Discussion Forum > Resistance Zero Experience Report
Aaron:
Yes, as you say it appears we are addressing completely different things with our systems. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure there's room for both. But I do query why, if you only want to concentrate on one thing a day, you need a working list at all.
The aim of most/all of my systems is to build up good routines for as many things as possible, while keeping up-to-date all the many things which comprise most peoples lives. My own experience of concentrating on "a single thing" is that there is no such thing. Everything breaks down into smaller segments or can be combined up into a larger whole. The intention behind my systems is to allow the user to address a subject at any level - or more than one level at the same time.
So to take a real example off my current list, I am organising a dinner next week at which there will be speakers including myself (nothing to do with time management!). So I have a generic task "Organize Dinner" and several actions which relate to that dinner, such as "Bouquets", "Seating Plan", "Menu Choices", "Prepare Speech" and so on.
In this way my "long list" is both for thinking about major projects and listing the action which comes out of that thinking.
Action tasks just need to be done. It doesn't matter whether successive tasks relate to the same project or not. If I go into our local town, I may deal with tasks relating to numerous different projects. It wouldn't make sense to drive in, do the the tasks relating to one project, then drive home, and the next day to drive in again and do the tasks relating to another project when I could perfectly well have done them all on the previous day.
I would actually find it impossible to do one single thing during a day. My aim is to keep everything as up-to-date as I can. If I concentrated on one thing to the exclusion of everything else, everything else would fall behind - and then I would find myself having to catch up which is something I hate having to do. But my life is probably very different from yours.
The nearest I've ever got to doing one thing during each day is when I was writing my last book in hospital!
Yes, as you say it appears we are addressing completely different things with our systems. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure there's room for both. But I do query why, if you only want to concentrate on one thing a day, you need a working list at all.
The aim of most/all of my systems is to build up good routines for as many things as possible, while keeping up-to-date all the many things which comprise most peoples lives. My own experience of concentrating on "a single thing" is that there is no such thing. Everything breaks down into smaller segments or can be combined up into a larger whole. The intention behind my systems is to allow the user to address a subject at any level - or more than one level at the same time.
So to take a real example off my current list, I am organising a dinner next week at which there will be speakers including myself (nothing to do with time management!). So I have a generic task "Organize Dinner" and several actions which relate to that dinner, such as "Bouquets", "Seating Plan", "Menu Choices", "Prepare Speech" and so on.
In this way my "long list" is both for thinking about major projects and listing the action which comes out of that thinking.
Action tasks just need to be done. It doesn't matter whether successive tasks relate to the same project or not. If I go into our local town, I may deal with tasks relating to numerous different projects. It wouldn't make sense to drive in, do the the tasks relating to one project, then drive home, and the next day to drive in again and do the tasks relating to another project when I could perfectly well have done them all on the previous day.
I would actually find it impossible to do one single thing during a day. My aim is to keep everything as up-to-date as I can. If I concentrated on one thing to the exclusion of everything else, everything else would fall behind - and then I would find myself having to catch up which is something I hate having to do. But my life is probably very different from yours.
The nearest I've ever got to doing one thing during each day is when I was writing my last book in hospital!
June 18, 2022 at 6:53 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<<But I do query why, if you only want to concentrate on one thing a day, you need a working list at all.>>
In fact, most of the time, I don't need to work from a list at all most of the day. That is, I rarely look at a list most of the day. My main long list is probably more accurately what GTD might call a someday/maybe list, and it represents things that are actively options for me to do at this moment (not filed away in some tickler system), but which I am not yet actively committed to actioning immediately. I don't actually work from this list at all. It's just a capture list, for the most part, or a holding queue.
I'm finding that the lists I actually use in the course of working the day right now are simply three: a "pre-work" routine, a "daily list" (Ivy Lee), and a "post-work" routine. I just recently brought the pre-work routine down to 3 items, and the post-work routine now has 8 items. My working daily list has 6 items. That means that during the day I'm looking at a single header on a single page that contains no more than 17 items. I work off of just that list plus a daily list of my appointments (none, most days).
