would let the doc owner know the expected wait time. We could negotiate the priority of their work. But I wouldn't just keep stopping and starting all the time. Each one had to get done. The best way to do it was like the mechanic in the DIT book - one at a time, predictably. Or maybe I'd work on a project till I hit an obstacle (waiting for an approval or a review or a missing graphic or something), and then I'd switch. I might keep 2-3 open threads like that. But here's the key -- simply adding more volume of work did NOT translate into more open threads. It seems to be VARIETY that causes the number of parallel threads to increase, NOT VOLUME.
So I think the question of how many open loops is ideal applies when we are dealing with a new mix of work, a new variety of work, not just "more work". And the answer is: when you start feeling anxious about it, that means you have too many open threads. And not only do you have too many open threads, you have too much misalignment between the threads and your real goals, and most of those threads will not contribute to your goals, or at least they will not contribute equally. In a situation with lots of variation, the Pareto Principle will apply -- it's a mathematical certainty. So it's time to refocus on the things that really matter, the things that will make a significant difference, and cut or reduce the rest.
In writing this, I started wondering, maybe there's an easier way -- maybe it doesn't need to get to the point of creating anxiety, before we re-establish the focus. But on thinking through it, I think the anxiety is a key element, an important element. It's a sign that the context has substantially changed, and the focus that was working previously is no longer the right focus. If there isn't any anxiety about all the parallel threads, then it's likely the previous focus is still the right focus. Keep moving forward. But when the anxiety arrives, then it's time to look for the new focus.
What do you think? Does this resonate with your experience also?
January 31, 2019 at 6:27 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Re: "How can we find how many parallel threads we need per day, per week or in general more abstract terms, to prevent out life falling apart?"
One simple principle helps, though it is not the whole story:
"Similar" items go in series, not in parallel. I cannot define "similar," but I can illustrate it.
While reading a 1000+ page book, do not take on another 1000+ page book. Do read short articles of interest as needed/desired. This is similarity by size. Two large books compete for the same resources (your attention/schedule), whereas short articles do not, or they don't need to, or they only divert a small amount to add significant value (the stream of information is the value, which you would otherwise have forgone until finishing the big book).
While renovating your kitchen, do not also finish your basement. Do read a 1000+ page book, or write one. This is similarity by topic or life area. In other words, the large book does not interfere with the large renovation, because it uses different resources. (unless it doesn't: maybe you cannot read with all the construction noise!)
While studying a foreign language using an intensive immersion method, do not study a second language in the same way. Do casually browse another language's dictionary to get your feet wet to study it next, or take a race driving course instead, or practice kung fu.
Obviously, all activities compete with other for your time, attention, and energy, but I am trying to articulate how certain projects clearly compete with each other in other ways, while others do not, or less so. This is a subjective assessment with debatable gray areas, so I think the value is in each person's putting attention on this dynamic and assessing it for themselves. I guess the one concept to articulate is that it's about competing resources. Serialize competing things, and parallelize non-competing things. Duh. But it's helpful to just remind ourselves to look from that angle and assess what feels like it will compete and what will not. The more you serialize, the better, so be picky.
I use this concept when possible on my Analog Kanban to sequence larger projects, though I don't have a consistent method to write about yet. And as I mentioned elsewhere, I don't consistently use the Analog Kanban either. Sometimes I just have a fuzzy map in my head showing that Project B belongs after Project A.
One simple principle helps, though it is not the whole story:
"Similar" items go in series, not in parallel. I cannot define "similar," but I can illustrate it.
While reading a 1000+ page book, do not take on another 1000+ page book. Do read short articles of interest as needed/desired. This is similarity by size. Two large books compete for the same resources (your attention/schedule), whereas short articles do not, or they don't need to, or they only divert a small amount to add significant value (the stream of information is the value, which you would otherwise have forgone until finishing the big book).
While renovating your kitchen, do not also finish your basement. Do read a 1000+ page book, or write one. This is similarity by topic or life area. In other words, the large book does not interfere with the large renovation, because it uses different resources. (unless it doesn't: maybe you cannot read with all the construction noise!)
