Discussion Forum > Variant on serial no-list
I wonder if this would retain the no-list feel of standard serial no-list. (For future reference, serial no-list is described here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2730943 )
Would it start to collect recurring tasks?
Would it start to feel like debt, during periods of overwhelm?
Would it tend to guide you to creating better routines?
Somehow it FEELS different than serial no-list, and I am afraid it would lose the benefits of no-list.
But I haven't tried it yet. I suppose the only way to be sure is to run an experiment!
Would it start to collect recurring tasks?
Would it start to feel like debt, during periods of overwhelm?
Would it tend to guide you to creating better routines?
Somehow it FEELS different than serial no-list, and I am afraid it would lose the benefits of no-list.
But I haven't tried it yet. I suppose the only way to be sure is to run an experiment!
February 2, 2019 at 14:45 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I thought I would give this a trial run today. But I can't actually bring myself to try it. It just feels too much like work. LOL
So for now I am sticking with Serial No-List as described at http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2730943
So for now I am sticking with Serial No-List as described at http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2730943
February 2, 2019 at 18:40 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Why mess with success? Also, would be better to highlight the difference in this proposal.
February 2, 2019 at 19:06 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Seraphim:
<< (1) At beginning of day, draw a line across the page. >>
Funnily enough I thought of exactly the opposite of this this morning. Draw the line, yes. But circle round the tasks BEFORE the line until nothing stands out and then move to the tasks after the line.
But I haven't tried it out yet either.
<< (1) At beginning of day, draw a line across the page. >>
Funnily enough I thought of exactly the opposite of this this morning. Draw the line, yes. But circle round the tasks BEFORE the line until nothing stands out and then move to the tasks after the line.
But I haven't tried it out yet either.
February 2, 2019 at 20:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Haha, that's really interesting!
That sounds very similar to AF4. It puts a lot of attention on the older tasks -- which is good for completeness but less good for focus / responsiveness.
Serial No-List is the reverse -- lots of focus and responsiveness, but less attention on completeness.
I thought this variant on the Serial No-List idea might be a way to simplify the Serial No-List rules. But I am afraid it will have a Long List feel (and the Long List danger of being overloaded) and lose the No List feel (and all the interesting psychological benefits of No List). And Serial No-List is already quite simple anyway.
One thing I have found with Serial No-List. Even though it does not focus on completeness, it still generates a strong feeling of completeness, even closure. Older tasks and pages can hang around for awhile but it's almost like they SHOULD be hanging around for awhile. When they are finally cleared out it just feels RIGHT. And it happens faster than I expected it would.
That sounds very similar to AF4. It puts a lot of attention on the older tasks -- which is good for completeness but less good for focus / responsiveness.
Serial No-List is the reverse -- lots of focus and responsiveness, but less attention on completeness.
I thought this variant on the Serial No-List idea might be a way to simplify the Serial No-List rules. But I am afraid it will have a Long List feel (and the Long List danger of being overloaded) and lose the No List feel (and all the interesting psychological benefits of No List). And Serial No-List is already quite simple anyway.
One thing I have found with Serial No-List. Even though it does not focus on completeness, it still generates a strong feeling of completeness, even closure. Older tasks and pages can hang around for awhile but it's almost like they SHOULD be hanging around for awhile. When they are finally cleared out it just feels RIGHT. And it happens faster than I expected it would.
February 2, 2019 at 21:02 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
I look forward to trying it out. But at the moment I am re-experiencing the joys of FVP.
I look forward to trying it out. But at the moment I am re-experiencing the joys of FVP.
February 2, 2019 at 22:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I disagree when you say "less attention on completeness". By iterating over a small list of tasks until they are done, they get completed. All those other things not on the small list may get discarded if not important, and thus they also are complete. And the few things that remain, are important and will get activated, thus also getting completed.
Currently I'm of the opinion that (4) would be better as "from end to beginning".
Currently I'm of the opinion that (4) would be better as "from end to beginning".
February 3, 2019 at 2:36 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Seraphim,
This is exactly what I was doing before this latest round of experiments! And by "exactly," I mean almost exactly reversed.
Just before my F-task method, I was scanning my Long List's last page up from the bottom, and if something on that page stood out, rescanning again from the bottom. When nothing on the page stood out, I continued the scan upwards through the whole list in one pass (same as Alan is suggesting above), working on whatever stood out. Upon reaching the top of the whole list, I restarted the whole process from the bottom.
This was a variation on Mark's and nuntym's AF2 tinkering, in which Mark was "locked" to each page in succession, and nuntym was locked to each day. I was locked only to the last page and then unlocked the whole rest of the list. What I loved about this was the opportunity to hammer the tasks at the bottom of the list, which led me to write an "F" in front of one "focus" task and make a game of keeping that task at the end of the list.
That was really great for me by itself, but as soon as I brought back my Day Page—which also is really great for me by itself and I don't want to give up—it split my focus and starved out the Long List... and here I am again!
This is exactly what I was doing before this latest round of experiments! And by "exactly," I mean almost exactly reversed.
Just before my F-task method, I was scanning my Long List's last page up from the bottom, and if something on that page stood out, rescanning again from the bottom. When nothing on the page stood out, I continued the scan upwards through the whole list in one pass (same as Alan is suggesting above), working on whatever stood out. Upon reaching the top of the whole list, I restarted the whole process from the bottom.
This was a variation on Mark's and nuntym's AF2 tinkering, in which Mark was "locked" to each page in succession, and nuntym was locked to each day. I was locked only to the last page and then unlocked the whole rest of the list. What I loved about this was the opportunity to hammer the tasks at the bottom of the list, which led me to write an "F" in front of one "focus" task and make a game of keeping that task at the end of the list.
That was really great for me by itself, but as soon as I brought back my Day Page—which also is really great for me by itself and I don't want to give up—it split my focus and starved out the Long List... and here I am again!
February 3, 2019 at 4:19 |
Bernie
Bernie
The game changed for me with the rule that the open list is initially empty and filled by thought rather than first pulling forward tasks from above, even if only from yesterday. Mark suggests this above, and I have tried that before. It seems to work fine but (so far) I greatly prefer starting with a blank slate and only later going back.
February 3, 2019 at 13:31 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
<< The game changed for me with the rule that the open list is initially empty and filled by thought rather than first pulling forward tasks from above, even if only from yesterday. >>
Yes, this is true for me, too. This is probably the main feature of the whole Serial No-List system. I think this is why I was resisting this variant. I think the variant would create a tendency to lean too much on the existing list items, rather than bring your intuition to the surface. Starting with a blank page is GREAT at bringing your intuition to the surface. This is what gives the system the No-List feel. Keeping the pages around till they are completed or deleted gives the system a sense of completeness that is missing with other No List systems.