I find that having a "queue" of items that I can work from during the day is very effective. I will almost never get through all 6 items. However, it is impossible for me to accurately predict how long it will take to complete any one task, though I try to adjust their sizes to be somewhat "attainable" in a relatively short amount of time. This means, in practice, that tasks can end up taking anywhere from 15 minutes to 8 - 24 hours, though rarely do they actually hit at either end of that spectrum. This means that the majority of time I'm spending working on a single task for very large chunks of time throughout the day until they are completely done, and then if I do manage to get something done in the middle of the day, I can just start working on the next thing in the working list without looking at the big, long list again.
<<The aim of most/all of my systems is to build up good routines for as many things as possible, while keeping up-to-date all the many things which comprise most peoples lives. My own experience of concentrating on "a single thing" is that there is no such thing. Everything breaks down into smaller segments or can be combined up into a larger whole. The intention behind my systems is to allow the user to address a subject at any level - or more than one level at the same time.>>
I think we're in agreement here. I do break my work down, but very often, I find that the ideal "chunk" is oriented around some small output that I can create. It's defined more by the specific result than the specific set of actions that need to be taken. It's often not clear what actions need to be taken in the first place, and when they are, these are often more clearly indicated in the nature of the work product itself than on a separate list. I do break down things that are going to obviously take some time into smaller chunks, but i usually don't break them down so small that they will take less than one hour's worth of work. Very often, it's easier for me to work on chunks that are in the range of 8 - 24 hours. Like, say, reading a book. If it's a book I want to read and represents some fundamental value, I'll often prefer to read through the thing in one large sitting rather than spacing it out.
As a current example, I have 7 or so major projects right now that I'm working to get done, but each of these projects represents months (some might say, years) potentially of work. Previously, I've struggled to make progress on getting even one project finished in an appropriate span of time because I was too diffuse. Now, I'm putting more effort into getting a single such project finished.
As an example, I'm working out a new piece of software that has been written in a specific style and requires lots of work on refactoring existing software as well as writing new software and lots of documentation. This work itself is part of a couple of distinct outcomes, so I've split this out into two separate desirable outcomes that are intertwined, but distinct. I've further broken these down into parts that require solving a number of constraint and engineering questions. However, once I reach the point of describing these specific problems and the desired requirements for any solution, I can't really break them down any further because I won't know what is entailed. At that point, the solution may be weeks of work or it may be 1 hour of work. I just don't know. As I work through it, I might be able to break it down further, but it might always be the case that I'm making progress through it without actually gaining any more tangible insights into the future. That is, it has very often happened that I figure some things out, they get written down and solved, but those things don't actually give me any more fundamental insight into how to solve the next question. So I still can't break it down much further than "continue solving the rest of this problem." Usually I *will* get to some point at which I can actually break things down further, but rarely is it valuable to break things down further than what really requires 90 minutes to 6 hours of consistent applied pressure to work out. Trying to break the problem down beyond that just results in huge, exponential losses in efficiency and bad solutions because of a failure to take enough into account at the granular level.
With such projects, if I sit down for 15 minutes to work on it, I will have accomplished nothing. At 30 minutes, I will have begun to get a sense of it. At 1 hour, I might have begun to unravel a sense of a solution, at 90 minutes I will have come up with something that may or may not be right, at 3 hours, I will have confidence that I have solved the problem, usually. But if I break up that chunk of work into a smaller time frame, then I basically lose most of the time, because the ramp up begins at the beginning again. That means that for every 30 minute chunk, it's really probably worth more like 5 - 10 minutes of forward progress and 20 - 25 minutes of "catching up work" every time I pick the chunk back up. It's even worse if I have to work on more than one project at a time.
Often, I'm writing pages and pages of thoughts during this work, and a list isn't sufficiently detailed to retain my thoughts. I need more project documentation than the list can offer.
I would say 99% of my work falls into this category of type. I have almost no other type of work that I do.
<<Action tasks just need to be done. It doesn't matter whether successive tasks relate to the same project or not. If I go into our local town, I may deal with tasks relating to numerous different projects. It wouldn't make sense to drive in, do the the tasks relating to one project, then drive home, and the next day to drive in again and do the tasks relating to another project when I could perfectly well have done them on the previous day.>>
I do occasionally have such things. However, I almost never have errands that I need to run, though I do have two that are batched up and waiting for me to decide to go to the bank. But neither is critical and neither is worth wasting up to an hour or two on right now.
