Discussion Forum > Which system managed commitment and attention the best?
I expect it's the Do It Tommorow system takes that the cake, among Mark's devices. I haven't used it though. AF4R was particularly designed to focus attention. Serial No List I think was good at reducing over commitment. Over the years I tweaked systems similar to SNL (except the no-list bit; I always referenced a long list). These were good at focusing attention to get things done.
(And of course, "my current system" is the best at everything but there's no track record to prove "most effective long term" yet.)
(And of course, "my current system" is the best at everything but there's no track record to prove "most effective long term" yet.)
August 12, 2022 at 22:13 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
That answer needs explanation. DIT's central theme is to manage over-commitment by focusing on what you can do in one day. Anything you can't do in one day becomes backlog, and you are quickly trained to eliminate the backlog, and stop creating new backlogs. This makes you aware of what you can do, and forces you to reduce commitments to match.
AF4R was created in response to comments (I was among the commenters) that AF4 tended to focus on the Old list (the closed backlog) to the neglect of completing items in the New list. So AF4 might have encouraged reduced commitment indirectly because otherwise the Old list grows out of control, but it didn't really have a mechanism. It did not cultivate focused attention, because it would have you do Old tasks once each and occasionally jump to do a few goes at some new tasks.
AF4R changed the game by splitting out Old, Active, Recurring, and New and sharing attention equally on these. This gave you a chance to focus a while on active tasks to get them done.
The system I tweaked for many years tried to invert AF4, focusing on current tasks rather than the backlog. It didn't really do much about reducing over-commitment:
Add new entries to the long list.
Scan the long list, pick out things to work on, put into a short list.
Then focus on the short list to get these done, reentering in this short list.
Serial No-List was basically "Make a new list every day, focus on the new list, but keep the old lists around for reference". Being a no-list, it's hard to take on too many commitments because your memory flounders to recall them. By sticking to the things top of mind for a day, you cultivate focused attention. (The old lists are helpful to remind you of things otherwise forgotten.)
AF4R was created in response to comments (I was among the commenters) that AF4 tended to focus on the Old list (the closed backlog) to the neglect of completing items in the New list. So AF4 might have encouraged reduced commitment indirectly because otherwise the Old list grows out of control, but it didn't really have a mechanism. It did not cultivate focused attention, because it would have you do Old tasks once each and occasionally jump to do a few goes at some new tasks.
AF4R changed the game by splitting out Old, Active, Recurring, and New and sharing attention equally on these. This gave you a chance to focus a while on active tasks to get them done.
The system I tweaked for many years tried to invert AF4, focusing on current tasks rather than the backlog. It didn't really do much about reducing over-commitment:
Add new entries to the long list.
Scan the long list, pick out things to work on, put into a short list.
Then focus on the short list to get these done, reentering in this short list.
Serial No-List was basically "Make a new list every day, focus on the new list, but keep the old lists around for reference". Being a no-list, it's hard to take on too many commitments because your memory flounders to recall them. By sticking to the things top of mind for a day, you cultivate focused attention. (The old lists are helpful to remind you of things otherwise forgotten.)
August 13, 2022 at 17:38 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Aaron:
Good question, which I'll have to ponder. In the meantime, I wanted to underline something you wrote which stood out to me:
<< It's easy to focus on one thing only in the short term, but at some point, you have to manage the surrounding things well enough to continue to achieve focusing on that one thing, or you'll just fall apart and no longer be able to do that one thing. >>
I like the way you phrase this. I know Mark has made similar statements (cf. http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/29/review-of-the-systems-conclusion.html ). Indeed, the surrounding "little" things do matter. For instance, I've recently made good strides using timers to focus on "deep work." And yet, I'm still left wondering which system is best to manage all the surrounding stuff--without letting the surrounding stuff take too much time (or focus) away from the deep work. A classic time-management problem.
Alan:
The Real Autofocus system seems quite similar to DIT: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/7/19/real-autofocus.html
Good question, which I'll have to ponder. In the meantime, I wanted to underline something you wrote which stood out to me:
<< It's easy to focus on one thing only in the short term, but at some point, you have to manage the surrounding things well enough to continue to achieve focusing on that one thing, or you'll just fall apart and no longer be able to do that one thing. >>
I like the way you phrase this. I know Mark has made similar statements (cf. http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/29/review-of-the-systems-conclusion.html ). Indeed, the surrounding "little" things do matter. For instance, I've recently made good strides using timers to focus on "deep work." And yet, I'm still left wondering which system is best to manage all the surrounding stuff--without letting the surrounding stuff take too much time (or focus) away from the deep work. A classic time-management problem.
Alan:
The Real Autofocus system seems quite similar to DIT: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/7/19/real-autofocus.html
August 14, 2022 at 2:07 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
P.S. Re the "little things matter"--I suppose I should have qualified that: "for most people/jobs." I suppose others can delegate much of the organizational stuff to an assistant. And there are probably some jobs (e.g., novelist) where focus on one thing is really all that matters and the rest is trivial in comparison. Actually, that might be true of many jobs (cf. Aaron's reply to Mark H re "The One Thing" here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2783610 ). So, maybe we shouldn't "sweat the small stuff" after all! Still, most professionals can't just ignore basic organizational stuff and have to keep track of deadlines, "mosquito tasks," etc. That's what I meant.
And in reply to the original post: Maybe it would be useful to note (at least, I think this is true) that tasks and commitments are not necessarily the same thing. Commitments can generate tasks and tasks can generate commitments. And there is probably a back-and-forth between these levels and between top-down (commitment > task) and bottom-up (task > commitment) processing. Some of Mark's systems are more top-down (e.g., Dreams) and others are more bottom-up (e.g., Simple Scanning).
And in reply to the original post: Maybe it would be useful to note (at least, I think this is true) that tasks and commitments are not necessarily the same thing. Commitments can generate tasks and tasks can generate commitments. And there is probably a back-and-forth between these levels and between top-down (commitment > task) and bottom-up (task > commitment) processing. Some of Mark's systems are more top-down (e.g., Dreams) and others are more bottom-up (e.g., Simple Scanning).
August 14, 2022 at 14:42 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
I've been thinking based on the very interesting discussion on my last thread about the nature of "list pruning" and what the underlying implication of that is, which is really about managing commitments. Going to some classic Mark Forster concepts, good pruning lets you refine the work that you do spend time on to help achieve sufficient, regular, focused attention.
That got me thinking about the various systems Mark has introduced, and I got to wondering, what system do people think managed to best achieve long term focused commitments and that sufficient, regular, focused attention?
I've been thinking about this in combination with the issues that surround the paradox of choice and the fatigue that you can feel when trying to make choices among many items. This has brought me back to admire AF1 again, because it combines simplicity, focus, and, importantly, a mechanical dismissal process. I really think that the closed list model is very powerful, and somewhat underutilized in some other systems, as the closed list makes decision making much easier and less effortful. Pruning in other long list systems seems to be less honest or harder to "access" psychologically.
But, as Mark has pointed out, many of his systems have tried to deal with commitments in one way or another, and I'm wondering what systems people think were best at achieving this focusing of effort the best long term? It's easy to focus on one thing only in the short term, but at some point, you have to manage the surrounding things well enough to continue to achieve focusing on that one thing, or you'll just fall apart and no longer be able to do that one thing. DREAMS certainly seems to be an interesting approach in this respect, because of how it focused more on priming the mind for focus rather than constricting it. And I thought Mark's no list comments from 2016 were a little cheeky in that you literally *can't* over commit in some respects with a no list system.
Anyways, what do you all say? What system is most effective long term at reducing over-commitment and cultivating focused attention?