Yes, this is true for me, too. This is probably the main feature of the whole Serial No-List system. I think this is why I was resisting this variant. I think the variant would create a tendency to lean too much on the existing list items, rather than bring your intuition to the surface. Starting with a blank page is GREAT at bringing your intuition to the surface. This is what gives the system the No-List feel. Keeping the pages around till they are completed or deleted gives the system a sense of completeness that is missing with other No List systems.
February 3, 2019 at 14:27 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
All you have to do is start a new page each day but otherwise use the exact same system. You can have a Serial No-List or a Long List, and you can change your mind each morning.
But do you even really need to flip the page? Nothing stops us from writing down everything on our minds into the Long List each day, with or without flipping the page or drawing a line. Who cares if it's already on the list somewhere up above? As David Allen says, if it's on your mind, you haven't handled it sufficiently. Maybe cover the prior list with another piece of paper while you get everything off your mind afresh.
But do you even really need to flip the page? Nothing stops us from writing down everything on our minds into the Long List each day, with or without flipping the page or drawing a line. Who cares if it's already on the list somewhere up above? As David Allen says, if it's on your mind, you haven't handled it sufficiently. Maybe cover the prior list with another piece of paper while you get everything off your mind afresh.
February 3, 2019 at 15:28 |
Bernie
Bernie
<<Nothing stops us from writing down everything on our minds into the Long List each day, with or without flipping the page or drawing a line.>>
True, but the simple action of starting a fresh page as the first action of the day has more than a trivial effect. It immediately prompts engagement with whatever is most important to you, most top of mind, most urgent. It gets you thinking. It gets you motivated. It starts you in a good direction for the whole day.
With Long List, the easiest thing to do when I open the notebook for the day is to start scanning. Perhaps the many forum discussions over the years on “where to start scanning at the beginning of the day?” is evidence of this?
Often, the scanning leads to the same result -- to the most engaging items that are really going to help you move things forward. But it can just as easily lead to distractions.
<<Maybe cover the prior list with another piece of paper while you get everything off your mind afresh.>>
It’s easier to start a new page. :-)
Honestly, I’ve tried all these ideas. I was resisting the idea of starting a new page, because there is something psychologically satisfying about having a single long unbroken list — seeing all those pages so neat and orderly and filled completely with crossed-our tasks. Maybe there are other benefits, too, such as the perception that it’s saving paper. But in the end, the simple trick of starting a new page has had quite a profound effect that seems much more valuable. At least, that’s how it has worked for me.
True, but the simple action of starting a fresh page as the first action of the day has more than a trivial effect. It immediately prompts engagement with whatever is most important to you, most top of mind, most urgent. It gets you thinking. It gets you motivated. It starts you in a good direction for the whole day.
With Long List, the easiest thing to do when I open the notebook for the day is to start scanning. Perhaps the many forum discussions over the years on “where to start scanning at the beginning of the day?” is evidence of this?
Often, the scanning leads to the same result -- to the most engaging items that are really going to help you move things forward. But it can just as easily lead to distractions.
<<Maybe cover the prior list with another piece of paper while you get everything off your mind afresh.>>
It’s easier to start a new page. :-)
Honestly, I’ve tried all these ideas. I was resisting the idea of starting a new page, because there is something psychologically satisfying about having a single long unbroken list — seeing all those pages so neat and orderly and filled completely with crossed-our tasks. Maybe there are other benefits, too, such as the perception that it’s saving paper. But in the end, the simple trick of starting a new page has had quite a profound effect that seems much more valuable. At least, that’s how it has worked for me.
February 3, 2019 at 21:55 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
<<As David Allen says, if it's on your mind, you haven't handled it sufficiently.>>
Yes, David Allen says if you are worried about many things, have lots of mental clutter, "monkey mind", etc., then it's very difficult to respond appropriately to all the demands coming at you. But I am not sure how that applies to the discussion here. Writing whatever is on my mind on my list when I start the day is a great way to clear my mind of clutter, and be able to assess each thing appropriately, with full engagement and intuition. I think that's actually the same thing David Allen is trying to achieve with his GTD inbox-handling and weekly-review routines.
Yes, David Allen says if you are worried about many things, have lots of mental clutter, "monkey mind", etc., then it's very difficult to respond appropriately to all the demands coming at you. But I am not sure how that applies to the discussion here. Writing whatever is on my mind on my list when I start the day is a great way to clear my mind of clutter, and be able to assess each thing appropriately, with full engagement and intuition. I think that's actually the same thing David Allen is trying to achieve with his GTD inbox-handling and weekly-review routines.
February 3, 2019 at 21:59 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim,
"Writing whatever is on my mind on my list when I start the day is a great way to clear my mind of clutter, and be able to assess each thing appropriately, with full engagement and intuition."
Yes, that is what I mean. I am claiming that your No-List practice of writing a fresh list is in accord with David Allen's principle. You are handling what is on your mind by giving it a fresh place in your system, rather than hoping it will resurface from whatever past page it is lurking on. The fact that it is still on your mind suggests that you were not confident in the latter—easily fixed!
I like the fresh new page per day. It is such a simple enhancement, it could be applied to most any Long List system to gain No-List benefits with minimal disturbance.
"Writing whatever is on my mind on my list when I start the day is a great way to clear my mind of clutter, and be able to assess each thing appropriately, with full engagement and intuition."
Yes, that is what I mean. I am claiming that your No-List practice of writing a fresh list is in accord with David Allen's principle. You are handling what is on your mind by giving it a fresh place in your system, rather than hoping it will resurface from whatever past page it is lurking on. The fact that it is still on your mind suggests that you were not confident in the latter—easily fixed!
I like the fresh new page per day. It is such a simple enhancement, it could be applied to most any Long List system to gain No-List benefits with minimal disturbance.
February 3, 2019 at 22:33 |
Bernie
Bernie
LOL, somehow I thought you were saying the opposite. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
<< I like the fresh new page per day. It is such a simple enhancement, it could be applied to most any Long List system to gain No-List benefits with minimal disturbance. >>
Hm, interesting idea! You may be right! I could see how it might integrate nicely with FVP, for example. Others, like FV and AF4, put more emphasis on older tasks, so I don't see how it would work with them.
<< I like the fresh new page per day. It is such a simple enhancement, it could be applied to most any Long List system to gain No-List benefits with minimal disturbance. >>
Hm, interesting idea! You may be right! I could see how it might integrate nicely with FVP, for example. Others, like FV and AF4, put more emphasis on older tasks, so I don't see how it would work with them.
February 3, 2019 at 23:17 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I think the best time to scan the old items depends on how much you trust your intuition and how much time you have, which varies with person, job, and even with day or hour.