I also don't tend to have many tasks that just "have to be done". Most of those are off of my plate at this point. I also have almost no unnecessary inputs coming in, so I need to do very little processing of unrequested inputs. I have 1 standing work-related meeting that occurs weekly and lasts for 3 hours, because we need 3 hours at a time to make any serious progress.
<<I would actually find it impossible to do one single thing during a day. My aim is to keep everything as up-to-date as I can. If I concentrated on one thing to the exclusion of everything else, everything else would fall behind - and then I would find myself having to catch up which is something I hate having to do. But my life is probably very different from yours.>>
I expect so! And we'd probably hate to be in each other's shoes. :-) Most of my routine tasks relate to social, mental, physical, or spiritual well-being, and are done once a day. The others are related to leisure that I specifically care about keeping in my life, and so I include it to allow me to have time to play and decompress after intense work. I then have only two items that are related to administration and other sort of book keeping or "up to date" type of tasks. I have one task labeled "IN/Comms" in which I make sure that at least once a day I clean and clear my inboxes and forum communications to make sure I have an accurate inventory of incoming inputs. I also have one task called "journal" that I do once a day at the end of the day to update my system for the next day, select the tasks that I want to do, and record the results of the present day. These are the only "stay up to date" tasks that I need. I have a few monthly or weekly recurring items that need to be handled (such as managing the budget, billing, or doing some household chores), but those get added into my daily working set through the active capture list via a tickler system in my calendar. Those get funneled and queued up in the same way that any other project would.
All that is the main reason why the most important thing for me is maximizing the amount of singular, uninterrupted, focused time I can manage to apply to a single hard problem. I've found that otherwise, I just don't get anything actually accomplished, and nothing is delivered.
<<But I do query why, if you only want to concentrate on one thing a day, you need a working list at all.>>
In fact, most of the time, I don't need to work from a list at all most of the day. That is, I rarely look at a list most of the day. My main long list is probably more accurately what GTD might call a someday/maybe list, and it represents things that are actively options for me to do at this moment (not filed away in some tickler system), but which I am not yet actively committed to actioning immediately. I don't actually work from this list at all. It's just a capture list, for the most part, or a holding queue.
I'm finding that the lists I actually use in the course of working the day right now are simply three: a "pre-work" routine, a "daily list" (Ivy Lee), and a "post-work" routine. I just recently brought the pre-work routine down to 3 items, and the post-work routine now has 8 items. My working daily list has 6 items. That means that during the day I'm looking at a single header on a single page that contains no more than 17 items. I work off of just that list plus a daily list of my appointments (none, most days).
I find that having a "queue" of items that I can work from during the day is very effective. I will almost never get through all 6 items. However, it is impossible for me to accurately predict how long it will take to complete any one task, though I try to adjust their sizes to be somewhat "attainable" in a relatively short amount of time. This means, in practice, that tasks can end up taking anywhere from 15 minutes to 8 - 24 hours, though rarely do they actually hit at either end of that spectrum. This means that the majority of time I'm spending working on a single task for very large chunks of time throughout the day until they are completely done, and then if I do manage to get something done in the middle of the day, I can just start working on the next thing in the working list without looking at the big, long list again.
<<The aim of most/all of my systems is to build up good routines for as many things as possible, while keeping up-to-date all the many things which comprise most peoples lives. My own experience of concentrating on "a single thing" is that there is no such thing. Everything breaks down into smaller segments or can be combined up into a larger whole. The intention behind my systems is to allow the user to address a subject at any level - or more than one level at the same time.>>
I think we're in agreement here. I do break my work down, but very often, I find that the ideal "chunk" is oriented around some small output that I can create. It's defined more by the specific result than the specific set of actions that need to be taken. It's often not clear what actions need to be taken in the first place, and when they are, these are often more clearly indicated in the nature of the work product itself than on a separate list. I do break down things that are going to obviously take some time into smaller chunks, but i usually don't break them down so small that they will take less than one hour's worth of work. Very often, it's easier for me to work on chunks that are in the range of 8 - 24 hours. Like, say, reading a book. If it's a book I want to read and represents some fundamental value, I'll often prefer to read through the thing in one large sitting rather than spacing it out.
As a current example, I have 7 or so major projects right now that I'm working to get done, but each of these projects represents months (some might say, years) potentially of work. Previously, I've struggled to make progress on getting even one project finished in an appropriate span of time because I was too diffuse. Now, I'm putting more effort into getting a single such project finished.
