Discussion Forum > What do you really want to do right now? The CHAPS checklist
This merits a summarized rendition:
Am I free to do as I (CHOOSE)? If not, do what somebody else requires of you now.
Am I (HOMEOSTATIC), IE. physically ready to do this? If not, do something to address what ails you.
Am I (ALL THERE) mentally, to focus on this task. If not, take time out to reframe your mind.
Am I (PREPARED) to (PROMPTLY) handle any issues and emergencies? If not, prepare.
Am I (SATISFIED) with where I'm at? If not, work on your vocation to achieve satisfaction.
If yes to all these things, you are totally CHAPS and choose a way to celebrate.
Am I free to do as I (CHOOSE)? If not, do what somebody else requires of you now.
Am I (HOMEOSTATIC), IE. physically ready to do this? If not, do something to address what ails you.
Am I (ALL THERE) mentally, to focus on this task. If not, take time out to reframe your mind.
Am I (PREPARED) to (PROMPTLY) handle any issues and emergencies? If not, prepare.
Am I (SATISFIED) with where I'm at? If not, work on your vocation to achieve satisfaction.
If yes to all these things, you are totally CHAPS and choose a way to celebrate.
August 9, 2019 at 23:44 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
SO to the discussion of why I made this system: it was to counteract what keeps on happening to me with list systems. Why is it that whenever I use a Long List or No List system I tend to do the easy tasks and the harder tasks never get done? Why do I tend to do "timewasters" for hours on end? Why does a system go stale to the point that I want to change? Why is there "resistance"?
I really do think that Mark Forster's solutions over the years to these problems are spot on, but I thought that these solutions were implemented rather inefficiently or poorly. For example, I completely agree with the notion of "do the task as long as you feel like it," but if it is something you really like to do yet cuts into other things you have to do, when do you stop? Another is the notion of doing only what you want to do. I also completely agree with this, but what if I want to keep on doing the trivial stuff and it is hard to want to do what is more essential, i.e. "resistance"? The answer to this, which I also agree with, is that there is no such thing as resistance, but only "a question of suitability to be done at that time," according to one of Mark's posts. But then why do I never get to the point of being ready to do some tasks even though I keep on working my Long List? I remember asking this on the forum and Mark Forster then asked me to the line of "Are you sure of what you really want?" and I just closed my laptop and walked out because I had always followed the rules of whatever Long List that I used: I always did do what I wanted to do and I also wanted to do those tasks that I were resisting but I never did.
I therefore then left this forum for a while and looked for answers in my other passion: classical Western philosophy. I found that these philosophers had a suspicious view on the value of the subconscious "wanting" we have been using here. In fact, for most of its history Western philosophy had little concept on the subconscious, lumping it all up into the notion of the "passions", and these passions are, well, dumb and shouldn't be used as our primary way to decide things, but rather reason, the conscious mind that has considered its own passions as well as the environment and everything else, should be the mental faculty one should follow.
Now I couldn't just let all be and not even try to reconcile Mark Forster's ideas with philosophy, so I looked at the philosophers' look on human activity. For them, all of human activity can be categorized into four types, with considerable overlap between them:
- physical replenishment by food, rest, and therapies
- spiritual replenishment by recreation, games and levity
- economic work, which is the upkeep of oneself and household
- non-economic work, called leisure or vocation, which is the reason and summit of the previous activities
Underlying all of these activities is the concept of "kairos", which is the time of opportunity which one should always be in the lookout for and take advantage of, and "kronos" or sequential time which one should not squander.
Now I realized that these concepts can be arranged into a "hierarchy of needs": before anything, one should be healthy and capable, first physically then mentally; after these, one should be made ready to not only to do what is important to him, but also be ready for any untoward event; after all of this one is then ready to tackle the most important and hard tasks. This exactly fits Mark Forster's concept of the nonexistence of resistance: there is no such thing as resistance, only that you are not ready to do something. What I had done is only to show a way of how to accomplish this.
To integrate these concepts into Mark Forster's of "standing out" I introduced the idea of reason asking and listening to the passions' opinions on one's readiness to do things according to the hierarchy just discussed, and it was my hope that this will make one more informed and wise when looking for tasks that "stand out" in a list. This is where the CHAPS questions started.
In the next post I will discuss my impressions on this system.
-----
Thanks Alan, I used your post to inspire me to make the questions more concise. I also changed the questions into need/want questions since we are actually trying to know what we really want/need to do at the moment. Finally, I realized that it is actually rare to have no choice in one's task. Indeed, most of the time I can choose to not do what somebody wanted me to do or to not do whatever is scheduled. It is therefore less appropriate to talk about whether or not I have a choice to do something and more appropriate to talk about what is "critical" to do, to judge whether or not there are dire consequences to not doing or delaying a task.
The new questions are thus follows:
Do I need to do a CRITICAL task?
Do I need HOMEOSTASIS?
Do I need ACUITY?
Do I need PROMPTITUDE?
Do I want deep SATISFACTION?
I really do think that Mark Forster's solutions over the years to these problems are spot on, but I thought that these solutions were implemented rather inefficiently or poorly. For example, I completely agree with the notion of "do the task as long as you feel like it," but if it is something you really like to do yet cuts into other things you have to do, when do you stop? Another is the notion of doing only what you want to do. I also completely agree with this, but what if I want to keep on doing the trivial stuff and it is hard to want to do what is more essential, i.e. "resistance"? The answer to this, which I also agree with, is that there is no such thing as resistance, but only "a question of suitability to be done at that time," according to one of Mark's posts. But then why do I never get to the point of being ready to do some tasks even though I keep on working my Long List? I remember asking this on the forum and Mark Forster then asked me to the line of "Are you sure of what you really want?" and I just closed my laptop and walked out because I had always followed the rules of whatever Long List that I used: I always did do what I wanted to do and I also wanted to do those tasks that I were resisting but I never did.
I therefore then left this forum for a while and looked for answers in my other passion: classical Western philosophy. I found that these philosophers had a suspicious view on the value of the subconscious "wanting" we have been using here. In fact, for most of its history Western philosophy had little concept on the subconscious, lumping it all up into the notion of the "passions", and these passions are, well, dumb and shouldn't be used as our primary way to decide things, but rather reason, the conscious mind that has considered its own passions as well as the environment and everything else, should be the mental faculty one should follow.
Now I couldn't just let all be and not even try to reconcile Mark Forster's ideas with philosophy, so I looked at the philosophers' look on human activity. For them, all of human activity can be categorized into four types, with considerable overlap between them:
- physical replenishment by food, rest, and therapies
- spiritual replenishment by recreation, games and levity
- economic work, which is the upkeep of oneself and household
- non-economic work, called leisure or vocation, which is the reason and summit of the previous activities
Underlying all of these activities is the concept of "kairos", which is the time of opportunity which one should always be in the lookout for and take advantage of, and "kronos" or sequential time which one should not squander.
Now I realized that these concepts can be arranged into a "hierarchy of needs": before anything, one should be healthy and capable, first physically then mentally; after these, one should be made ready to not only to do what is important to him, but also be ready for any untoward event; after all of this one is then ready to tackle the most important and hard tasks. This exactly fits Mark Forster's concept of the nonexistence of resistance: there is no such thing as resistance, only that you are not ready to do something. What I had done is only to show a way of how to accomplish this.