Sometimes I'm terrified I'll forget something important, so check it early. Other times I'm happy with intuition. Often it's a mix. I might start the day with intuition, but stay calm knowing that I'll check it with plenty of time if something's lurking. (That method should produce more anxiety than it does. All too often I get caught up in something and never check.)
I agree, a fresh page really makes a difference. I usually start by writing my routines, then check the calendar, then check the last few days' lists.
Sometimes I'm terrified I'll forget something important, so check it early. Other times I'm happy with intuition. Often it's a mix. I might start the day with intuition, but stay calm knowing that I'll check it with plenty of time if something's lurking. (That method should produce more anxiety than it does. All too often I get caught up in something and never check.)
I agree, a fresh page really makes a difference. I usually start by writing my routines, then check the calendar, then check the last few days' lists.
February 4, 2019 at 17:00 |
Cricket
Cricket
Two inchoate ideas that should probably have died aborning but what the heck, honor my impulse.
* The new blank page every day reminded me of Mark's love of "fill in the blank" sentence completions, where you come up with 10 new completions for a given prompt, and then attack the same prompt every day but write new completions without referring to the previous ones. The goal, I think, being both to generate new ideas and to see which ones are most persistent. For me, a new blank serial no-list page is "fill in the blank" to the max.
* The serial no-list experience I've had for the last week or so reminded of one of Mark's expressed preferences, that of "spaciousness" in his mind, schedule, life, etc. I've been involved the past month with a committee I'm on that's revising bylaws and covenants for our cohousing community. Lots of new and unexpected work comes up, so older items from my previous longlist do not come to mind. As I draft the new list each day, what comes to mind seems to be what I have "space" for that day. It's not just whatever is "top of mind"; it's also what I have space to do (mentally, energetically).
Sometimes the serial no-list contains items that I can only do little-and-often with; I'll try to at least "get the file out" with some of them. Sometimes that is enough for me to write it down again the next day.
Sometimes, for specific projects (we're currently downsizing our possessions), I may rapid-fire lots of tasks in a row. I know I won't be getting to them all today. But they're written down, so that's comforting and probably opens up some mental space for a new idea to pop in.
[I just noticed I'm using "sometimes" a lot -- wow :) . I've not been keeping strict records of this, so that's about as specific as I can get.]
I keep separate serial no-lists for home and workplace. I bring my personal list to work and keep it open on the desk beside me all day. At home, when I have only an hour or two at most to work on ongoing projects or tasks, I'll also jot down everything that's on my mind -- more than I can do in that time, often. I'm able to judge what's priority, what isn't, what feeds me, what doesn't, and so I'm OK with letting some of those things go. Rattling off a long list while facing very little time to get them done reminds me that I simply have taken on a lot or that some of these things...just aren't urgent right now. Letting go of them, even for an evening, is freeing. I think that feeling of being at peace with my decisions also creates space inside my noggin.
Sorry for the babblement. Just a few bubbles off the top of the thinktank.
meb
* The new blank page every day reminded me of Mark's love of "fill in the blank" sentence completions, where you come up with 10 new completions for a given prompt, and then attack the same prompt every day but write new completions without referring to the previous ones. The goal, I think, being both to generate new ideas and to see which ones are most persistent. For me, a new blank serial no-list page is "fill in the blank" to the max.
* The serial no-list experience I've had for the last week or so reminded of one of Mark's expressed preferences, that of "spaciousness" in his mind, schedule, life, etc. I've been involved the past month with a committee I'm on that's revising bylaws and covenants for our cohousing community. Lots of new and unexpected work comes up, so older items from my previous longlist do not come to mind. As I draft the new list each day, what comes to mind seems to be what I have "space" for that day. It's not just whatever is "top of mind"; it's also what I have space to do (mentally, energetically).
Sometimes the serial no-list contains items that I can only do little-and-often with; I'll try to at least "get the file out" with some of them. Sometimes that is enough for me to write it down again the next day.
Sometimes, for specific projects (we're currently downsizing our possessions), I may rapid-fire lots of tasks in a row. I know I won't be getting to them all today. But they're written down, so that's comforting and probably opens up some mental space for a new idea to pop in.
[I just noticed I'm using "sometimes" a lot -- wow :) . I've not been keeping strict records of this, so that's about as specific as I can get.]
I keep separate serial no-lists for home and workplace. I bring my personal list to work and keep it open on the desk beside me all day. At home, when I have only an hour or two at most to work on ongoing projects or tasks, I'll also jot down everything that's on my mind -- more than I can do in that time, often. I'm able to judge what's priority, what isn't, what feeds me, what doesn't, and so I'm OK with letting some of those things go. Rattling off a long list while facing very little time to get them done reminds me that I simply have taken on a lot or that some of these things...just aren't urgent right now. Letting go of them, even for an evening, is freeing. I think that feeling of being at peace with my decisions also creates space inside my noggin.
Sorry for the babblement. Just a few bubbles off the top of the thinktank.
meb
February 4, 2019 at 17:35 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
Mike Brown -
Thanks for sharing your experiences!
<< a new blank serial no-list page is "fill in the blank" to the max. >>
Yes! That’s a great description.
<< The serial no-list experience I've had for the last week or so reminded of one of Mark's expressed preferences, that of "spaciousness" in his mind, schedule, life, etc. >>
Yes! I have that experience too. The system has a great sense of freedom without falling into aimlessness.
<< I think that feeling of being at peace with my decisions also creates space inside my noggin. >>
This feels uncanny, I have had the very same experience. This system makes me feel so much more in control. Somehow it makes it clear that it is 100% my decision and responsibility to decide what to do with my time, but without any sense of pressure about it. It is almost a feeling of power or strength. I just feel more capable. I was thinking it was just a confluence of events that had led to this, and had not attributed it to the system per se. But now you are making me wonder if it’s another benefit of No-List thinking that this method helps to strengthen.
<< Sorry for the babblement. Just a few bubbles off the top of the thinktank. >>
Thank you for sharing!
Thanks for sharing your experiences!
<< a new blank serial no-list page is "fill in the blank" to the max. >>
Yes! That’s a great description.
<< The serial no-list experience I've had for the last week or so reminded of one of Mark's expressed preferences, that of "spaciousness" in his mind, schedule, life, etc. >>
Yes! I have that experience too. The system has a great sense of freedom without falling into aimlessness.
<< I think that feeling of being at peace with my decisions also creates space inside my noggin. >>
This feels uncanny, I have had the very same experience. This system makes me feel so much more in control. Somehow it makes it clear that it is 100% my decision and responsibility to decide what to do with my time, but without any sense of pressure about it. It is almost a feeling of power or strength. I just feel more capable. I was thinking it was just a confluence of events that had led to this, and had not attributed it to the system per se. But now you are making me wonder if it’s another benefit of No-List thinking that this method helps to strengthen.