While studying a foreign language using an intensive immersion method, do not study a second language in the same way. Do casually browse another language's dictionary to get your feet wet to study it next, or take a race driving course instead, or practice kung fu.
Obviously, all activities compete with other for your time, attention, and energy, but I am trying to articulate how certain projects clearly compete with each other in other ways, while others do not, or less so. This is a subjective assessment with debatable gray areas, so I think the value is in each person's putting attention on this dynamic and assessing it for themselves. I guess the one concept to articulate is that it's about competing resources. Serialize competing things, and parallelize non-competing things. Duh. But it's helpful to just remind ourselves to look from that angle and assess what feels like it will compete and what will not. The more you serialize, the better, so be picky.
I use this concept when possible on my Analog Kanban to sequence larger projects, though I don't have a consistent method to write about yet. And as I mentioned elsewhere, I don't consistently use the Analog Kanban either. Sometimes I just have a fuzzy map in my head showing that Project B belongs after Project A.
January 31, 2019 at 8:18 |
Bernie
Bernie
I think Hiking is a great metaphor for what Seraphim is talking about. There really is only one big task, and that is walking down the trail. But, the longer that trail, the more other tasks interrupt the main one: rest breaks, eating, looking at scenes, getting out gear for rain, adjusting footwear to avoid blisters, setting up shelter for the night, stopping in town to resupply, writing in your journal, checking the maps, plotting your course, maybe even changing course.
For all that, there is still only one main task which is walking. And yet, if you raise your perspective a bit you get another level of task: Is there a destination? Are you primarily here for the enjoyment of the walk? Time to contemplate? Time with friends? Spiritual renewal? Mental or physical preparation for life that continues after the hike? Planning an art exhibit? Adjusting a career?
You plan your actions to facilitate the hiking. But in bigger picture you plan your hike to facilitate your life. My thesis is that there is only one journey. The path meanders; the activities are varied, but those things on your List, the tasks you do, all contribute to the success of that journey – to greater or lesser or negative extent. The key is to focus on the walk, the main thing that moves you forward, while remembering the necessary things (itemized above) without which the walk will not be a success. And keep your eyes open for when you need to adjust your path.
For all that, there is still only one main task which is walking. And yet, if you raise your perspective a bit you get another level of task: Is there a destination? Are you primarily here for the enjoyment of the walk? Time to contemplate? Time with friends? Spiritual renewal? Mental or physical preparation for life that continues after the hike? Planning an art exhibit? Adjusting a career?
You plan your actions to facilitate the hiking. But in bigger picture you plan your hike to facilitate your life. My thesis is that there is only one journey. The path meanders; the activities are varied, but those things on your List, the tasks you do, all contribute to the success of that journey – to greater or lesser or negative extent. The key is to focus on the walk, the main thing that moves you forward, while remembering the necessary things (itemized above) without which the walk will not be a success. And keep your eyes open for when you need to adjust your path.
January 31, 2019 at 14:43 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Seraphim:
<<There seem to be two lines of thought on the best way to maintain the best kind of focus:
-- One is to use some mechanism of the system to continually remind us where we should focus. -- The other leverages our intuitive ability to find the focus, but this requires a strong intuition for our whole context.>>
There is a method which combines both:
1. Rules as for Simple Scanning except for the following.
2. Whenever you re-enter a task which still has current work outstanding, dot it.
3. Whenever you come to a pre-dotted task, you must take some action on it.
4. When you are down to one pre-dotted task you pass it by if no intervening task has stood out since you last took action on it. In other words you don't do a task twice in a row without an intervening task.
This seems to fulfill just about everything this thread has been about.
<<There seem to be two lines of thought on the best way to maintain the best kind of focus:
-- One is to use some mechanism of the system to continually remind us where we should focus. -- The other leverages our intuitive ability to find the focus, but this requires a strong intuition for our whole context.>>
There is a method which combines both:
1. Rules as for Simple Scanning except for the following.
2. Whenever you re-enter a task which still has current work outstanding, dot it.
3. Whenever you come to a pre-dotted task, you must take some action on it.
4. When you are down to one pre-dotted task you pass it by if no intervening task has stood out since you last took action on it. In other words you don't do a task twice in a row without an intervening task.