To integrate these concepts into Mark Forster's of "standing out" I introduced the idea of reason asking and listening to the passions' opinions on one's readiness to do things according to the hierarchy just discussed, and it was my hope that this will make one more informed and wise when looking for tasks that "stand out" in a list. This is where the CHAPS questions started.
In the next post I will discuss my impressions on this system.
-----
Thanks Alan, I used your post to inspire me to make the questions more concise. I also changed the questions into need/want questions since we are actually trying to know what we really want/need to do at the moment. Finally, I realized that it is actually rare to have no choice in one's task. Indeed, most of the time I can choose to not do what somebody wanted me to do or to not do whatever is scheduled. It is therefore less appropriate to talk about whether or not I have a choice to do something and more appropriate to talk about what is "critical" to do, to judge whether or not there are dire consequences to not doing or delaying a task.
The new questions are thus follows:
Do I need to do a CRITICAL task?
Do I need HOMEOSTASIS?
Do I need ACUITY?
Do I need PROMPTITUDE?
Do I want deep SATISFACTION?
August 14, 2019 at 6:37 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
<< Why is it that whenever I use a Long List or No List system I tend to do the easy tasks and the harder tasks never get done? Why do I tend to do "timewasters" for hours on end? Why does a system go stale to the point that I want to change? Why is there "resistance"? >>
I'll answer those questions one at a time.
<< I tend to do the easy tasks and the harder tasks never get done >>
What makes the difference between an easy task and a difficult one?
In spite of the philosophers, it's not actually a question of criticality, homeostasis, acuity, promptitude or even satisfaction.
The real answer is that it's a question of neural pathways. If the task has a strong neural pathway, then it will have the appearance of being easy. If it has a weak or non-existent neural pathway, then it will have the appearance of being difficult.
How does one strengthen neural pathways? One word: PRACTICE.
This is why it's so important to develop good routines - something I've stressed over and over again.
<< Why do I tend to do "timewasters" for hours on end? >>
Because you've practised them for hours on end. Therefore they have very strong neural pathways.
<< Why does a system go stale to the point that I want to change? >>
If you keep changing systems you are not laying down the neural pathways that would make a system easy in itself. The system itself needs practice.
<< Why is there resistance? >>
You get resistance when you are faced with a task for which you do not have the neural pathways. There's only one way to get them. And that is practice. This is where the concept of "little and often" comes in. Break the big task down into small segments and practise those. Practice in this case initially means doing the task bit by bit. You will develop skills which are interchangeable with many other tasks, thus reducing the number of tasks you feel resistance for. (And also reducing the amount of time available for practising "time wasters").
<< Why is it that whenever I use a Long List or No List system I tend to do the easy tasks and the harder tasks never get done? Why do I tend to do "timewasters" for hours on end? Why does a system go stale to the point that I want to change? Why is there "resistance"? >>
I'll answer those questions one at a time.
<< I tend to do the easy tasks and the harder tasks never get done >>
What makes the difference between an easy task and a difficult one?
In spite of the philosophers, it's not actually a question of criticality, homeostasis, acuity, promptitude or even satisfaction.
The real answer is that it's a question of neural pathways. If the task has a strong neural pathway, then it will have the appearance of being easy. If it has a weak or non-existent neural pathway, then it will have the appearance of being difficult.
How does one strengthen neural pathways? One word: PRACTICE.
This is why it's so important to develop good routines - something I've stressed over and over again.
<< Why do I tend to do "timewasters" for hours on end? >>
Because you've practised them for hours on end. Therefore they have very strong neural pathways.
<< Why does a system go stale to the point that I want to change? >>
If you keep changing systems you are not laying down the neural pathways that would make a system easy in itself. The system itself needs practice.
<< Why is there resistance? >>
You get resistance when you are faced with a task for which you do not have the neural pathways. There's only one way to get them. And that is practice. This is where the concept of "little and often" comes in. Break the big task down into small segments and practise those. Practice in this case initially means doing the task bit by bit. You will develop skills which are interchangeable with many other tasks, thus reducing the number of tasks you feel resistance for. (And also reducing the amount of time available for practising "time wasters").
August 15, 2019 at 15:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
To illustrate the above, a concert pianist might feel no resistance to piano practice, but might feel considerable resistance to getting a cracked window pane fixed at home.
The piano practice requires enormous technical proficiency, but a concert pianist has spent years developing the neural pathways with which to do it. These include not just the piano techniques themselves, but also the methods by which they are practised. Faced with a new piano piece, there is no need to wonder "How on earth can I possibly do this?". The answer to that question has already been practised many thousands of times.
But as far as getting the cracked window pane fixed, the concert pianist is at no more advantage than you or I would be.
The piano practice requires enormous technical proficiency, but a concert pianist has spent years developing the neural pathways with which to do it. These include not just the piano techniques themselves, but also the methods by which they are practised. Faced with a new piano piece, there is no need to wonder "How on earth can I possibly do this?". The answer to that question has already been practised many thousands of times.
But as far as getting the cracked window pane fixed, the concert pianist is at no more advantage than you or I would be.
August 15, 2019 at 17:51 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym: "Why does a system go stale to the point that I want to change?"
You have a load of stuff which you want to do and for some reason are not doing it, and the feeling of it being outstanding causes a low level of underlying stress. You find a productivity system which you believe can help. You populate it and start using it and, by definition, it perfectly reflects your current situation. This makes the system feel just right. The stress fades away based on the knowledge that finally things will get moving. As time goes on you realise you're still not doing things you should be doing and the system has its own maintenance needs which cause it to diverge from your current situation. The stress builds up again. Eventually you ditch it for a new system and the whole process repeats.
You have a load of stuff which you want to do and for some reason are not doing it, and the feeling of it being outstanding causes a low level of underlying stress. You find a productivity system which you believe can help. You populate it and start using it and, by definition, it perfectly reflects your current situation. This makes the system feel just right. The stress fades away based on the knowledge that finally things will get moving. As time goes on you realise you're still not doing things you should be doing and the system has its own maintenance needs which cause it to diverge from your current situation. The stress builds up again. Eventually you ditch it for a new system and the whole process repeats.
August 15, 2019 at 20:50 |
Chris
Chris
@Mark Forster:
<<In spite of the philosophers, it's not actually a question of criticality, homeostasis, acuity, promptitude or even satisfaction.
The real answer is that it's a question of neural pathways. If the task has a strong neural pathway, then it will have the appearance of being easy. If it has a weak or non-existent neural pathway, then it will have the appearance of being difficult.
How does one strengthen neural pathways? One word: PRACTICE.>>
Mark, I am sorry, but this thinking runs smack not just against philosophy but even against neuroscience.
Current neuroscience has shown that these neural pathways you have been talking about will be made with practice, yes, but only when there is a reward at the end. It has been called the "habit loop." If there is no reward, either in the future or presently, then that habit will never form. So, no, I completely disagree with you with that statement if you are going to conflate it with the supposed non-issue of "criticality, homeostasis, acuity, promptitude or even satisfaction" which can be rewards in themselves. Besides, Western philosophy agrees with neuroscience on this one, and this is especially significant since Western philosophy has traditionally concerned itself with learning how to make good habits.
