Discussion Forum > Types of Resistance
Belacqua:
<< But with either system, I can't say I cracked 5 and 6 >>
Yes, surprisingly, difficult tasks are, well... difficult.
They also get more difficult the longer you leave them untouched.
There are basically two ways of getting a difficult task done:
1. Hit it hard as soon as it appears, even if (or especially if) the deadline is a long way off.
2. Leave it to the last possible moment until the pain of not doing it is greater than the pain of doing it.
No prizes for guessing which I recommend!
There are numerous ways of reducing the pain. I won't go into all of them, but two of the best are:
1. Break the task down into small actions which are easier to do (my favourite first task is "Think about [x]". Enter these individually onto your list.
2. The 5-second rule. Work on the task for at least five seconds.
It's also important to examine the pre-conditions for doing the task, such as:
- I can't check the car oil because the car's still in the garage.
- I can't mow the lawn because it's raining.
- I can't call John about Project X because he's gone on holiday yesterday.
<< But with either system, I can't say I cracked 5 and 6 >>
Yes, surprisingly, difficult tasks are, well... difficult.
They also get more difficult the longer you leave them untouched.
There are basically two ways of getting a difficult task done:
1. Hit it hard as soon as it appears, even if (or especially if) the deadline is a long way off.
2. Leave it to the last possible moment until the pain of not doing it is greater than the pain of doing it.
No prizes for guessing which I recommend!
There are numerous ways of reducing the pain. I won't go into all of them, but two of the best are:
1. Break the task down into small actions which are easier to do (my favourite first task is "Think about [x]". Enter these individually onto your list.
2. The 5-second rule. Work on the task for at least five seconds.
It's also important to examine the pre-conditions for doing the task, such as:
- I can't check the car oil because the car's still in the garage.
- I can't mow the lawn because it's raining.
- I can't call John about Project X because he's gone on holiday yesterday.
June 30, 2022 at 8:40 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Mark,
Thank you for the suggestions. I know you have a lot more in your books/blog, which I will continue to discover.
I'm torn about suggestion 1. Sometimes I feel that breaking tasks down is critical and that we can do anything so long as we get the task level right (e.g., "War and Peace, p. 230" rather than "War and Peace (read the whole thing)"). But I believe you've also said on some threads that that we shouldn't fuss too much about how to phrase tasks; rather we should just get on with the work. Somehow, I feel that both of these ideas are right!
But I'll come back to ways of getting a difficult task done:
<< 1. Hit it hard as soon as it appears, even if (or especially if) the deadline is a long way off. >>
I like this--especially the way you've phrased it in this instance. The key word for me seems to be "hard." Sometimes I do work on the difficult tasks soon but there isn't enough push, pull, or follow through. We could call this the problem "often but too little." I imagine we've all been guilty of that at times.
I suppose the holy grail is a system that makes you hit things hard and fast without creating excessive resistance or breaking down in some way.* As I said above, maybe you've already discovered this (or something close to it!). Or you've given us enough advice to find out what that is for ourselves.
* Compare this old thread: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2494059
Thank you for the suggestions. I know you have a lot more in your books/blog, which I will continue to discover.
I'm torn about suggestion 1. Sometimes I feel that breaking tasks down is critical and that we can do anything so long as we get the task level right (e.g., "War and Peace, p. 230" rather than "War and Peace (read the whole thing)"). But I believe you've also said on some threads that that we shouldn't fuss too much about how to phrase tasks; rather we should just get on with the work. Somehow, I feel that both of these ideas are right!
But I'll come back to ways of getting a difficult task done:
<< 1. Hit it hard as soon as it appears, even if (or especially if) the deadline is a long way off. >>
I like this--especially the way you've phrased it in this instance. The key word for me seems to be "hard." Sometimes I do work on the difficult tasks soon but there isn't enough push, pull, or follow through. We could call this the problem "often but too little." I imagine we've all been guilty of that at times.
I suppose the holy grail is a system that makes you hit things hard and fast without creating excessive resistance or breaking down in some way.* As I said above, maybe you've already discovered this (or something close to it!). Or you've given us enough advice to find out what that is for ourselves.
* Compare this old thread: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2494059
June 30, 2022 at 14:20 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
edit: "I suppose the holy grail is a system that makes you hit *the right* things hard and fast..."
June 30, 2022 at 14:39 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
I think this is an excellent topic.
I, too, feel that the biggest challenge, IMO, with time management right now is achieving the end result of *sufficient* attention on the things that really have the highest impact going forwards. I am finding that I'm at the point where I can get at least a little attention on something, and that's easy enough (in fact, maybe *too* easy), but the hardest problem is getting sufficient attention often enough to actually accomplish anything.