As an example, I'm working out a new piece of software that has been written in a specific style and requires lots of work on refactoring existing software as well as writing new software and lots of documentation. This work itself is part of a couple of distinct outcomes, so I've split this out into two separate desirable outcomes that are intertwined, but distinct. I've further broken these down into parts that require solving a number of constraint and engineering questions. However, once I reach the point of describing these specific problems and the desired requirements for any solution, I can't really break them down any further because I won't know what is entailed. At that point, the solution may be weeks of work or it may be 1 hour of work. I just don't know. As I work through it, I might be able to break it down further, but it might always be the case that I'm making progress through it without actually gaining any more tangible insights into the future. That is, it has very often happened that I figure some things out, they get written down and solved, but those things don't actually give me any more fundamental insight into how to solve the next question. So I still can't break it down much further than "continue solving the rest of this problem." Usually I *will* get to some point at which I can actually break things down further, but rarely is it valuable to break things down further than what really requires 90 minutes to 6 hours of consistent applied pressure to work out. Trying to break the problem down beyond that just results in huge, exponential losses in efficiency and bad solutions because of a failure to take enough into account at the granular level.
With such projects, if I sit down for 15 minutes to work on it, I will have accomplished nothing. At 30 minutes, I will have begun to get a sense of it. At 1 hour, I might have begun to unravel a sense of a solution, at 90 minutes I will have come up with something that may or may not be right, at 3 hours, I will have confidence that I have solved the problem, usually. But if I break up that chunk of work into a smaller time frame, then I basically lose most of the time, because the ramp up begins at the beginning again. That means that for every 30 minute chunk, it's really probably worth more like 5 - 10 minutes of forward progress and 20 - 25 minutes of "catching up work" every time I pick the chunk back up. It's even worse if I have to work on more than one project at a time.
Often, I'm writing pages and pages of thoughts during this work, and a list isn't sufficiently detailed to retain my thoughts. I need more project documentation than the list can offer.
I would say 99% of my work falls into this category of type. I have almost no other type of work that I do.
<<Action tasks just need to be done. It doesn't matter whether successive tasks relate to the same project or not. If I go into our local town, I may deal with tasks relating to numerous different projects. It wouldn't make sense to drive in, do the the tasks relating to one project, then drive home, and the next day to drive in again and do the tasks relating to another project when I could perfectly well have done them on the previous day.>>
I do occasionally have such things. However, I almost never have errands that I need to run, though I do have two that are batched up and waiting for me to decide to go to the bank. But neither is critical and neither is worth wasting up to an hour or two on right now.
I also don't tend to have many tasks that just "have to be done". Most of those are off of my plate at this point. I also have almost no unnecessary inputs coming in, so I need to do very little processing of unrequested inputs. I have 1 standing work-related meeting that occurs weekly and lasts for 3 hours, because we need 3 hours at a time to make any serious progress.
<<I would actually find it impossible to do one single thing during a day. My aim is to keep everything as up-to-date as I can. If I concentrated on one thing to the exclusion of everything else, everything else would fall behind - and then I would find myself having to catch up which is something I hate having to do. But my life is probably very different from yours.>>
I expect so! And we'd probably hate to be in each other's shoes. :-) Most of my routine tasks relate to social, mental, physical, or spiritual well-being, and are done once a day. The others are related to leisure that I specifically care about keeping in my life, and so I include it to allow me to have time to play and decompress after intense work. I then have only two items that are related to administration and other sort of book keeping or "up to date" type of tasks. I have one task labeled "IN/Comms" in which I make sure that at least once a day I clean and clear my inboxes and forum communications to make sure I have an accurate inventory of incoming inputs. I also have one task called "journal" that I do once a day at the end of the day to update my system for the next day, select the tasks that I want to do, and record the results of the present day. These are the only "stay up to date" tasks that I need. I have a few monthly or weekly recurring items that need to be handled (such as managing the budget, billing, or doing some household chores), but those get added into my daily working set through the active capture list via a tickler system in my calendar. Those get funneled and queued up in the same way that any other project would.
All that is the main reason why the most important thing for me is maximizing the amount of singular, uninterrupted, focused time I can manage to apply to a single hard problem. I've found that otherwise, I just don't get anything actually accomplished, and nothing is delivered.