And again besides, you completely undermined yourself with your second post: playing a piano gives deep satisfaction to those who have done it, and those who are trying to learn it, though it is hard to learn and master, have the reward of the hope to play it well in the future. Nobody learns to play the piano just to "practice" it.
And lastly, you have strangely contradicted yourself with respect to your previous writings, where you have said we must only do the things which we want to do.
<<If you keep changing systems you are not laying down the neural pathways that would make a system easy in itself. The system itself needs practice.>>
Mark, how long had I been in your forum? How long have I used your systems? How much time have I tried one of your systems at a time?
If the systems have been not lacking, then I would not have had the urge to change systems after a month of using one. Which is not to say they are not good, after all if they were not I would have left long ago; they are just lacking.
-----
@Chris
My thinking about it had been like this: each new system fulfills some of our needs but not all. At first the fulfillment of those needs makes us happy to the point that we overlook both the lacks and flaws of the system, but as the lack of fulfillment of our needs as well as the flaws of the system mount the longer we use it, we eventually look for a new system.
At least that is how I looked at it. I especially like your point about systems having its own maintenance needs which make them less suitable to our needs as time goes on.
<<In spite of the philosophers, it's not actually a question of criticality, homeostasis, acuity, promptitude or even satisfaction.
The real answer is that it's a question of neural pathways. If the task has a strong neural pathway, then it will have the appearance of being easy. If it has a weak or non-existent neural pathway, then it will have the appearance of being difficult.
How does one strengthen neural pathways? One word: PRACTICE.>>
Mark, I am sorry, but this thinking runs smack not just against philosophy but even against neuroscience.
Current neuroscience has shown that these neural pathways you have been talking about will be made with practice, yes, but only when there is a reward at the end. It has been called the "habit loop." If there is no reward, either in the future or presently, then that habit will never form. So, no, I completely disagree with you with that statement if you are going to conflate it with the supposed non-issue of "criticality, homeostasis, acuity, promptitude or even satisfaction" which can be rewards in themselves. Besides, Western philosophy agrees with neuroscience on this one, and this is especially significant since Western philosophy has traditionally concerned itself with learning how to make good habits.
And again besides, you completely undermined yourself with your second post: playing a piano gives deep satisfaction to those who have done it, and those who are trying to learn it, though it is hard to learn and master, have the reward of the hope to play it well in the future. Nobody learns to play the piano just to "practice" it.
And lastly, you have strangely contradicted yourself with respect to your previous writings, where you have said we must only do the things which we want to do.
<<If you keep changing systems you are not laying down the neural pathways that would make a system easy in itself. The system itself needs practice.>>
Mark, how long had I been in your forum? How long have I used your systems? How much time have I tried one of your systems at a time?
If the systems have been not lacking, then I would not have had the urge to change systems after a month of using one. Which is not to say they are not good, after all if they were not I would have left long ago; they are just lacking.
-----
@Chris
My thinking about it had been like this: each new system fulfills some of our needs but not all. At first the fulfillment of those needs makes us happy to the point that we overlook both the lacks and flaws of the system, but as the lack of fulfillment of our needs as well as the flaws of the system mount the longer we use it, we eventually look for a new system.
At least that is how I looked at it. I especially like your point about systems having its own maintenance needs which make them less suitable to our needs as time goes on.
August 16, 2019 at 6:46 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
<< Mark, I am sorry, but this thinking runs smack not just against philosophy but even against neuroscience. >>
I'm struggling to understand how what you are saying contradicts what I said. You seem to think it does, so maybe you can explain further.
<< Current neuroscience has shown that these neural pathways you have been talking about will be made with practice, yes, but only when there is a reward at the end. >>
Yes, I totally agree. Human beings don't really do anything without there being some sort of reward at the end. I didn't mention it because I was taking for granted that it was obvious in the context.
<< playing a piano gives deep satisfaction to those who have done it, and those who are trying to learn it, though it is hard to learn and master, have the reward of the hope to play it well in the future. >>
Of course. Did I really need to spell that out?
<< Nobody learns to play the piano just to "practice" it. >>
You are erecting a straw man here. I never said or implied anything of the kind. What I said was the exact opposite, i.e. if you want to play the piano (or do anything else well) you have to practise it.
But having said that, there is a sense in which the practice does become its own reward. Practising the piano can be an intensely pleasurable activity even if you don't become a concert pianist at the end of it. In fact you more or less said that yourself.
In the same way learning to be a good time manager can be very satisfying in itself. As I've said on numerous occasions the best source of energy is to be completely on top of one's work.
I'll deal with the rest of what you say in a further comment.
<< Mark, I am sorry, but this thinking runs smack not just against philosophy but even against neuroscience. >>
I'm struggling to understand how what you are saying contradicts what I said. You seem to think it does, so maybe you can explain further.
<< Current neuroscience has shown that these neural pathways you have been talking about will be made with practice, yes, but only when there is a reward at the end. >>
Yes, I totally agree. Human beings don't really do anything without there being some sort of reward at the end. I didn't mention it because I was taking for granted that it was obvious in the context.
<< playing a piano gives deep satisfaction to those who have done it, and those who are trying to learn it, though it is hard to learn and master, have the reward of the hope to play it well in the future. >>
Of course. Did I really need to spell that out?
<< Nobody learns to play the piano just to "practice" it. >>
You are erecting a straw man here. I never said or implied anything of the kind. What I said was the exact opposite, i.e. if you want to play the piano (or do anything else well) you have to practise it.
But having said that, there is a sense in which the practice does become its own reward. Practising the piano can be an intensely pleasurable activity even if you don't become a concert pianist at the end of it. In fact you more or less said that yourself.
In the same way learning to be a good time manager can be very satisfying in itself. As I've said on numerous occasions the best source of energy is to be completely on top of one's work.
I'll deal with the rest of what you say in a further comment.
August 16, 2019 at 9:15 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym:
<< If the systems have been not lacking, then I would not have had the urge to change systems after a month of using one. Which is not to say they are not good, after all if they were not I would have left long ago; they are just lacking. >>
On this site we have carried out many experiments about time management. It is the nature of experiments that some work but the majority don't. I have been trying to find one Master System which will work for all people in all circumstances. I know that quest is an impossible one, but I've hoped that the search will result in a lot of new insights along the way.
You on the other hand (I presume) are trying to find the one Master System which will work for you in all the circumstances which you are likely to find yourself. That's probably an impossible quest too. But I would hope that you have picked up a lot of new insights along the way PLUS possibly identifying a system or systems which will work for you most of the time in most of your circumstances, or at the very least some of the time in some of your circumstances.
Many people set out to be concert pianists.Very few make it to the top. But those who don't still usually end up playing the piano well enough to impress their friends and produce endless pleasure to themselves (and annoyance to their neighbours).
In the same way, you've stuck to the systems on this site for many years and to individual systems for up to a month. I hope you feel that you may not be a "concert pianist" of time management, but that you do "play well enough to impress your friends" - and annoy your rivals!