It's easy enough to write a single word or two of your book, say, every day. But in the end, the result of that is just about the same as not writing the book at all. I like a point made by Drucker, that 60 minutes all at once is not the same as 6 10 minute sessions spread out. The problem is actually getting that time.
I think part of the problem here is an inherent implication that getting such time first requires removing other activities that prevent you from having time to give this high impact thing sufficient time. But that's a very hard thing to do! In the end, I think at least in theory the answer might simply come down to saying no to *way* more things than we think we need to say no to. But I'm not sure I've got that right.
That is one thing DIT tended to focus on. I'm not sure how well Mark's current long list systems address getting good at saying no to things so that you can increase the amount of time on the things that matter most. AutoFocus in theory might do this, but it requires that you actually dismiss the right things. But it's all too easy to just take a little action on a bunch of things and end up churning and not moving anything forward.
So, for a long list system, my big question is, how do I put *everything* into a single list, while at the same time saying no to most of it, spending most of my time on the highest impact things, but just enough time on other things to help keep things in order? Take away any of those four requirements and I think the question becomes a lot easier, but having all four requirements in place at th esame time? That's really hard.
I, too, feel that the biggest challenge, IMO, with time management right now is achieving the end result of *sufficient* attention on the things that really have the highest impact going forwards. I am finding that I'm at the point where I can get at least a little attention on something, and that's easy enough (in fact, maybe *too* easy), but the hardest problem is getting sufficient attention often enough to actually accomplish anything.
It's easy enough to write a single word or two of your book, say, every day. But in the end, the result of that is just about the same as not writing the book at all. I like a point made by Drucker, that 60 minutes all at once is not the same as 6 10 minute sessions spread out. The problem is actually getting that time.
I think part of the problem here is an inherent implication that getting such time first requires removing other activities that prevent you from having time to give this high impact thing sufficient time. But that's a very hard thing to do! In the end, I think at least in theory the answer might simply come down to saying no to *way* more things than we think we need to say no to. But I'm not sure I've got that right.
That is one thing DIT tended to focus on. I'm not sure how well Mark's current long list systems address getting good at saying no to things so that you can increase the amount of time on the things that matter most. AutoFocus in theory might do this, but it requires that you actually dismiss the right things. But it's all too easy to just take a little action on a bunch of things and end up churning and not moving anything forward.
So, for a long list system, my big question is, how do I put *everything* into a single list, while at the same time saying no to most of it, spending most of my time on the highest impact things, but just enough time on other things to help keep things in order? Take away any of those four requirements and I think the question becomes a lot easier, but having all four requirements in place at th esame time? That's really hard.
July 2, 2022 at 5:18 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron: << a point made by Drucker, that 60 minutes all at once is not the same as 6 10 minute sessions spread out. The problem is actually getting that time. >>
Is Drucker's claim: 60 min straight > 6 x 10 min? That may well be true for some tasks, but it would be good to see evidence. In defense of short sessions: One can do a lot in 10 minutes, and the sessions do add up. Plus, your brain works on the task between sessions, as Mark has said. Long sessions can be good, but they also can be unfocused or inefficient. Hmm, perhaps we should we aim for longer sessions compartmentalized (i.e., timeboxing)?
This reminds me... timeboxing might be a useful technique for overcoming what I described above as problems 5 and 6: resistance to making big inroads on or finishing difficult tasks. I described my experiences using three list systems, but that was not using timers as an add-on.
<< the answer might simply come down to saying no to *way* more things than we think we need to say no to. But I'm not sure I've got that right.
That is one thing DIT tended to focus on >>
The audit procedure in DIT identified three problems: 1. Working inefficiently 2. Too much to do 3. Too little time. You answer would work for 2 and 3, but not 1. 1 has actually been my biggest problem (to date).
<< So, for a long list system, my big question is, how do I put *everything* into a single list, while at the same time saying no to most of it, spending most of my time on the highest impact things, but just enough time on other things to help keep things in order? >>
What about the following for you (based on your previous posts): Keep an Ivy Lee list and a long list. Stick to the Ivy Lee list as much as possible. Use the long list for capture and to deal with urgent tasks throughout the day? Just a thought. I have tried nothing of the sort.
Is Drucker's claim: 60 min straight > 6 x 10 min? That may well be true for some tasks, but it would be good to see evidence. In defense of short sessions: One can do a lot in 10 minutes, and the sessions do add up. Plus, your brain works on the task between sessions, as Mark has said. Long sessions can be good, but they also can be unfocused or inefficient. Hmm, perhaps we should we aim for longer sessions compartmentalized (i.e., timeboxing)?