June 18, 2022 at 9:01 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
Fascinating.
I suspect from reading what you say (and I may be making some false assumptions here) that the majority of my readers have lives more similar to mine than yours.
But even if I lived a life much like yours, I think I would find this latest system would suit it pretty well.
Fascinating.
I suspect from reading what you say (and I may be making some false assumptions here) that the majority of my readers have lives more similar to mine than yours.
But even if I lived a life much like yours, I think I would find this latest system would suit it pretty well.
June 18, 2022 at 9:59 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
What Aaron describes sounds much like how my life goes. I currently run it on the Sooner or Later process (I described it last month) with additional layering on top to balance and focus my life areas. And this system will within it have me working on my job for multitudinous hours per day as a single thing.
Yet within that job, which consists of large tasks like those Aaron described, I did see a possibility to try this Resistance Zero. It works out because large tasks do in fact have details and segments, and some parts are more ready than others to work on now (and some which are not fully clear can become more clear if i think on them a bit). As Aaron says, it’s necessary to focus on the project for long stretches or you lose your train of thought. And yet, the whole is too big to entirely grasp at once and so it works out to keep your mind on the bigger project, and on particular details, and on surfing around the margins of uncertainty.
It helps tremendously that I’m equipped to take notes in the same outliner that I organize tasks [ the task list and the notes are the same thing ].
Yet within that job, which consists of large tasks like those Aaron described, I did see a possibility to try this Resistance Zero. It works out because large tasks do in fact have details and segments, and some parts are more ready than others to work on now (and some which are not fully clear can become more clear if i think on them a bit). As Aaron says, it’s necessary to focus on the project for long stretches or you lose your train of thought. And yet, the whole is too big to entirely grasp at once and so it works out to keep your mind on the bigger project, and on particular details, and on surfing around the margins of uncertainty.
It helps tremendously that I’m equipped to take notes in the same outliner that I organize tasks [ the task list and the notes are the same thing ].
June 18, 2022 at 12:47 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark:
<<But even if I lived a life much like yours, I think I would find this latest system would suit it pretty well.>>
I'm honestly very interested to see how it would work! I think the system is intriguing enough to want to use, but I can't seem to figure it out. So, let's say that I'm currently working with the following lists:
AM: ST 1, GT 1, MT 1
PM: AT 1, ST 1, PT 1, ET 1, ET 2, AT 2, MT 2, MT 1
Work: T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6
Capture: T6 ... T58
The main issue I'm having with trying to make this work is figuring out how Re:Zero would combine all four of these lists into a single list and still let me focus without constantly wasting my energy thinking about the Capture list. It also seems like a waste if I'm basically dotting a single item on each pass through the list, in the sense that it seems like something's not a good fit if that's the only way I'm goig through the list (excessive scanning).
<<But even if I lived a life much like yours, I think I would find this latest system would suit it pretty well.>>
I'm honestly very interested to see how it would work! I think the system is intriguing enough to want to use, but I can't seem to figure it out. So, let's say that I'm currently working with the following lists:
AM: ST 1, GT 1, MT 1
PM: AT 1, ST 1, PT 1, ET 1, ET 2, AT 2, MT 2, MT 1
Work: T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6
Capture: T6 ... T58
The main issue I'm having with trying to make this work is figuring out how Re:Zero would combine all four of these lists into a single list and still let me focus without constantly wasting my energy thinking about the Capture list. It also seems like a waste if I'm basically dotting a single item on each pass through the list, in the sense that it seems like something's not a good fit if that's the only way I'm goig through the list (excessive scanning).
June 18, 2022 at 22:51 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
<< The main issue I'm having with trying to make this work is figuring out how Re:Zero would combine all four of these lists into a single list and still let me focus without constantly wasting my energy thinking about the Capture list >>
I'm not clear about how you use some of these lists, but assuming they consist of tasks/projects which you will want to be doing within a near time frame, I would simply combine all four lists into one list. That would, if I've understood the example correctly, give you the following list:
ST 1
GT 1
MT 1
AT 1
PT 1
ET 1
ET2
AT 2
MT 2
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6... T58
That's 67 tasks, which is about the same size as one of my lists. Scanning a list of that size would take me about a minute and would result in about five tasks being selected. I would work on each of those tasks for as long as I wanted to, re-enter them if necessary, and then re-scan. Bearing in mind that all five tasks have to be worked on before I re-scan, it would probably be around 20-30 minutes before I re-scanned.