<< If the systems have been not lacking, then I would not have had the urge to change systems after a month of using one. Which is not to say they are not good, after all if they were not I would have left long ago; they are just lacking. >>
On this site we have carried out many experiments about time management. It is the nature of experiments that some work but the majority don't. I have been trying to find one Master System which will work for all people in all circumstances. I know that quest is an impossible one, but I've hoped that the search will result in a lot of new insights along the way.
You on the other hand (I presume) are trying to find the one Master System which will work for you in all the circumstances which you are likely to find yourself. That's probably an impossible quest too. But I would hope that you have picked up a lot of new insights along the way PLUS possibly identifying a system or systems which will work for you most of the time in most of your circumstances, or at the very least some of the time in some of your circumstances.
Many people set out to be concert pianists.Very few make it to the top. But those who don't still usually end up playing the piano well enough to impress their friends and produce endless pleasure to themselves (and annoyance to their neighbours).
In the same way, you've stuck to the systems on this site for many years and to individual systems for up to a month. I hope you feel that you may not be a "concert pianist" of time management, but that you do "play well enough to impress your friends" - and annoy your rivals!
August 16, 2019 at 9:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Before I answer Mark Forster's posts, let me post my quite-delayed already impressions on the system and simultaneously demonstrate why I vehemently disagree with the frankly off-handed dismissal of CHAPS. For this I will just let the results I remember off the top of my head speak for themselves over the past months I have been using it.
By being aware of critical things to do
- I have established routines and systems now of tasks that I habitually do based on the circumstances at hand and times of the day. Quite standard fare, right?
By answering my needs for homeostasis
- I have had noticeably more energy for the day
- I have actually been eating less and more healthfully. By understanding the question of "Do I need homeostasis?" as "Do I need to stop whatever I am doing right now to do something else to achieve homeostasis?" I only have been eating only when I truly need to, and I consciously have been eating more healthfully.
- Consequently I have had to go back to my doctor to adjust my medications because my blood pressure has been less.
- Also since I was more attuned to how I sleep I noticed and then told the doctor about my sleeping problems, and thus I learned of my sleep apnea. I will be receiving my CPAP soon.
By listening to my needs for acuity
- I have been gaming to a fifth of the time I had been before, and it looks like I just might be quitting them altogether. This is because I learned that recreation, games, and levity are mostly used to rest my mental faculties so I can get back to work. No more "mindless" gaming and hello "mindful" gaming!
By listening to my needs for promptitude
- I have been doing and finishing tasks that I had delayed for months, even years! Rare has been a week that I did not go full "All CHAPS!" and celebrate because of finishing a long delayed task.
I have to say though that doing deep satisfaction tasks have been rare, but that is a given since I have so much more pending "economic tasks" that I have to do. And there are of course some adverse things that I noticed, like for example I found myself getting more short-tempered lately, and the reason might be that I am afraid of having all of this success is a fluke and I am trying to protect them.
On that note:
@Mark Forter: <<On this site we have carried out many experiments about time management.>>
My own time management experimentations seem to be over since there is no further need for them.
-----
Next time I will try to answer why, for most people, further PRACTICE of traditional Long Lists or No Lists will never lead to doing "difficult tasks" (here's a hint: these systems work TOO well), followed by answering the other posts.
By being aware of critical things to do
- I have established routines and systems now of tasks that I habitually do based on the circumstances at hand and times of the day. Quite standard fare, right?
By answering my needs for homeostasis
- I have had noticeably more energy for the day
- I have actually been eating less and more healthfully. By understanding the question of "Do I need homeostasis?" as "Do I need to stop whatever I am doing right now to do something else to achieve homeostasis?" I only have been eating only when I truly need to, and I consciously have been eating more healthfully.
- Consequently I have had to go back to my doctor to adjust my medications because my blood pressure has been less.
- Also since I was more attuned to how I sleep I noticed and then told the doctor about my sleeping problems, and thus I learned of my sleep apnea. I will be receiving my CPAP soon.
By listening to my needs for acuity
- I have been gaming to a fifth of the time I had been before, and it looks like I just might be quitting them altogether. This is because I learned that recreation, games, and levity are mostly used to rest my mental faculties so I can get back to work. No more "mindless" gaming and hello "mindful" gaming!
By listening to my needs for promptitude
- I have been doing and finishing tasks that I had delayed for months, even years! Rare has been a week that I did not go full "All CHAPS!" and celebrate because of finishing a long delayed task.
I have to say though that doing deep satisfaction tasks have been rare, but that is a given since I have so much more pending "economic tasks" that I have to do. And there are of course some adverse things that I noticed, like for example I found myself getting more short-tempered lately, and the reason might be that I am afraid of having all of this success is a fluke and I am trying to protect them.
On that note:
@Mark Forter: <<On this site we have carried out many experiments about time management.>>
My own time management experimentations seem to be over since there is no further need for them.
-----
Next time I will try to answer why, for most people, further PRACTICE of traditional Long Lists or No Lists will never lead to doing "difficult tasks" (here's a hint: these systems work TOO well), followed by answering the other posts.
August 17, 2019 at 7:19 |
nuntym
nuntym
Just to be clear, I am not saying that the factors considered in CHAPS are unimportant - just that if you develop your instinctual awareness by practising "standing out" consistently, these factors will be taken in account automatically.
Also I am not trying to denigrate nuntym's system. If it works for some people, that's great. But I am concerned to defend my own systems (particularly the long list ones) since CHAPS is presented as the solution to their deficiencies ("implemented rather inefficiently or poorly")
As for not doing "difficult tasks", well, I've done plenty of difficult tasks using the various systems and so have many other people to my knowledge.
Also I am not trying to denigrate nuntym's system. If it works for some people, that's great. But I am concerned to defend my own systems (particularly the long list ones) since CHAPS is presented as the solution to their deficiencies ("implemented rather inefficiently or poorly")
As for not doing "difficult tasks", well, I've done plenty of difficult tasks using the various systems and so have many other people to my knowledge.
August 17, 2019 at 9:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
@Mark Forster: I am not here to attack you or your systems but rather to point out their weaknesses and propose solutions. All systems have their own weaknesses and it is counterproductive to think otherwise, included my own systems and even this one. Although I do understand that one may feel attacked if a core concept of a system, like the "standing out" and the use of the subconscious for your systems, was proposed as a weakness; after all, it did happen to me when you wrote "In spite of the philosophers, it's not actually a question of criticality, homeostasis, acuity, promptitude or even satisfaction." LOL in one sentence you not only denigrated a deep passion of mine, you dismissed the results of my search in lieu of absence from the forum altogether. And yet in spite of all of this my one goal then and now is to propose improvements to your systems; in fact, you may have missed what I wrote at the very beginning of the thread: CHAPS "is more of a supplement one can use with most of Mark Forster's Long List and No List systems."
August 17, 2019 at 16:43 |
nuntym
nuntym
Now I will show why I think further practice of traditional Long Lists or No Lists will never lead to doing "difficult tasks" for some people (yes I wrote "most" in the previous post; I tried to edit it right after it posted but it would not let me).