This seems to fulfill just about everything this thread has been about.
January 31, 2019 at 17:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, would one jump down to a task below a series of pre dotted line if that task became urgent? Just thinking that otherwise it would take a bit of time to reach it.
January 31, 2019 at 19:08 |
leon
leon
No, I could never stick to a system that enforced rule 3.
January 31, 2019 at 19:16 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
leon:
If you mean by urgent "Has to be done this minute", then forget the list and just do it.
But I notice you say "if that task BECAME urgent", that suggests that the task is urgent because action has not already been taken on it. This should be a much rarer occurrence using this system.
If you mean by urgent "Has to be done this minute", then forget the list and just do it.
But I notice you say "if that task BECAME urgent", that suggests that the task is urgent because action has not already been taken on it. This should be a much rarer occurrence using this system.
January 31, 2019 at 20:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Alan Baljeu:
<< I could never stick to a system that enforced rule 3. >>
The system doesn't enforce anything. You enforce the system, just as you keep yourself hiking in your metaphor.
If you decide not to enforce it in a particular instance, then that's your prerogative.
<< I could never stick to a system that enforced rule 3. >>
The system doesn't enforce anything. You enforce the system, just as you keep yourself hiking in your metaphor.
If you decide not to enforce it in a particular instance, then that's your prerogative.
January 31, 2019 at 20:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
But then I will additionally want to apply prerogative in going to that task 15 mintes down the line. But let me state another way: simple Scanning was great to judt let tou do your thing without pressure from the system. Your alteration takes that away. If I’ going to ignore the rules , I might as well stick to SS and ignore those rules when I feel like it.
February 1, 2019 at 12:47 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu:
<< If I’ going to ignore the rules , I might as well stick to SS and ignore those rules when I feel like it.>>
Yes, you're right. You can do whatever you feel will get the work done best. The rules are there to help you do that, not get in the way of doing that.
<< If I’ going to ignore the rules , I might as well stick to SS and ignore those rules when I feel like it.>>
Yes, you're right. You can do whatever you feel will get the work done best. The rules are there to help you do that, not get in the way of doing that.
February 1, 2019 at 19:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I've also liked the idea of ramping up timed sessions, switching among tasks: Task A, B, and C each are worked for 5 minutes, then each for 10, then 15, then 20, etc. I've tried something similar in other areas like practicing and studying.
Example 1: I study each day out of some form of religious scripture. I am trying a new format where instead of reading solid for 20 minutes, I spend 4 minutes writing down questions and exploring ideas in no particular order related to whatever I want to study. Then I spend 4 minutes looking up scriptures that support, answer questions, etc. related to those questions. That spurs more questions for me, so I repeat for another 6 minutes writing questions, and another 6 searching the books. I keep a notebook close and write the questions, which has been so much more effective that my previous method of typing them into a computer.
Example 2: Each day when I get into work, I try to study a little bit in my field to deepen my expertise. I used to spend 30 minutes on one topic. Now I pick two topics, and rotate 5/5/10/10 minutes for a total of 30 minutes. It forces me to stay really focused because I know my time is limited. I also feel that studying for 15 minutes straight is not as effective for long-term memory as 5 + a different activity + 10 minutes.
Example 3: I take private piano lessons and separately private music composition lessons. I've tried to figure out a way to integrate both into my packed schedule. Instead of 30 minutes of solid practice on one line, where boredom and fatigue sets in, I now break it down. I spend 5 minutes practicing piano, then 5 minutes composing, then 10 practicing, then 10 composing. I have noticed that I am making a lot more progress in my practice than I normally would given 15 minutes/day, and I think the reason has to do with little and often. Even within the 10 minute practice sessions I will spend a little time on measure, then switch it up to another measure, then back to the first. I believe Mark mentioned that the learning happens in the spaces between the actions. It seems that increasing the number of spaces (to some rational level) may have some effect on long-term storage.
Anyway, I just ran across this very interesting article (link below) that seems to confirm the principle of little and often related to practice. This is changing how I work, learn, and practice.
(Not sure how to link in this forum to webpages:)
http://bulletproofmusician.com/why-the-progress-in-the-practice-room-seems-to-disappear-overnight/