I tend to use major project headings as generators of smaller tasks within the project, so I would probably work on each main project heading for a relatively short time compared to you - unless it was a writing project in which case I would stick with one heading for a much longer period.
So basically I am using the list for several purposes:
1. As a list of projects
2. As a means of generating sub-projects or individual actions within those projects
3. For recurring actions and routines
4. For one-off actions
5. For weeding
6. etc
In conclusion for the amount of benefit I am getting from the list, 2 or 3 minutes of scanning per hour seems a cheap price to pay.
<< The main issue I'm having with trying to make this work is figuring out how Re:Zero would combine all four of these lists into a single list and still let me focus without constantly wasting my energy thinking about the Capture list >>
I'm not clear about how you use some of these lists, but assuming they consist of tasks/projects which you will want to be doing within a near time frame, I would simply combine all four lists into one list. That would, if I've understood the example correctly, give you the following list:
ST 1
GT 1
MT 1
AT 1
PT 1
ET 1
ET2
AT 2
MT 2
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6... T58
That's 67 tasks, which is about the same size as one of my lists. Scanning a list of that size would take me about a minute and would result in about five tasks being selected. I would work on each of those tasks for as long as I wanted to, re-enter them if necessary, and then re-scan. Bearing in mind that all five tasks have to be worked on before I re-scan, it would probably be around 20-30 minutes before I re-scanned.
I tend to use major project headings as generators of smaller tasks within the project, so I would probably work on each main project heading for a relatively short time compared to you - unless it was a writing project in which case I would stick with one heading for a much longer period.
So basically I am using the list for several purposes:
1. As a list of projects
2. As a means of generating sub-projects or individual actions within those projects
3. For recurring actions and routines
4. For one-off actions
5. For weeding
6. etc
In conclusion for the amount of benefit I am getting from the list, 2 or 3 minutes of scanning per hour seems a cheap price to pay.
June 19, 2022 at 9:13 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I’ve just been trying this for work tasks which take 5 minutes to scan a short list (because its not trivial to know what a task entails, whether i’m ready to do it; it takes a moment of thought.). These tasks take 5 minutes to a couple hours, until i’m done or reach a reasonable breakpoint. I would not mix non-work with work.
For home management tasks, Aaron, if a thing is already made completely routine, happens at a particular time with no resistance, there is no point putting it into a task selection system. Just do those according to your routine. Bring out the list outside of that automatic operating period.
For home management tasks, Aaron, if a thing is already made completely routine, happens at a particular time with no resistance, there is no point putting it into a task selection system. Just do those according to your routine. Bring out the list outside of that automatic operating period.
June 19, 2022 at 14:08 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan:
<< because its not trivial to know what a task entails, whether i’m ready to do it; it takes a moment of thought >>
Maybe at the beginning, but once you have scanned the list a few times you should have a pretty good idea of these things already. I deliberately don't think when scanning. It makes it much faster and I find the results are better.
<< because its not trivial to know what a task entails, whether i’m ready to do it; it takes a moment of thought >>
Maybe at the beginning, but once you have scanned the list a few times you should have a pretty good idea of these things already. I deliberately don't think when scanning. It makes it much faster and I find the results are better.
June 19, 2022 at 21:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
I think what you've described roughly corresponds to how I thought you thought I would think of using the system. :-) I think the main challenge I have to answer with this system is whether I'd actually end up using it this way, and whether I like using it that way. I can't really imagine selecting more than maybe 1 task (maybe 2) per pass, and I probably wouldn't tend to come back to the list except once every few hours during the day if things were going well.
I think the fundamental struggle I have with it is simply that I find myself getting annoyed at myself presenting myself with any of the tasks that I'm really quite sure aren't on the table right now. If I'm not done with my other stuff yet, then my mind says, "why are you showing me all this stuff that clearly isn't relevant yet?! I already told you no!" At the same time, when I *do* complete something, I want to make sure I have a nice list of things to pull from to select the next thing to do, but if I have to see that list of other things before I feel "ready", then I get really annoyed. I think maybe this is my fundamental issue with a long list system, I just get annoyed at having to review it too often.