Anyone who is looking for time management systems to use have a deep need to be able to do the "difficult things", the things that he knows are important to do but need a lot of time and effort to do. Mark Forster's systems offer a lot of promises: they're fast, have little or no need for priorities, boast a high volume of tasks being done rate, only ask one to do "only the things you want to do as long as you like it," intuitive, and will lower resistance to difficult tasks by doing "little and often". And when one does try them out, oh boy do they deliver! These systems actually are fast, use just enough prioritization for the systems to work, can process a high volume of tasks in little time, are truly intuitive since they do depend on intuition for the "standing out" process for long lists or the "write whatever you want to do" for no lists, gives one the license to do whatever they want however they want, and "little and often" really does work. There is a problem though: the "difficult things" are not getting done.
The problem here is that, as I said before, Mark Forster's systems work TOO well. To illustrate, we go to the teachings of the philosophers.
When we want or need something, we feel some kind of pain, sorrow, or suffering. However, any kind of pleasure or happiness can alleviate any suffering, either partially or completely. Therefore, the pain caused by a lack of need can be alleviated by the pleasure of satisfying some other want or need. If this compensation is consistent, then it can become a habit. However this alleviation never satisfies the said lack of need, and therefore the suffering returns even stronger as the lack of need mounts, and thus one needs more of the compensating pleasure to alleviate the suffering, and the cycle repeats. The result is thus addiction. St. Thomas Aquinas famously alluded to Aristotle's teachings when he wrote, "Man cannot live without joy; therefore one who is deprived of true spiritual joys becomes necessarily addicted to carnal pleasures."
You might be incredulously wondering whether I am seriously implying Mark Forster's systems are promoting an addiction. Yes I am, though a minor one. Being able to do a high volume of tasks intuitively and rapidly brings a lot of satisfaction and pleasure which can overshadow the pains caused by other unmet needs and wants, including the need to do "difficult tasks." Search this website: you will note that a lot of people will say that the systems are "addicting in a good way." I and a lot of people originally thought this is a good thing, but after years of using Mark Forster's systems I realized this is not the case.
From analyzing my experiences, "difficult tasks" either negate the advantages of Mark Forster's systems, or these advantages discourage the doing of the "difficult tasks", and thus cause somewhat of a "withdrawal":
- "difficult tasks" slow the system down because you need to give more of your time and effort to do them
- the minimal prioritization of the systems makes the trivial tasks look as important as the "difficult tasks", so of course the easier, faster "highs" will be done more often
- slowing the system down means lowering the volume of processed tasks in a certain time
- intuitive "wanting" is in itself not logical, but hedonistic, and therefore will not choose something more difficult if not properly guided, whether it be in choosing a task or deciding how long one should be doing a task
- to compete with the trivial tasks, the "difficult tasks" can be divided up into smaller tasks, which is the concept of "little and often"; these divisions however can become so minuscule just to be able to compete with the trivial tasks that they can actually be a hassle to do, especially since they are still not as easy and pleasurable as the trivial ones
- to do the "difficult tasks," one has to be in his best condition physically, mentally, and emotionally; however, the pleasure brought about by Mark Forster's systems can actually overshadow his unmet needs and thus can malnourish physically, emotionally, and/or mentally.
One then thinks that because of the high efficiency of the systems, it is not the systems' fault that he was not able to do the "difficult things", but because there was a mismatch between himself and the system, and therefore he will look for another system that will match him better; or rather, one that will give him a "high" again.
The frequent experimentation in the site can actually thus be seen as a sign of addiction.
However there is undeniable evidence that there are people who have done "difficult things" using Mark Forster's systems; after all, I am one of them. So how can I reconcile this fact with what I have just wrote out lengthily? It is simple: at the start, intuition was not truly "subconscious", but rather was guided by the conscious.
At the beginning of the use of any of Mark Forster's systems, we consciously instruct our intuition to process our lists so that it will choose according to the conscious mind's criteria. And yet as time goes on this instruction from the conscious slowly gets overwhelmed by the sheer pleasure of doing things that the intuition just forgoes the mind's criteria and goes full hedonism: it will do what will give it the fastest "high", the trivial stuff, which gets worse as the need for satisfaction of doing meaningful tasks mounts. Add the fact that the systems' instructions themselves state that we have to let intuition do its thing, and at the end things become untenable and we change systems, repeating the cycle again.
Therefore, practice actually in the long run reduces the effectiveness of traditional Long Lists and No Lists.
However, I do not think all is lost; Mark Forster's systems are powerful and have revolutionized how many people including myself look at time management, and I think the solutions are already plain to see from what I have described of the problems themselves:
- intuition is too powerful to not be used; Long Lists' "standing out" and No Lists' "write what you want to do" must stay
- intuition must remain in the guidance of the conscious
- the pleasures of using a system must serve the person's needs, not the system itself
These are the solutions that I have attempted in doing CHAPS, and I think I have succeeded.
I do hope however to see more attempts solve Mark Forster's systems' problems from others, including from Mark himself.
Anyone who is looking for time management systems to use have a deep need to be able to do the "difficult things", the things that he knows are important to do but need a lot of time and effort to do. Mark Forster's systems offer a lot of promises: they're fast, have little or no need for priorities, boast a high volume of tasks being done rate, only ask one to do "only the things you want to do as long as you like it," intuitive, and will lower resistance to difficult tasks by doing "little and often". And when one does try them out, oh boy do they deliver! These systems actually are fast, use just enough prioritization for the systems to work, can process a high volume of tasks in little time, are truly intuitive since they do depend on intuition for the "standing out" process for long lists or the "write whatever you want to do" for no lists, gives one the license to do whatever they want however they want, and "little and often" really does work. There is a problem though: the "difficult things" are not getting done.
The problem here is that, as I said before, Mark Forster's systems work TOO well. To illustrate, we go to the teachings of the philosophers.
When we want or need something, we feel some kind of pain, sorrow, or suffering. However, any kind of pleasure or happiness can alleviate any suffering, either partially or completely. Therefore, the pain caused by a lack of need can be alleviated by the pleasure of satisfying some other want or need. If this compensation is consistent, then it can become a habit. However this alleviation never satisfies the said lack of need, and therefore the suffering returns even stronger as the lack of need mounts, and thus one needs more of the compensating pleasure to alleviate the suffering, and the cycle repeats. The result is thus addiction. St. Thomas Aquinas famously alluded to Aristotle's teachings when he wrote, "Man cannot live without joy; therefore one who is deprived of true spiritual joys becomes necessarily addicted to carnal pleasures."
You might be incredulously wondering whether I am seriously implying Mark Forster's systems are promoting an addiction. Yes I am, though a minor one. Being able to do a high volume of tasks intuitively and rapidly brings a lot of satisfaction and pleasure which can overshadow the pains caused by other unmet needs and wants, including the need to do "difficult tasks." Search this website: you will note that a lot of people will say that the systems are "addicting in a good way." I and a lot of people originally thought this is a good thing, but after years of using Mark Forster's systems I realized this is not the case.