<< Sorry for the babblement. Just a few bubbles off the top of the thinktank. >>
Thank you for sharing!
February 5, 2019 at 5:03 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I was planning to revisit the RAF system which I got distracted from far too soon, but this sounds so enticing that I'm going to have a crack at it starting from now!
February 5, 2019 at 10:12 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark - Great! Let us know how it goes!
I'm hoping you can help find the problems with this method. I am sure there are some, but I haven't been able to find any yet!
I'm hoping you can help find the problems with this method. I am sure there are some, but I haven't been able to find any yet!
February 5, 2019 at 15:10 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
I've changed my mind, I'm afraid. I decided not to get distracted from RAF for a second time.
RAF is a system that bears some resemblance to your serial no-list, in that the aim is to list only what is immediately relevant. But it starts from the opposite perspective - by whittling down a long list rather than accumulating no-lists.
I've changed my mind, I'm afraid. I decided not to get distracted from RAF for a second time.
RAF is a system that bears some resemblance to your serial no-list, in that the aim is to list only what is immediately relevant. But it starts from the opposite perspective - by whittling down a long list rather than accumulating no-lists.
February 5, 2019 at 20:56 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
With my experiences with TT and AF2 variants I am now convinced that with Long Lists it is more important to have a good way to present your tasks to yourself than having a good process to choose said tasks. Indeed, for your system I suggest to keep on dividing your tasks as you are doing now then just scan your list however you want.
February 6, 2019 at 15:49 |
nuntym
nuntym
Mark -
<< RAF is a system that bears some resemblance to your serial no-list, in that the aim is to list only what is immediately relevant. But it starts from the opposite perspective - by whittling down a long list rather than accumulating no-lists. >>
Yes, I can see some similarities.
RAF focuses on the tasks from yesterday and today. Serial No-List focuses on tasks from today.
For earlier tasks, there are some significant differences:
-- RAF seems to want you to deal with them pretty quickly -- if I understand correctly, you make one pass through yesterday's and today's tasks, and then you must go deal with all the older tasks. Serial No-List has you cycle through the current tasks till nothing stands out, and only then takes you back to the older tasks. I prefer this method because it keeps you focused on the current work until you are naturally ready for a break.
-- RAF demands that you deal with the older tasks -- delete, do, or defer. Serial No-List doesn't demand you do anything at all; but in practice, most tasks are deleted, a few are done, and a few are deferred (by letting them stay on the list). So the effect is probably similar, but again the Serial No-List approach feels more natural.
-- I know from experience that sooner-or-later I would come to resist RAF's demands in how to handle the older tasks. But on the other hand, I have some lingering concerns that Serial No-Lists's uncleared pages might grow and become a kind of debt. It hasn't happened yet -- they seem to get cleared out pretty quickly without any pressure at all -- but if Serial No-List starts having problems, I am guessing it will be here.
I guess the question is -- How to ensure closure on the old tasks without actually applying *pressure* on the old tasks? The pressure creates resistance to the system. Even the pressure to defer everything to the calendar creates resistance (at least for me). But if the list of old tasks starts taking too long to review, that also creates resistance. It will be interesting to see how that plays out, and whether we can resolve this conflict.
Recurring tasks -- I'd be curious to know what tends to happen with these with RAF. Does RAF tend to accumulate them, as with most Long List systems? Or do they tend to naturally develop into routines, as with No-List systems?
Such a trivial thing as starting a new blank page every day seems to have a really significant effect, and seems to be the thing that creates the No-List feel of Serial No-List. I am wondering if RAF gets a similar effect, even though it operates like a Long List system. The way it handles recurring tasks would be a good indicator, I think.
<< RAF is a system that bears some resemblance to your serial no-list, in that the aim is to list only what is immediately relevant. But it starts from the opposite perspective - by whittling down a long list rather than accumulating no-lists. >>
Yes, I can see some similarities.
RAF focuses on the tasks from yesterday and today. Serial No-List focuses on tasks from today.
For earlier tasks, there are some significant differences:
-- RAF seems to want you to deal with them pretty quickly -- if I understand correctly, you make one pass through yesterday's and today's tasks, and then you must go deal with all the older tasks. Serial No-List has you cycle through the current tasks till nothing stands out, and only then takes you back to the older tasks. I prefer this method because it keeps you focused on the current work until you are naturally ready for a break.
-- RAF demands that you deal with the older tasks -- delete, do, or defer. Serial No-List doesn't demand you do anything at all; but in practice, most tasks are deleted, a few are done, and a few are deferred (by letting them stay on the list). So the effect is probably similar, but again the Serial No-List approach feels more natural.
-- I know from experience that sooner-or-later I would come to resist RAF's demands in how to handle the older tasks. But on the other hand, I have some lingering concerns that Serial No-Lists's uncleared pages might grow and become a kind of debt. It hasn't happened yet -- they seem to get cleared out pretty quickly without any pressure at all -- but if Serial No-List starts having problems, I am guessing it will be here.
I guess the question is -- How to ensure closure on the old tasks without actually applying *pressure* on the old tasks? The pressure creates resistance to the system. Even the pressure to defer everything to the calendar creates resistance (at least for me). But if the list of old tasks starts taking too long to review, that also creates resistance. It will be interesting to see how that plays out, and whether we can resolve this conflict.
Recurring tasks -- I'd be curious to know what tends to happen with these with RAF. Does RAF tend to accumulate them, as with most Long List systems? Or do they tend to naturally develop into routines, as with No-List systems?
Such a trivial thing as starting a new blank page every day seems to have a really significant effect, and seems to be the thing that creates the No-List feel of Serial No-List. I am wondering if RAF gets a similar effect, even though it operates like a Long List system. The way it handles recurring tasks would be a good indicator, I think.
February 6, 2019 at 16:29 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
nuntym:
<< I am now convinced that with Long Lists it is more important to have a good way to present your tasks to yourself than having a good process to choose said tasks. >>
Hmm... The problem I have with this statement is that neither your Task Tracking system nor Seraphim's Serial No List system are actually Long List systems. And experience has shown that AF2 works much better with a Panic List or a Day List than it does with a proper Long List.
And RAF isn't a Long List system either. It's a 2-day system.
<< I am now convinced that with Long Lists it is more important to have a good way to present your tasks to yourself than having a good process to choose said tasks. >>
Hmm... The problem I have with this statement is that neither your Task Tracking system nor Seraphim's Serial No List system are actually Long List systems. And experience has shown that AF2 works much better with a Panic List or a Day List than it does with a proper Long List.
And RAF isn't a Long List system either. It's a 2-day system.