Given my desire to keep a detailed long list of things, my related desire not to have to see said list very often is...interesing to me, and has become more obvious in exploring this system. I guess at the very least this experiment has clarified an interesting emotional dynamic going on inside my head!
I think what you've described roughly corresponds to how I thought you thought I would think of using the system. :-) I think the main challenge I have to answer with this system is whether I'd actually end up using it this way, and whether I like using it that way. I can't really imagine selecting more than maybe 1 task (maybe 2) per pass, and I probably wouldn't tend to come back to the list except once every few hours during the day if things were going well.
I think the fundamental struggle I have with it is simply that I find myself getting annoyed at myself presenting myself with any of the tasks that I'm really quite sure aren't on the table right now. If I'm not done with my other stuff yet, then my mind says, "why are you showing me all this stuff that clearly isn't relevant yet?! I already told you no!" At the same time, when I *do* complete something, I want to make sure I have a nice list of things to pull from to select the next thing to do, but if I have to see that list of other things before I feel "ready", then I get really annoyed. I think maybe this is my fundamental issue with a long list system, I just get annoyed at having to review it too often.
Given my desire to keep a detailed long list of things, my related desire not to have to see said list very often is...interesing to me, and has become more obvious in exploring this system. I guess at the very least this experiment has clarified an interesting emotional dynamic going on inside my head!
June 20, 2022 at 3:48 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Lest anyone think I'm too down on Re:Zero, I'd like to say that I do think that this is probably among my favorites for long list systems so far, and it captures a lot of what I really liked about FV but in what I think is a better style with a more dynamic and efficient focus. I think it's more just about me figuring out whether *any* type of long list system, no matter how good, is really the right fit for me right now.
June 20, 2022 at 5:01 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
<< I think what you've described roughly corresponds to how I thought you thought I would think of using the system. :-) >>
Not quite - this is a description of how *I* would use the system if I had your task list.
I totally accept that this is probably not your style of working. And without knowing the specifics of what is on it, your list is probably not my style of list either.
<< I think what you've described roughly corresponds to how I thought you thought I would think of using the system. :-) >>
Not quite - this is a description of how *I* would use the system if I had your task list.
I totally accept that this is probably not your style of working. And without knowing the specifics of what is on it, your list is probably not my style of list either.
June 20, 2022 at 10:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hmm I wonder if Aaron could run something like - within each context, scan the corresponding list and do the task with the lowest resistance? Like if it’s work time, and there’s 6 items on the work list, then scan to see which one you have the least resistance to, and work on that until you’re completed/had enough with it. Then do the same to select the next task. I guess it wouldn’t be Resistance Zero anymore though.
I guess the benefit may be that the nightly conscious selection of priorities would be balanced out by the unconscious prioritization in the moment.
I guess the benefit may be that the nightly conscious selection of priorities would be balanced out by the unconscious prioritization in the moment.
June 20, 2022 at 23:45 |
Charles Pan
Charles Pan
Maybe Aaron would enjoy "Predicting Your Day" (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/3/predicting-your-day.html ). That way, he could draw up a list and not have to look at it.
June 24, 2022 at 21:11 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
I find it an excellent system in theory to address the things that Mark has pointed out, but after even a tiny bit of time with it, it became crystal clear that the things Mark is addressing with this system just aren't the things that make me most effective with a system.
In particular, I'm finding that the thing I value most is being able to confidently *not* see my list, and confidently *not* context switch. In other words, I want the exact opposite of what a lot of long list systems do. I want to be able to see a single thing, and then to simply focus on that single thing for at least an entire day, and possibly even longer than that, if possible, with nothing else bothering me. This would mean practically a score of "1" actioned task or nearly that for a good day, which is almost antithetical to the way Mark's systems tend to work. A good system for me is one that is able to manage all of the other concerns in such a way that I can minimize my engagement with them or keep them "contained" to just the right spaces so that I have to see and deal with them as little as possible. The less frequently I can get away with dealing with something, the better, for most things.
I've simply been able to routinize too many things to warrant putting them back on a dynamic list, where I'll see them too often, and when I do see them, I only want to see them that one time, and then have them "disappear" again, to be forgotten about until the next day, at least.