From analyzing my experiences, "difficult tasks" either negate the advantages of Mark Forster's systems, or these advantages discourage the doing of the "difficult tasks", and thus cause somewhat of a "withdrawal":
- "difficult tasks" slow the system down because you need to give more of your time and effort to do them
- the minimal prioritization of the systems makes the trivial tasks look as important as the "difficult tasks", so of course the easier, faster "highs" will be done more often
- slowing the system down means lowering the volume of processed tasks in a certain time
- intuitive "wanting" is in itself not logical, but hedonistic, and therefore will not choose something more difficult if not properly guided, whether it be in choosing a task or deciding how long one should be doing a task
- to compete with the trivial tasks, the "difficult tasks" can be divided up into smaller tasks, which is the concept of "little and often"; these divisions however can become so minuscule just to be able to compete with the trivial tasks that they can actually be a hassle to do, especially since they are still not as easy and pleasurable as the trivial ones
- to do the "difficult tasks," one has to be in his best condition physically, mentally, and emotionally; however, the pleasure brought about by Mark Forster's systems can actually overshadow his unmet needs and thus can malnourish physically, emotionally, and/or mentally.
One then thinks that because of the high efficiency of the systems, it is not the systems' fault that he was not able to do the "difficult things", but because there was a mismatch between himself and the system, and therefore he will look for another system that will match him better; or rather, one that will give him a "high" again.
The frequent experimentation in the site can actually thus be seen as a sign of addiction.
However there is undeniable evidence that there are people who have done "difficult things" using Mark Forster's systems; after all, I am one of them. So how can I reconcile this fact with what I have just wrote out lengthily? It is simple: at the start, intuition was not truly "subconscious", but rather was guided by the conscious.
At the beginning of the use of any of Mark Forster's systems, we consciously instruct our intuition to process our lists so that it will choose according to the conscious mind's criteria. And yet as time goes on this instruction from the conscious slowly gets overwhelmed by the sheer pleasure of doing things that the intuition just forgoes the mind's criteria and goes full hedonism: it will do what will give it the fastest "high", the trivial stuff, which gets worse as the need for satisfaction of doing meaningful tasks mounts. Add the fact that the systems' instructions themselves state that we have to let intuition do its thing, and at the end things become untenable and we change systems, repeating the cycle again.
Therefore, practice actually in the long run reduces the effectiveness of traditional Long Lists and No Lists.
However, I do not think all is lost; Mark Forster's systems are powerful and have revolutionized how many people including myself look at time management, and I think the solutions are already plain to see from what I have described of the problems themselves:
- intuition is too powerful to not be used; Long Lists' "standing out" and No Lists' "write what you want to do" must stay
- intuition must remain in the guidance of the conscious
- the pleasures of using a system must serve the person's needs, not the system itself
These are the solutions that I have attempted in doing CHAPS, and I think I have succeeded.
I do hope however to see more attempts solve Mark Forster's systems' problems from others, including from Mark himself.
August 17, 2019 at 19:02 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
I'm not going to try to comment on everything you've said. You've stated it well and time will tell how effective CHAPS is.
However I would like to deal in depth with one of the points you have made:
<< the minimal prioritization of the systems makes the trivial tasks look as important as the "difficult tasks", so of course the easier, faster "highs" will be done more often >>
One of the driving factors in a long list is "attenuation" - which means as the easy tasks get done the more difficult tasks get isolated on the list and it's obvious that there's something there that needs to be done (or alternatively doesn't need to be done and should be deleted). This effect is heightened in those long list systems in which there is "dismissal", e.g. AF1, RAF.
However difficult a task, starting to work on it reduces one's resistance to it enormously and resistance is replaced by a growing sense of satisfaction that one is getting something difficult and worthwhile under way. In fact the satisfaction of doing something worthwhile greatly outweighs the addictive pleasure of getting lots of trivia done - as you have said.
Another factor is that continued exposure to a task which is an item on a list reduces one's resistance to it. (If you don't believe me it's easy to test it). All the long-list systems require continual re-scanning of the whole list so that reduction in resistance for undone tasks is built in to the system.
So the ways a long list disperses resistance to difficult tasks include:
1. Isolation of undone tasks so that more attention is automatically directed to them.
2. Continual drawing of attention to undone tasks which reduces resistance
3. Tasks on which a start has been made are moved to the most active part of the list, where the momentum can be maintained.
The overall effect is that when you start a long-list system for the first time the easy tasks get moved on quickly. This stage is where good routines get sorted out as one's whole working system gets tightened up. Then the more difficult tasks start getting moving. This tends to be a few at a time, but they quickly get brought up to speed once work starts on them because of the huge reduction in resistance which occurs when something gets moving.
Finally you will have a few outliers. Really difficult tasks which don't seem to want to budge. There are various ways of dealing with these, but the best is usually to break them down into easy first steps. Or you can just wait until the resistance disperses naturally.
Unfortunately it's often just at this final stage that one loses faith in the system. (I've done it often enough myself to know!) The result is that the system is abandoned just at the moment when it's about to really bear fruit.
Then one starts on a new system which usually goes swimmingly at first and the cycle continues. This of course gives the impression that one never does the difficult tasks.
I'm not going to try to comment on everything you've said. You've stated it well and time will tell how effective CHAPS is.
However I would like to deal in depth with one of the points you have made:
<< the minimal prioritization of the systems makes the trivial tasks look as important as the "difficult tasks", so of course the easier, faster "highs" will be done more often >>
One of the driving factors in a long list is "attenuation" - which means as the easy tasks get done the more difficult tasks get isolated on the list and it's obvious that there's something there that needs to be done (or alternatively doesn't need to be done and should be deleted). This effect is heightened in those long list systems in which there is "dismissal", e.g. AF1, RAF.
However difficult a task, starting to work on it reduces one's resistance to it enormously and resistance is replaced by a growing sense of satisfaction that one is getting something difficult and worthwhile under way. In fact the satisfaction of doing something worthwhile greatly outweighs the addictive pleasure of getting lots of trivia done - as you have said.
Another factor is that continued exposure to a task which is an item on a list reduces one's resistance to it. (If you don't believe me it's easy to test it). All the long-list systems require continual re-scanning of the whole list so that reduction in resistance for undone tasks is built in to the system.
So the ways a long list disperses resistance to difficult tasks include:
1. Isolation of undone tasks so that more attention is automatically directed to them.
2. Continual drawing of attention to undone tasks which reduces resistance
3. Tasks on which a start has been made are moved to the most active part of the list, where the momentum can be maintained.
The overall effect is that when you start a long-list system for the first time the easy tasks get moved on quickly. This stage is where good routines get sorted out as one's whole working system gets tightened up. Then the more difficult tasks start getting moving. This tends to be a few at a time, but they quickly get brought up to speed once work starts on them because of the huge reduction in resistance which occurs when something gets moving.
Finally you will have a few outliers. Really difficult tasks which don't seem to want to budge. There are various ways of dealing with these, but the best is usually to break them down into easy first steps. Or you can just wait until the resistance disperses naturally.
Unfortunately it's often just at this final stage that one loses faith in the system. (I've done it often enough myself to know!) The result is that the system is abandoned just at the moment when it's about to really bear fruit.
Then one starts on a new system which usually goes swimmingly at first and the cycle continues. This of course gives the impression that one never does the difficult tasks.
August 17, 2019 at 22:46 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
@Mark Forster
I honestly forgot about attenuation and the other special characteristics of Long Lists (maturation, clumping). I have been using CHAPS with an electronic No List since a week ago because it looked like CHAPS has a good synergy with No Lists.