February 6, 2019 at 16:36 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym -
<< it is more important to have a good way to present your tasks to yourself than having a good process to choose said tasks >>
<< Indeed, for your system I suggest to keep on dividing your tasks as you are doing now then just scan your list however you want. >>
Those two statements seem contradictory. The way you scan *is* the way you present tasks to yourself. (Isn't it?) Maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
It's absolutely a key element of Serial No-List to cycle on today's tasks till nothing stands out, and only then take an excursion back to old pages. I am repeatedly presenting to myself the most current, most top-of-mind work, the things I am already most engaged with. It builds momentum and reduces distractions. I think it's very important.
But for the excursion back to the old pages, it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot exactly how you read through them. It seems to be a bit more effective to go from most recent to oldest. But I don't hold myself to that.
Also, exactly how you cycle through today's tasks doesn't seem to matter. I usually just keep cycling around and around like it's a short Simple Scanning list. But sometimes I use an FVP algorithm, sometimes I circle things and draw arrows and write side notes, etc. It doesn't matter a whole lot.
So if that's what you meant, then I agree with you. :-)
But if you meant it doesn't matter which part of the list gets your repeated attention, and the dynamics behind that don't really matter, then I don't agree with you. :-)
<< it is more important to have a good way to present your tasks to yourself than having a good process to choose said tasks >>
<< Indeed, for your system I suggest to keep on dividing your tasks as you are doing now then just scan your list however you want. >>
Those two statements seem contradictory. The way you scan *is* the way you present tasks to yourself. (Isn't it?) Maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
It's absolutely a key element of Serial No-List to cycle on today's tasks till nothing stands out, and only then take an excursion back to old pages. I am repeatedly presenting to myself the most current, most top-of-mind work, the things I am already most engaged with. It builds momentum and reduces distractions. I think it's very important.
But for the excursion back to the old pages, it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot exactly how you read through them. It seems to be a bit more effective to go from most recent to oldest. But I don't hold myself to that.
Also, exactly how you cycle through today's tasks doesn't seem to matter. I usually just keep cycling around and around like it's a short Simple Scanning list. But sometimes I use an FVP algorithm, sometimes I circle things and draw arrows and write side notes, etc. It doesn't matter a whole lot.
So if that's what you meant, then I agree with you. :-)
But if you meant it doesn't matter which part of the list gets your repeated attention, and the dynamics behind that don't really matter, then I don't agree with you. :-)
February 6, 2019 at 16:48 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I am excited to hear more considerations about RAF. I have been inspired by Cal Newport's Deep Work to schedule project time on my calendar and List time, to handle what Cal calls Shallow tasks. Up until Monday I was using AF2REV to handle shallow, but have moved to RAF, which after a few days is working well, though today is the first day with older tasks :)
February 6, 2019 at 17:00 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
Seraphim:
"Those two statements seem contradictory. The way you scan *is* the way you present tasks to yourself. (Isn't it?) Maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say."
I'm sorry that I was not clear. What I was trying to say was that my experience is pointing to the paramount importance of the visual presentation of the list, how the tasks are arranged and presented on paper or screen *before* scanning, compared to the processing of the list itself. The reason for this is that a well presented list gives the intuition relevant information in an unambiguous manner which (theoretically) results in better and faster intuitive decisions. On the other hand, focusing on how to process the list instead of on how the data is presented results not only in a more jumbled list which the intuition has to interpret first before making decisions, but also presens a possibility of forcing intuition to work in a way it will make it harder for it to do its job.
"Those two statements seem contradictory. The way you scan *is* the way you present tasks to yourself. (Isn't it?) Maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say."
I'm sorry that I was not clear. What I was trying to say was that my experience is pointing to the paramount importance of the visual presentation of the list, how the tasks are arranged and presented on paper or screen *before* scanning, compared to the processing of the list itself. The reason for this is that a well presented list gives the intuition relevant information in an unambiguous manner which (theoretically) results in better and faster intuitive decisions. On the other hand, focusing on how to process the list instead of on how the data is presented results not only in a more jumbled list which the intuition has to interpret first before making decisions, but also presens a possibility of forcing intuition to work in a way it will make it harder for it to do its job.
February 6, 2019 at 18:11 |
nuntym
nuntym
Mark Forster:
Sorry for the late reply, currently not home.
"The problem I have with this statement is that neither your Task Tracking system nor Seraphim's Serial No List system are actually Long List systems."
Very interesting, why would you consider my and Seraphim's systems as not Long Lists systems? And if so, what exactly are they? I am asking because they do seem to be and work as such.
Sorry for the late reply, currently not home.
"The problem I have with this statement is that neither your Task Tracking system nor Seraphim's Serial No List system are actually Long List systems."
Very interesting, why would you consider my and Seraphim's systems as not Long Lists systems? And if so, what exactly are they? I am asking because they do seem to be and work as such.
February 6, 2019 at 20:52 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym -
Serial No-List is like a No-List system that has a strong sense of "completeness" like a Long List. So though it has characteristics of both, it *feels* much more like a No-List: engaged with the *work* rather than with the *list*; lightweight; routines emerge by themselves; recurring items don't dominate the list; a strong sense of the totality of one's work.
I haven't tried TT or TTv2 so I can't say what kind of feel it has.
But maybe your disagreement with Mark on how to classify them is really just pointing to the fact that we are starting to create systems that have the best elements of both. :-)
Elements of a good time management system:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/12/18/systematic-fast-and-flexible.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/12/13/simple-scanning-clumping-attenuation-and-maturity.html
I was also going to add:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/7/1/high-volume-high-speed-low-resistance.html
but then realized I don't necessarily want high speed, or high volume. I don't necessarily want to get *everything* done. I want to find the fastest path to the biggest impact -- not just a system that processes everything I throw at it with the highest speed.
Serial No-List is like a No-List system that has a strong sense of "completeness" like a Long List. So though it has characteristics of both, it *feels* much more like a No-List: engaged with the *work* rather than with the *list*; lightweight; routines emerge by themselves; recurring items don't dominate the list; a strong sense of the totality of one's work.
I haven't tried TT or TTv2 so I can't say what kind of feel it has.
But maybe your disagreement with Mark on how to classify them is really just pointing to the fact that we are starting to create systems that have the best elements of both. :-)
Elements of a good time management system:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/12/18/systematic-fast-and-flexible.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/12/13/simple-scanning-clumping-attenuation-and-maturity.html
I was also going to add:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/7/1/high-volume-high-speed-low-resistance.html
but then realized I don't necessarily want high speed, or high volume. I don't necessarily want to get *everything* done. I want to find the fastest path to the biggest impact -- not just a system that processes everything I throw at it with the highest speed.
February 7, 2019 at 0:30 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
<<I don't necessarily want to get *everything* done. I want to find the fastest path to the biggest impact>>
Seraphim - exactly. I think Covey's question:
"What is the one thing that I'm not doing - that if I started to do - would have the greatest impact on my professional or personal lives?"
comes closest to touching on what I attempt to do every day. I mostly miss the mark, but try to keep the spirit of that question alive when I'm crafting my own productivity systems.