This reminds me... timeboxing might be a useful technique for overcoming what I described above as problems 5 and 6: resistance to making big inroads on or finishing difficult tasks. I described my experiences using three list systems, but that was not using timers as an add-on.
<< the answer might simply come down to saying no to *way* more things than we think we need to say no to. But I'm not sure I've got that right.
That is one thing DIT tended to focus on >>
The audit procedure in DIT identified three problems: 1. Working inefficiently 2. Too much to do 3. Too little time. You answer would work for 2 and 3, but not 1. 1 has actually been my biggest problem (to date).
<< So, for a long list system, my big question is, how do I put *everything* into a single list, while at the same time saying no to most of it, spending most of my time on the highest impact things, but just enough time on other things to help keep things in order? >>
What about the following for you (based on your previous posts): Keep an Ivy Lee list and a long list. Stick to the Ivy Lee list as much as possible. Use the long list for capture and to deal with urgent tasks throughout the day? Just a thought. I have tried nothing of the sort.
July 2, 2022 at 14:03 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Belacqua:
I recall how efficiency seems to be one of the things that you've mentioned as a big issue for you, though I think I don't empathize with that one as much.
<<Is Drucker's claim: 60 min straight > 6 x 10 min?>>
Yes. In short, he's very fond of identifying large contiguous blocks of time at different scales at which to apply strong, focused effort. Of course, the caveat here is that there is a limit to the amount of time that you can spend in a single block at a micro level. In examples that he shares, a lot of people seem to settle on something like 90 minutes of distraction free work as their ideal "unit". Then, those units would be composed together in such a way that for somethings, you may have a singular objective in mind that you are tackling for the month, say.
I think there's strong evidence in support of long working sessions being more efficient than shorter ones (up to about 4 - 6 hours at max for most people), allowing for some "breaks" that aren't focus intensive (checking email isn't a break) or distracting. Things like the Pomodoro Technique have this built in, where the 25 minute sessions are only separated by very small breaks. The big thing that people miss here, I think, and that people often don't talk about, is that effectiveness in long working sessions is *not* something you just "do". They require a degree of training and acclamation. You can't just leverage a long working session effectively out of the gate. You have to build up your capacity to focus and concentrate, and I think there's psychological evidence that this skill is something that you can cultivate and develop, and that there is also evidence suggesting that a lot of our modern social environments actually create a situation in which it is very hard to develop that skill. The research on task switching suggests that the opposite direction, of micro switching of tasks is highly detrimental and, at least in their research, inherently mentally taxing.
Of course, this is all psychology and cognitive science research, so it's all a little...fuzzy. :-)
I do think there is sufficient anecdotal evidence that the trend seems to be towards larger units of time being more effective for deep work for creative pursuits, at the very least.
<<What about the following for you (based on your previous posts): Keep an Ivy Lee list and a long list. Stick to the Ivy Lee list as much as possible. Use the long list for capture and to deal with urgent tasks throughout the day? Just a thought. I have tried nothing of the sort.>>
I actually do something very similar to this. The main issue, though, is that Mark's long list systems have a certain elegance to them in that everything goes onto a single list. That's really, IMO, what sets Mark's overall long list systems apart. The idea of driving an algorithm through a single long list as a "lens" by which to tune a time management system is really interesting, and that's the tough nut that I just can't seem to crack yet. I'm currently splitting things up into separate lists, and not many, but they are still different lists, and I find myself thinking how interesting and nice it would be to find a way to make it all work with a single long list.
I recall how efficiency seems to be one of the things that you've mentioned as a big issue for you, though I think I don't empathize with that one as much.
<<Is Drucker's claim: 60 min straight > 6 x 10 min?>>
Yes. In short, he's very fond of identifying large contiguous blocks of time at different scales at which to apply strong, focused effort. Of course, the caveat here is that there is a limit to the amount of time that you can spend in a single block at a micro level. In examples that he shares, a lot of people seem to settle on something like 90 minutes of distraction free work as their ideal "unit". Then, those units would be composed together in such a way that for somethings, you may have a singular objective in mind that you are tackling for the month, say.