I have my old Long List notebook in front of me. I have been using it with different kinds of Long List systems since last year, the only constant being that I close and date every end of the day just so I can analyze my use of it. The earliest entry I have is 12/27/2018. The oldest unactioned task in it was from 12/29/2019. I remember I did it last Thursday using my CHAPS No List and oh man I celebrated.
Attenuation is probably the one that I hate the most about Long List systems because it is so jarring. Clumping feeds the addictive character of long lists because it makes it easy to do tasks that work together. Attenuation on the other hand makes you feel bad about those few unactioned tasks surrounded by all the crossed out tasks. I remember I crossed out more than a few tasks just because I felt I will never be ready for them and I can't stand looking at them again the next pass.
I realized just now: Long Lists are like nagging spouses. They are all sweet if you do what they want but will nag you if you keep on not doing what you have been neglecting. They may help you to get ready for them but they will surely make you aware of the tasks you are not ready for.
Systems with CHAPS on the other hand are like loving partners: they will not only make sure you are ready to tackle difficult tasks by making you take care of yourself, but will also make those tasks that you are not ready for are more-or-less invisible or feel irrelevant by making you focus on the tasks you are ready for or need.
<<Unfortunately it's often just at this final stage that one loses faith in the system.>>
I held on to my faith on Long Lists for seven months, as my notebook shows. That faith failed me in the end but I did learn great lessons from it.
I honestly forgot about attenuation and the other special characteristics of Long Lists (maturation, clumping). I have been using CHAPS with an electronic No List since a week ago because it looked like CHAPS has a good synergy with No Lists.
I have my old Long List notebook in front of me. I have been using it with different kinds of Long List systems since last year, the only constant being that I close and date every end of the day just so I can analyze my use of it. The earliest entry I have is 12/27/2018. The oldest unactioned task in it was from 12/29/2019. I remember I did it last Thursday using my CHAPS No List and oh man I celebrated.
Attenuation is probably the one that I hate the most about Long List systems because it is so jarring. Clumping feeds the addictive character of long lists because it makes it easy to do tasks that work together. Attenuation on the other hand makes you feel bad about those few unactioned tasks surrounded by all the crossed out tasks. I remember I crossed out more than a few tasks just because I felt I will never be ready for them and I can't stand looking at them again the next pass.
I realized just now: Long Lists are like nagging spouses. They are all sweet if you do what they want but will nag you if you keep on not doing what you have been neglecting. They may help you to get ready for them but they will surely make you aware of the tasks you are not ready for.
Systems with CHAPS on the other hand are like loving partners: they will not only make sure you are ready to tackle difficult tasks by making you take care of yourself, but will also make those tasks that you are not ready for are more-or-less invisible or feel irrelevant by making you focus on the tasks you are ready for or need.
<<Unfortunately it's often just at this final stage that one loses faith in the system.>>
I held on to my faith on Long Lists for seven months, as my notebook shows. That faith failed me in the end but I did learn great lessons from it.
August 18, 2019 at 18:28 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
Anyway time will tell, as I said above.
Keep us posted on how it goes.
Anyway time will tell, as I said above.
Keep us posted on how it goes.
August 18, 2019 at 23:35 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Nuntym – CHAPS seems a long winded process to go through for every task and then a celebration after. Is that viable? Athought I like the celebration idea...
I imagine it would work if there were a few long tasks a day where it might merit that sort of mental preparation, but what about someone who does lots of short duration tasks?
I imagine it would work if there were a few long tasks a day where it might merit that sort of mental preparation, but what about someone who does lots of short duration tasks?
August 19, 2019 at 15:38 |
MrDone
MrDone
@MrDone
Hi! CHAPS' intent is not primarily to get to celebrate at the end of so many tasks, but to make sure you are healthy and prepared before you do anything else, and then rewards you for doing so.
In my use it works very well for lots of short tasks.
Hi! CHAPS' intent is not primarily to get to celebrate at the end of so many tasks, but to make sure you are healthy and prepared before you do anything else, and then rewards you for doing so.
In my use it works very well for lots of short tasks.
August 19, 2019 at 16:11 |
nuntym
nuntym
Yes, I can see now how being prepared and ready to do a task will certainly help and CHAPS should achieve that.
I was thinking about your posts.
In my mind a system points you in front of a task. Doing the task is then a separate thing.
I wonder if we are expecting too much from a system to magically make us want to do a particular task.
There is an incredible amount of detail on this blog about the nitty gritty or organising tasks and trying to find the right one size fits all system.
However, I'm thinking now that is not really the solution. If a person has a strong "just do it" drive/habit/attitude etc, then any system will work well. If a person is weak at actually doing tasks then any system is not really going to work properly.
I would say I have been a terrible procrastinator in the past, but now I am very good at "doing" which has really just been about practising doing tasks one after the other like a robot.
I was thinking about your posts.
In my mind a system points you in front of a task. Doing the task is then a separate thing.
I wonder if we are expecting too much from a system to magically make us want to do a particular task.
There is an incredible amount of detail on this blog about the nitty gritty or organising tasks and trying to find the right one size fits all system.
However, I'm thinking now that is not really the solution. If a person has a strong "just do it" drive/habit/attitude etc, then any system will work well. If a person is weak at actually doing tasks then any system is not really going to work properly.
I would say I have been a terrible procrastinator in the past, but now I am very good at "doing" which has really just been about practising doing tasks one after the other like a robot.
August 19, 2019 at 17:09 |
MrDone
MrDone
Only problem with being a robot and I really have got everything done - I'm bored senseless!
I'm missing the excitement of deadlines and pressure....
I have got 12 emails in my inbox and absolutely nothing else to do.
I'm going home...
I'm missing the excitement of deadlines and pressure....
I have got 12 emails in my inbox and absolutely nothing else to do.
I'm going home...
August 19, 2019 at 17:12 |
MrDone
MrDone
@MrDone
<<I wonder if we are expecting too much from a system to magically make us want to do a particular task.>>
A system can magically make us want to do a particular task? LOL I'd like that, let me know if you do find it!
<<However, I'm thinking now that is not really the solution. If a person has a strong "just do it" drive/habit/attitude etc, then any system will work well. If a person is weak at actually doing tasks then any system is not really going to work properly.>>
Maybe, but the thing is systems should help you live well, not puff yourself up that you do systems well.
<<Only problem with being a robot and I really have got everything done - I'm bored senseless!
I'm missing the excitement of deadlines and pressure>>
Then you're doing life wrong. Economic work is NOT the reason for anyone to live, but be their tool to live well.
<<I wonder if we are expecting too much from a system to magically make us want to do a particular task.>>
A system can magically make us want to do a particular task? LOL I'd like that, let me know if you do find it!
<<However, I'm thinking now that is not really the solution. If a person has a strong "just do it" drive/habit/attitude etc, then any system will work well. If a person is weak at actually doing tasks then any system is not really going to work properly.>>
Maybe, but the thing is systems should help you live well, not puff yourself up that you do systems well.
<<Only problem with being a robot and I really have got everything done - I'm bored senseless!
I'm missing the excitement of deadlines and pressure>>
Then you're doing life wrong. Economic work is NOT the reason for anyone to live, but be their tool to live well.