Seraphim - exactly. I think Covey's question:
"What is the one thing that I'm not doing - that if I started to do - would have the greatest impact on my professional or personal lives?"
comes closest to touching on what I attempt to do every day. I mostly miss the mark, but try to keep the spirit of that question alive when I'm crafting my own productivity systems.
February 7, 2019 at 13:38 |
avrum
avrum
nuntym:
<< Very interesting, why would you consider my and Seraphim's systems as not Long Lists systems? And if so, what exactly are they? I am asking because they do seem to be and work as such. >>
I may have been a bit hasty in saying that in regard to your system. I'm going to have to go back and read the rules again.
Seraphim's system is a one-day No List system with an archive.
<< Very interesting, why would you consider my and Seraphim's systems as not Long Lists systems? And if so, what exactly are they? I am asking because they do seem to be and work as such. >>
I may have been a bit hasty in saying that in regard to your system. I'm going to have to go back and read the rules again.
Seraphim's system is a one-day No List system with an archive.
February 7, 2019 at 14:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< I don't necessarily want high speed, or high volume. I don't necessarily want to get *everything* done. I want to find the fastest path to the biggest impact -- not just a system that processes everything I throw at it with the highest speed. >>
Hmm...
This sounds like some sort of TV Challenge. The contestant who gets the biggest result in the shortest time wins.
But wouldn't the winner be the one who moves fastest through the various choices open to them?
<< I don't necessarily want high speed, or high volume. I don't necessarily want to get *everything* done. I want to find the fastest path to the biggest impact -- not just a system that processes everything I throw at it with the highest speed. >>
Hmm...
This sounds like some sort of TV Challenge. The contestant who gets the biggest result in the shortest time wins.
But wouldn't the winner be the one who moves fastest through the various choices open to them?
February 7, 2019 at 14:17 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
avrum:
<< Covey's question: "What is the one thing that I'm not doing - that if I started to do - would have the greatest impact on my professional or personal lives?" >>
But this is more about what you put on the list, rather than the system you use to process it.
<< Covey's question: "What is the one thing that I'm not doing - that if I started to do - would have the greatest impact on my professional or personal lives?" >>
But this is more about what you put on the list, rather than the system you use to process it.
February 7, 2019 at 14:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym:
I've given your instructions another read and realise that my memory was at fault as to what it consisted of (I was working under some difficulties at the time)
Yes, it is a Long List system. My apologies!
I've given your instructions another read and realise that my memory was at fault as to what it consisted of (I was working under some difficulties at the time)
Yes, it is a Long List system. My apologies!
February 7, 2019 at 14:34 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I'm interested that several contributors have tended to go for a "Recurring tasks bad, New tasks good" attitude.
I disagree strongly with this. Establishing of good routines (recurring tasks) is essential to having a firm enough base to be able to process new tasks.
My answer to Covey's question "What is the one thing that I'm not doing - that if I started to do - would have the greatest impact on my professional or personal lives?" is to establish a stronger base of good routines.
I disagree strongly with this. Establishing of good routines (recurring tasks) is essential to having a firm enough base to be able to process new tasks.
My answer to Covey's question "What is the one thing that I'm not doing - that if I started to do - would have the greatest impact on my professional or personal lives?" is to establish a stronger base of good routines.
February 7, 2019 at 14:42 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
Scott Adams credits his success to this very thing:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fail-Almost-Everything-Still/dp/1591847745/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549555110&sr=8-1&keywords=Scott+Adams
Scott Adams credits his success to this very thing:
https://www.amazon.com/How-Fail-Almost-Everything-Still/dp/1591847745/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549555110&sr=8-1&keywords=Scott+Adams
February 7, 2019 at 15:59 |
avrum
avrum
Mark - would love to hear you expand a bit on “stronger base of good routines” bit. My understanding would be ongoing habits (morning, evening, etc) that nudge you along towards whereever it is you’re trying to get to. Would this be correct? If so, why invest so much energy/time in maintaining lists/rules/intuition etc?
For example, for appx two years, Scott Adams Periscopes his opinions on politics/persuasion daily. Love him or hate him, his consistent postings have positioned himself as a political mouth piece, at least as an expert in persuasion.
Seth Godin blogs everyday.
My understanding is that neither get too hung up on productivity systems, lists, etc.
For example, for appx two years, Scott Adams Periscopes his opinions on politics/persuasion daily. Love him or hate him, his consistent postings have positioned himself as a political mouth piece, at least as an expert in persuasion.
Seth Godin blogs everyday.
My understanding is that neither get too hung up on productivity systems, lists, etc.
February 7, 2019 at 16:02 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
<< My understanding would be ongoing habits (morning, evening, etc) that nudge you along towards whereever it is you’re trying to get to. >>
No, that's not my understanding at all. Maybe the term "routines" is misleading. Perhaps a better one would be "systems". Virtually everything one does is done better, quicker and more thoroughly if one has instituted an effective system for it. This ranges from the minor, like what system you use to work through your email, to the major such as what sequence of planning actions are necessary when you are tasked with an important project.
This is hardly "nudging you along". It's how you actually do your work.
<< Would this be correct? If so, why invest so much energy/time in maintaining lists/rules/intuition etc? >>
Because it's one of the best investments you can make. And really, how much energy or time does it take to run a simple but effective list system? If it takes you as much as 30 seconds overhead per task done, then you are really labouring it.
<< Scott Adams Periscopes his opinions on politics/persuasion daily. Love him or hate him, his consistent postings have positioned himself as a political mouth piece, at least as an expert in persuasion. Seth Godin blogs everyday. My understanding is that neither get too hung up on productivity systems, lists, etc. >>
I have no idea how either of them organises the rest of his day, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they both have a system for producing their blog posts.
<< My understanding would be ongoing habits (morning, evening, etc) that nudge you along towards whereever it is you’re trying to get to. >>
No, that's not my understanding at all. Maybe the term "routines" is misleading. Perhaps a better one would be "systems". Virtually everything one does is done better, quicker and more thoroughly if one has instituted an effective system for it. This ranges from the minor, like what system you use to work through your email, to the major such as what sequence of planning actions are necessary when you are tasked with an important project.
This is hardly "nudging you along". It's how you actually do your work.
<< Would this be correct? If so, why invest so much energy/time in maintaining lists/rules/intuition etc? >>
Because it's one of the best investments you can make. And really, how much energy or time does it take to run a simple but effective list system? If it takes you as much as 30 seconds overhead per task done, then you are really labouring it.