I think there's strong evidence in support of long working sessions being more efficient than shorter ones (up to about 4 - 6 hours at max for most people), allowing for some "breaks" that aren't focus intensive (checking email isn't a break) or distracting. Things like the Pomodoro Technique have this built in, where the 25 minute sessions are only separated by very small breaks. The big thing that people miss here, I think, and that people often don't talk about, is that effectiveness in long working sessions is *not* something you just "do". They require a degree of training and acclamation. You can't just leverage a long working session effectively out of the gate. You have to build up your capacity to focus and concentrate, and I think there's psychological evidence that this skill is something that you can cultivate and develop, and that there is also evidence suggesting that a lot of our modern social environments actually create a situation in which it is very hard to develop that skill. The research on task switching suggests that the opposite direction, of micro switching of tasks is highly detrimental and, at least in their research, inherently mentally taxing.
Of course, this is all psychology and cognitive science research, so it's all a little...fuzzy. :-)
I do think there is sufficient anecdotal evidence that the trend seems to be towards larger units of time being more effective for deep work for creative pursuits, at the very least.
<<What about the following for you (based on your previous posts): Keep an Ivy Lee list and a long list. Stick to the Ivy Lee list as much as possible. Use the long list for capture and to deal with urgent tasks throughout the day? Just a thought. I have tried nothing of the sort.>>
I actually do something very similar to this. The main issue, though, is that Mark's long list systems have a certain elegance to them in that everything goes onto a single list. That's really, IMO, what sets Mark's overall long list systems apart. The idea of driving an algorithm through a single long list as a "lens" by which to tune a time management system is really interesting, and that's the tough nut that I just can't seem to crack yet. I'm currently splitting things up into separate lists, and not many, but they are still different lists, and I find myself thinking how interesting and nice it would be to find a way to make it all work with a single long list.
July 3, 2022 at 2:47 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
What is a good amount of work to do at a time, to be efficient at it, varies with the type of task. For complex things it may take over an hour to get up to speed. In such cases, small breaks in the process of tuning in are beneficial.
But it’s not clear this is Belacqua’s source of inefficiency, as it wasn’t stated. Maybe it’s more a matter of organizing materials. Or of not getting distracted. Or of not having efficient technique at doing whatever is inefficient.
<< I'm currently splitting things up into separate lists, and not many, but they are still different lists, and I find myself thinking how interesting and nice it would be to find a way to make it all work with a single long list.>>
You’ve seen my approach, and this is how I perceive it. I have things in separate lists, and i make it all work with a single (not-so-) long list.
But it’s not clear this is Belacqua’s source of inefficiency, as it wasn’t stated. Maybe it’s more a matter of organizing materials. Or of not getting distracted. Or of not having efficient technique at doing whatever is inefficient.
<< I'm currently splitting things up into separate lists, and not many, but they are still different lists, and I find myself thinking how interesting and nice it would be to find a way to make it all work with a single long list.>>
You’ve seen my approach, and this is how I perceive it. I have things in separate lists, and i make it all work with a single (not-so-) long list.
July 3, 2022 at 13:30 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Aaron: << You have to build up your capacity to focus and concentrate, and I think there's psychological evidence that this skill is something that you can cultivate and develop, and that there is also evidence suggesting that a lot of our modern social environments actually create a situation in which it is very hard to develop that skill. >>
And I suppose in this sense, saying "no"/cutting tasks could lead to increased efficiency contrary to what I said above. If this results in heightened concentration and skill-building. I didn't mean to be so categorical about that. I was thinking of the scenario where procrastinators/poor workers might become even less efficient when there is less to do and the pressure is off.
<< The main issue, though, is that Mark's long list systems have a certain elegance to them in that everything goes onto a single list. That's really, IMO, what sets Mark's overall long list systems apart. >>
Ah, I see, you want one long list. And I agree about the elegance of Mark's systems. Though having your Ivy Lee list on an index card beside your long list might not be the grossest solution either.
There are systems like 3T (long-list), Superfocus, and the FV family (with its pre-selected tasks) that almost give you two lists in one, but I think you're aiming for something different.
And I suppose in this sense, saying "no"/cutting tasks could lead to increased efficiency contrary to what I said above. If this results in heightened concentration and skill-building. I didn't mean to be so categorical about that. I was thinking of the scenario where procrastinators/poor workers might become even less efficient when there is less to do and the pressure is off.
<< The main issue, though, is that Mark's long list systems have a certain elegance to them in that everything goes onto a single list. That's really, IMO, what sets Mark's overall long list systems apart. >>
Ah, I see, you want one long list. And I agree about the elegance of Mark's systems. Though having your Ivy Lee list on an index card beside your long list might not be the grossest solution either.
There are systems like 3T (long-list), Superfocus, and the FV family (with its pre-selected tasks) that almost give you two lists in one, but I think you're aiming for something different.