August 19, 2019 at 18:04 |
nuntym
nuntym
Just to clarify: I believe that the will is limited only by its own beliefs; it is unlimited as it believes it
is. The ancients too believed that the will is unlimited, because will is spiritual. And tbat is why the very first question in CHAPS is: "Do I need to do a CRITICAL TASK?" because it acknowledges that sometimes you have to do something even though you are in no condition to do so, and you will always have the will to do it.
One's body though is limited. Indeed the will is so unlimited that it is not rare for wills to run their bodies and minds to ruins by their wants.
This is why I believe one should really be taking care of themselves: it is easy to forget and even abuse oneself when letting their wills run free either towards "easy things" or towards "difficult things". Besides, it is rather easy to choose the wrong things for onself.
is. The ancients too believed that the will is unlimited, because will is spiritual. And tbat is why the very first question in CHAPS is: "Do I need to do a CRITICAL TASK?" because it acknowledges that sometimes you have to do something even though you are in no condition to do so, and you will always have the will to do it.
One's body though is limited. Indeed the will is so unlimited that it is not rare for wills to run their bodies and minds to ruins by their wants.
This is why I believe one should really be taking care of themselves: it is easy to forget and even abuse oneself when letting their wills run free either towards "easy things" or towards "difficult things". Besides, it is rather easy to choose the wrong things for onself.
August 19, 2019 at 20:00 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym and MrDone:
This is getting on to interesting subjects which merit their own thread if you want to continue.
I think I mentioned in a recent comment that I am using the ultimate no-list at the moment, i.e. no list at all. This is very relevant to what you have been saying here.
I shall probably be writing a blog post about it soon.
This is getting on to interesting subjects which merit their own thread if you want to continue.
I think I mentioned in a recent comment that I am using the ultimate no-list at the moment, i.e. no list at all. This is very relevant to what you have been saying here.
I shall probably be writing a blog post about it soon.
August 20, 2019 at 12:13 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
And yes, it does "magically" make you want to do a task.
August 21, 2019 at 21:41 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
@Mark Forster
Interesting! I look forward to seeing it!
In the meantime, here is a teaser of what I have been using for time management:
http://imgur.com/a/5JrBunm
Spoiler: it's really good!
Interesting! I look forward to seeing it!
In the meantime, here is a teaser of what I have been using for time management:
http://imgur.com/a/5JrBunm
Spoiler: it's really good!
August 22, 2019 at 17:34 |
nuntym
nuntym
?
August 24, 2019 at 13:00 |
Laby
Laby
@Laby
A more specific question would be required to respond adequately.
A more specific question would be required to respond adequately.
August 24, 2019 at 14:04 |
nuntym
nuntym
:-) I would be interested to find out which app is screenshot in your teaser.
August 24, 2019 at 17:48 |
Laby
Laby
@Laby
Oh! That is the app Memento, a database management app for Android and PC. One can freely share database templates with this which is what I am planning to do once I iron out the kinks of this.
Oh! That is the app Memento, a database management app for Android and PC. One can freely share database templates with this which is what I am planning to do once I iron out the kinks of this.
August 24, 2019 at 21:45 |
nuntym
nuntym
Thank you!
August 25, 2019 at 6:10 |
Laby
Laby
Discussions of why and how I made this checklist will be in the next post or posts. For now, here are the steps.
1. On your task notebook, write at the top of either the left or the right margin (it does not matter which) the letters CHAPS. Imagine that there are columns underneath each letter.
2. Go to the task you have just done on your notebook, then go to the margin. Before you choose your next task, ask yourself, "Can I actually CHOOSE my next task?" If you can say "YES", then place a check mark or write a "Y" in the C column and go to the next step; if not place a cross mark or "N". "NO" means that you or something or someone else has already decided beforehand what your next task is, whether it is something you really want to do right now, it has been scheduled beforehand, or an urgent or emergent event is occurring. Therefore in this case you should either put down your notebook and do it, or look for the task in your notebook or write down the task, dot it, then do it. After doing the task go back to this step.
3. If you have checked or written "Y" in the C column, then go to the next column (H column) and ask yourself: "Am I HOMEOSTATIC enough to do stuff other than to maintain it?" Homeostasis is "the tendency of organisms to auto-regulate and maintain their internal environment in a stable state." Therefore in the context of the checklist this question asks if you are physiologically stable right now and do not need anything from the outside or do anything to maintain said stability. That is, are you not tired or hungry or sleepy or in pain or any such condition that needs to be corrected to maintain or correct your physical health and be able to do other things? If "YES" then check or write "Y" in the H column, then go to the next step. If "NO" then write a cross or "N" and then choose and do the task that will correct this: go take a nap, eat, have a doctor's appointment, take a few pills, etc. After doing the task go back to step 2.
4. If you have checked or written "Y" in the H column, go to the next (A column) and ask yourself: "Am I 'ALL THERE' right now?" Here you are asking yourself if you are mentally and emotionally composed enough to do other tasks. If "YES" then place a check or "Y" in the column and go to the next step. If "NO" then cross or write "N" in the column then choose and do a leisurely or recreational activity to replenish your spirits: go have a walk, play games, talk to somebody, drink a calming tea, etc. Do note that there can be considerable overlap with the things you can do at step 3: physically replenishing activities such as taking naps, eating and others can also replenish your mind and heart. After doing the task, go back to step 2.
5. If you have checked or wrote "Y" in the A column, go to the next (P column) and ask yourself, "Do I have the PREPAREDNESS and PROMPTITUDE to live well?" Here you not only ask yourself whether you have the resources, strength, and resiliency to do what matters the most to you (preparedness) but also whether you can handle whatever urgencies and emergencies life throws at you with speed and decisiveness (promptitude). If "YES" write a check or "Y" in the column and go to the next step. If "NO" then cross or write "N" and then choose and do an "economic" task. "Economics" traditionally means the "science of household or domestic management"; that is, these are the tasks that makes sure your household, your workplace, your properties, and yourself are ready and able. Are you earning enough money? Are your finances settled? Are you doing enough exercise and rest to be able to handle tasks better? Is your home clean and neat enough for surprise visits? Does my family need anything? Is your refrigerator stacked? Do you have enough clean good looking clothes? Can you quickly find the things you could need on your workdesk? And other such considerations. Again, note that there can be considerable overlap in this and other categories of tasks here. Once you are done with doing your task, go back to step 2.
6. If you have checked or wrote "Y" in the P column, go to the next (S column) and ask yourself, "Are you SATISFIED right now?" If "YES" then check the column or write "Y" and go to the next step. If "NO" then cross or write "N" in the column, then choose and do one of your life's works. This type of work is traditionally called "vocational" work. What is it that defines you? What is the reason you are on this earth? Some examples include: spend time with your family; do the things you are particularly gifted at; go do some charity work; learn to do new things; find like-minded people in your area or in social media. Again, there can be considerable overlap in this and the previous categories of tasks here. Once you are done with doing your task, go back to step 2.
7. If you have checked or wrote "Y" in the S column then rejoice! You have done what you can right now, and considering all the tasks you have done and repetitions of these steps to get to this point, this is a legitimate cause for celebration. Put down your notebook for now or if you want choose a way to celebrate in your task list, then come back to step 2 when you are done.