<< Scott Adams Periscopes his opinions on politics/persuasion daily. Love him or hate him, his consistent postings have positioned himself as a political mouth piece, at least as an expert in persuasion. Seth Godin blogs everyday. My understanding is that neither get too hung up on productivity systems, lists, etc. >>
I have no idea how either of them organises the rest of his day, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they both have a system for producing their blog posts.
February 7, 2019 at 18:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster:
"I'm interested that several contributors have tended to go for a "Recurring tasks bad, New tasks good" attitude."
You may have misunderstood one of my posts before which is what I explained to Cricket: it is not that "Recurring tasks bad, New tasks good", it is that stagnation, doing only the same things, not learning something new, getting stuck in a rut that I think is bad.
And by the way Mark, I revise my thinking about my current system: I think you're correct with your previous assessment that Task Tracking is not a Long List. I was able to use my list at work as a pure No-List system and I am using the same list right now as a Long List with some No-List features. Note though that I have made revisions to the system which I have noted in my thread; I probably will have to make a new thread highlighting the changes but after I have tried the system some more.
"(I was working under some difficulties at the time)"
I hope you're doing better now Mark!
"I'm interested that several contributors have tended to go for a "Recurring tasks bad, New tasks good" attitude."
You may have misunderstood one of my posts before which is what I explained to Cricket: it is not that "Recurring tasks bad, New tasks good", it is that stagnation, doing only the same things, not learning something new, getting stuck in a rut that I think is bad.
And by the way Mark, I revise my thinking about my current system: I think you're correct with your previous assessment that Task Tracking is not a Long List. I was able to use my list at work as a pure No-List system and I am using the same list right now as a Long List with some No-List features. Note though that I have made revisions to the system which I have noted in my thread; I probably will have to make a new thread highlighting the changes but after I have tried the system some more.
"(I was working under some difficulties at the time)"
I hope you're doing better now Mark!
February 7, 2019 at 18:32 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
<< I hope you're doing better now Mark! >>
You posted the description of your system on the day I took off from Hong Kong after six and a half weeks away in Australia.
So yes, thank you. I am doing better now!
<< I hope you're doing better now Mark! >>
You posted the description of your system on the day I took off from Hong Kong after six and a half weeks away in Australia.
So yes, thank you. I am doing better now!
February 7, 2019 at 18:57 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I usually agree with, or accept, things Mark Forster writes. Apparently not today!
Mark: <<This sounds like some sort of TV Challenge. The contestant who gets the biggest result in the shortest time wins. But wouldn't the winner be the one who moves fastest through the various choices open to them?>>
No, it would be the winner who acts fastest on the biggest choices. Picture a beach with pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters scattered everywhere. (Do Brits use these words?
I mean 1p, 5p, 10p, 25p.) The winner is not the person who grabs coins the fastest. The winner is the one who zeroes in on quarters and grabs them. If all those things are on your list and you go through it serially, that's fine, but you will not be as effective as the person who only has quarters on the list. This is not the end of the story, as tasks are not as even-valued as money. But it is a guide.
Mark kind of addresses this in this response:
Avrum: << Covey's question: "What is the one thing that I'm not doing - that if I started to do - would have the greatest impact on my professional or personal lives?" >>
Mark: <<But this is more about what you put on the list, rather than the system you use to process it.>>
This is half-right, but it is also about what you *don't* have on the list. You can be more effective in that One Thing if it's not diluted by other things. (I've been reading Essentialism and Marie Kondo.)
Mark: <<I'm interested that several contributors have tended to go for a "Recurring tasks bad, New tasks good" attitude.
I disagree strongly with this. Establishing of good routines (recurring tasks) is essential to having a firm enough base to be able to process new tasks.>>
I agree with you in that I don't subscribe to "recurring tasks bad", and I also subscribe to "establishing good routines". However, I don't necessarily find writing things in a long list really are effective to establishing routine. They do help you keep things routine, but the length of a list with all the routines tends to get me working the routine items more often, and dilute my work on the Quarters. Instead, I could have them not on the long list, and I still have two outlets:
1) As a well-considered habitual activity. E.g. Wash dishes immediately after eating because that's the most efficient time to do that.
2) Do it on schedule.
There is still an option of writing it on the list, either spontaneously or upon the schedule activitating it.
Mark: <<This sounds like some sort of TV Challenge. The contestant who gets the biggest result in the shortest time wins. But wouldn't the winner be the one who moves fastest through the various choices open to them?>>
No, it would be the winner who acts fastest on the biggest choices. Picture a beach with pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters scattered everywhere. (Do Brits use these words?
I mean 1p, 5p, 10p, 25p.) The winner is not the person who grabs coins the fastest. The winner is the one who zeroes in on quarters and grabs them. If all those things are on your list and you go through it serially, that's fine, but you will not be as effective as the person who only has quarters on the list. This is not the end of the story, as tasks are not as even-valued as money. But it is a guide.
Mark kind of addresses this in this response:
Avrum: << Covey's question: "What is the one thing that I'm not doing - that if I started to do - would have the greatest impact on my professional or personal lives?" >>
Mark: <<But this is more about what you put on the list, rather than the system you use to process it.>>
This is half-right, but it is also about what you *don't* have on the list. You can be more effective in that One Thing if it's not diluted by other things. (I've been reading Essentialism and Marie Kondo.)
Mark: <<I'm interested that several contributors have tended to go for a "Recurring tasks bad, New tasks good" attitude.
I disagree strongly with this. Establishing of good routines (recurring tasks) is essential to having a firm enough base to be able to process new tasks.>>
I agree with you in that I don't subscribe to "recurring tasks bad", and I also subscribe to "establishing good routines". However, I don't necessarily find writing things in a long list really are effective to establishing routine. They do help you keep things routine, but the length of a list with all the routines tends to get me working the routine items more often, and dilute my work on the Quarters. Instead, I could have them not on the long list, and I still have two outlets:
1) As a well-considered habitual activity. E.g. Wash dishes immediately after eating because that's the most efficient time to do that.
2) Do it on schedule.
There is still an option of writing it on the list, either spontaneously or upon the schedule activitating it.
February 7, 2019 at 19:13 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
<< But wouldn't the winner be the one who moves fastest through the various choices open to them? >>
I think the winner would be the one who most quickly grasps the totality of the situation and zeroes in on the key actions required for success. (As in Alan's example.)
It may be helpful to at least *assess* all the various choices.
But maybe not. In a chaotic situation with many choices, it can be faster to pick one that looks promising (using Colley's Rule, perhaps), try it and see what happens, and course-correct as needed.
I think the winner would be the one who most quickly grasps the totality of the situation and zeroes in on the key actions required for success. (As in Alan's example.)
It may be helpful to at least *assess* all the various choices.