July 3, 2022 at 13:35 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Alan: << But it’s not clear this is Belacqua’s source of inefficiency, as it wasn’t stated. Maybe it’s more a matter of organizing materials. Or of not getting distracted. Or of not having efficient technique at doing whatever is inefficient. >>
Probably a combination of many factors, and we don't need to delve into all of them here. At the moment: lack of accountability and lack of structure contribute, but those will not be issues so much as I move forward in my career. Various issues related to working too slowly, lack of concentration, etc. which I've written about before. I'm trying to improve on that front and to glean whatever I can from Mark's writings. I'm basically very junior career level--so that I surely contributes to not being the most efficient as well. But I feel that now is the time to build good habits. I want to get a lot faster and better--and to make things easier on myself going forward.
And to return to the topic of this thread: it seems that resistance is a big problem for many of us as well. I highlighted the following:
<< 5. Resistance to grinding away at (or making significant inroads on) a difficult task
6. Resistance to finishing difficult tasks (quickly) >>
I think Mark provides a variety of solutions to this. But I'm still working out what is the best approach for me.
Probably a combination of many factors, and we don't need to delve into all of them here. At the moment: lack of accountability and lack of structure contribute, but those will not be issues so much as I move forward in my career. Various issues related to working too slowly, lack of concentration, etc. which I've written about before. I'm trying to improve on that front and to glean whatever I can from Mark's writings. I'm basically very junior career level--so that I surely contributes to not being the most efficient as well. But I feel that now is the time to build good habits. I want to get a lot faster and better--and to make things easier on myself going forward.
And to return to the topic of this thread: it seems that resistance is a big problem for many of us as well. I highlighted the following:
<< 5. Resistance to grinding away at (or making significant inroads on) a difficult task
6. Resistance to finishing difficult tasks (quickly) >>
I think Mark provides a variety of solutions to this. But I'm still working out what is the best approach for me.
July 3, 2022 at 14:12 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
I think it's also worth noting here: diet, sleep, and exercise can have a disproportionate impact on one's ability to concentrate and work efficiently.
July 4, 2022 at 0:24 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
It seems that there are different kinds of resistance. Or maybe different levels of resistance--different degrees of it, or different severities. Here are a few ways of experiencing resistance:
First, we can draw a sharp distinction between:
1. Resistance to doing something; and
2. Resistance to not doing something
(following Mark's explanation here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2021/1/19/a-new-question-examples.html )
Next, we might break 1 down into further levels:
3. Resistance to starting a task
4. Resistance to "doing some work on" a task
5. Resistance to grinding away at (or making significant inroads on) a difficult task
6. Resistance to finishing difficult tasks (quickly)
etc.
Now, I tried FV-AV and RZ. FV-AV makes you work on high-resistance tasks and RZ takes the opposite approach. The systems feel very different. But for me, the results were not entirely dissimilar. I overcame 3 and 4--no mean feat--but, generally, not 5 and 6. (Or at least, I didn't get the significant inroads/finishing effect I would have liked, whether that was due to resistance or not.)
FV-AV overcomes 3 and 4 through a blunt but effective targeting of high-resistance items. RZ is more gentle, but does get to the tougher items eventually. The "reduce resistance by scanning" effect did work, which is a nice discovery by Mark.
But with either system, I can't say I cracked 5 and 6. I have noticed this pattern with other systems as well. The Randomizer, for instance, also overcame 3 and 4, but long-term, didn't consistently break 5 and 6. I could just do a small amount of work whenever the system hit upon a difficult project, and the forward progress wasn't as great as I would have liked.
Now, there could be all sorts of reasons for these failings. Ultimately, of course, the blame falls on me.
My point here is to make a generation suggestion: a system that can reduce 5 and 6 would solve many time management issues. I suspect that this system already exists in the Forster canon. I just haven't tried it yet--or more likely, haven't got it working in the right way or made it my own.
In some ways, I feel that asking "What am I resisting not doing?" helped the most at overcoming 5 and 6. (However, it's tough to keep asking yourself a stand-alone question.) It shows the interesting paradox that 1 and 2 co-exist (as explained in the article linked above). In my case, even if my results show otherwise, I want to be good at finishing the serious stuff--and quickly. But I'm not there yet.
As a footnote, I'll add that "How to Make Your Dreams Come True" offers a different but compelling take on resistance, and that is worth thinking about as well.
The time management journey continues...
-- Thank you, Mark, for all the systems and for your thought-provoking writings on this topic! I'm not sure if what I say here is off-base or hits on some truth. I'll share it anyway in case it leads somewhere.