But maybe not. In a chaotic situation with many choices, it can be faster to pick one that looks promising (using Colley's Rule, perhaps), try it and see what happens, and course-correct as needed.
February 7, 2019 at 20:20 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Avrum wrote:
<< Covey's question: "What is the one thing that I'm not doing - that if I started to do - would have the greatest impact on my professional or personal lives?" >>
Mark responded:
<< But this is more about what you put on the list, rather than the system you use to process it. >>
I'm not sure it's so simple as that. A good system gives you feedback on what you are doing. "Clumping, Attenuation, and Maturity" is a good example. http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/12/13/simple-scanning-clumping-attenuation-and-maturity.html
A good system reveals dead ends. It reveals what is getting traction. It reveals when it may be time to pivot or course-correct.
A bad system doesn't give you any feedback at all.
Feedback is very important to understand the totality of one's situation and zero in on the key actions required for success. "Probe, sense, respond".
<< Covey's question: "What is the one thing that I'm not doing - that if I started to do - would have the greatest impact on my professional or personal lives?" >>
Mark responded:
<< But this is more about what you put on the list, rather than the system you use to process it. >>
I'm not sure it's so simple as that. A good system gives you feedback on what you are doing. "Clumping, Attenuation, and Maturity" is a good example. http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/12/13/simple-scanning-clumping-attenuation-and-maturity.html
A good system reveals dead ends. It reveals what is getting traction. It reveals when it may be time to pivot or course-correct.
A bad system doesn't give you any feedback at all.
Feedback is very important to understand the totality of one's situation and zero in on the key actions required for success. "Probe, sense, respond".
February 7, 2019 at 20:22 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
<< I'm interested that several contributors have tended to go for a "Recurring tasks bad, New tasks good" attitude. >>
I don't think anyone is really saying that?
As AF4 revealed very plainly, a large percentage of probably everyone's work is recurring work. It must be handled effectively.
Personally, I don't like it when recurring tasks dominate my list and create clutter (as tends to happen with Long List systems). This reduces the effectiveness of both recurring work and non-recurring work.
I do like it (very much!) when systems to handle recurring tasks emerge naturally (as tends to happen with No-List). This increases the effectiveness of both recurring work and non-recurring work.
I don't think anyone is really saying that?
As AF4 revealed very plainly, a large percentage of probably everyone's work is recurring work. It must be handled effectively.
Personally, I don't like it when recurring tasks dominate my list and create clutter (as tends to happen with Long List systems). This reduces the effectiveness of both recurring work and non-recurring work.
I do like it (very much!) when systems to handle recurring tasks emerge naturally (as tends to happen with No-List). This increases the effectiveness of both recurring work and non-recurring work.
February 7, 2019 at 20:23 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
<<However, I don't necessarily find writing things in a long list really are effective to establishing routine>>
I've spent quite a bit of time on this forum (and trying Mark's systems), and I've come to accept that fidelity to a list ain't how I work (or want to work). I love the ideas, and think the theory behind Mark's systems and workflows are solid... for some people.
Still, I find the most interesting discussions about productivity occur in this space. Hence why I return time and again.
I've spent quite a bit of time on this forum (and trying Mark's systems), and I've come to accept that fidelity to a list ain't how I work (or want to work). I love the ideas, and think the theory behind Mark's systems and workflows are solid... for some people.
Still, I find the most interesting discussions about productivity occur in this space. Hence why I return time and again.
February 7, 2019 at 21:13 |
avrum
avrum
Alan:
<< No, it would be the winner who acts fastest on the biggest choices. Picture a beach with pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters scattered everywhereThe winner is not the person who grabs coins the fastest. The winner is the one who zeroes in on quarters and grabs them. >>
Provided he knows what a quarter looks like.
Once he does, why would he put the lesser coinage on the beach? (Remember: what you put on your list is your choice)
<< No, it would be the winner who acts fastest on the biggest choices. Picture a beach with pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters scattered everywhereThe winner is not the person who grabs coins the fastest. The winner is the one who zeroes in on quarters and grabs them. >>
Provided he knows what a quarter looks like.
Once he does, why would he put the lesser coinage on the beach? (Remember: what you put on your list is your choice)
February 7, 2019 at 22:42 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< In a chaotic situation with many choices, it can be faster to pick one that looks promising (using Colley's Rule, perhaps), try it and see what happens, and course-correct as needed. >>
I think you are ignoring the fact that it's you in the first place that puts the tasks on the list. You wouldn't use Colley's Rule to find the best restaurant in town if you owned all the restaurants in town yourself.
<< In a chaotic situation with many choices, it can be faster to pick one that looks promising (using Colley's Rule, perhaps), try it and see what happens, and course-correct as needed. >>
I think you are ignoring the fact that it's you in the first place that puts the tasks on the list. You wouldn't use Colley's Rule to find the best restaurant in town if you owned all the restaurants in town yourself.
February 7, 2019 at 22:48 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< A good system reveals dead ends. It reveals what is getting traction. It reveals when it may be time to pivot or course-correct. >>
Yes, but isn't that what I've been saying all along?
<< A good system reveals dead ends. It reveals what is getting traction. It reveals when it may be time to pivot or course-correct. >>
Yes, but isn't that what I've been saying all along?
February 7, 2019 at 22:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< Personally, I don't like it when recurring tasks dominate my list and create clutter (as tends to happen with Long List systems). This reduces the effectiveness of both recurring work and non-recurring work.>>
But aren't we talking about long lists here? At least I am - I've lost track of what everyone else is talking about. I've nothing against No List systems - I think they are great. But if one is going to use a Long List system it needs to be complete. Call it clutter if you like, but if it needs doing it should either be on the list or be something that is automatically done at the correct interval.
<< Personally, I don't like it when recurring tasks dominate my list and create clutter (as tends to happen with Long List systems). This reduces the effectiveness of both recurring work and non-recurring work.>>
But aren't we talking about long lists here? At least I am - I've lost track of what everyone else is talking about. I've nothing against No List systems - I think they are great. But if one is going to use a Long List system it needs to be complete. Call it clutter if you like, but if it needs doing it should either be on the list or be something that is automatically done at the correct interval.
February 7, 2019 at 22:57 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Simple Scanning rules, except:
(1) At beginning of day, draw a line across the page.
(2) Below the line, write out whatever is on your mind that needs to be done.
(3) Cycle through the final page repeatedly, taking action on whatever stands out, crossing out and re-entering as necessary, adding new tasks to the end as necessary, etc.
(4) If you cycle through the final page and nothing stands out, then make a single pass from the beginning of the list until you arrive again at the final page.
(5) Then repeat from (3).
So basically, it's Simple Scanning except you cycle through the final page repeatedly till nothing on that page stands out. Only then do you cycle back to the beginning of the list. And, you start the day with a brain dump.