Discussion Forum > I think Autofocus is Mark's GTD (in the good sense)
Oh, and yes, I know that from a structural perspective, Mark has said before that DIT was, in some sense, Mark's answer to GTD, but I'm talking here about the emotional impact of popularity more so than Mark's structurally similar "GTD" system.
September 28, 2022 at 3:07 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
If I were to choose a rule-based, list system, it'd be Autofocus.
For whatever reason, once the honeymoon ends, I start to dislike the constant scanning, overthinking intuition and "standing out" and dismissal.
But that delightful beginning... the brain dump. It's so delicious.
**** UPDATE ****
Aaron - I always enjoy reading your posts and thinking on these topics. I also respect Brett from AOM. So I'm thinking about starting o'fresh with AF. Original rules. If you're doing the same, perhaps we can use this thread to share what's working, where we're hitting bottlenecks, etc.
Thoughts?
p.s. One caveat, I'll be using an iPad Mini and Apple Notes.
For whatever reason, once the honeymoon ends, I start to dislike the constant scanning, overthinking intuition and "standing out" and dismissal.
But that delightful beginning... the brain dump. It's so delicious.
**** UPDATE ****
Aaron - I always enjoy reading your posts and thinking on these topics. I also respect Brett from AOM. So I'm thinking about starting o'fresh with AF. Original rules. If you're doing the same, perhaps we can use this thread to share what's working, where we're hitting bottlenecks, etc.
Thoughts?
p.s. One caveat, I'll be using an iPad Mini and Apple Notes.
September 28, 2022 at 4:35 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
I am indeed giving it a try! I like the idea of sharing notes in this thread.
For myself, the main reason I'm looking into AF over other "catch all" systems not made by Mark is to hopefully leverage AF's capacity for managing little things along with the major stuff. For me, I'm monitoring particularly how well it keeps my mind clear (stress levels down) while I continue to work under time pressures to try to make progress on the biggest things.
For tackling the bigger stuff, I'm finding that I've had some resistance to the large amount of work on my plate involved in only one or two key projects. I'm going to see if I can use AF to "operationalize" some of these big tasks on the fly as I work, to hopefully turn these bigger projects into smaller items that I feel more comfortable tackling, with the goal to make more consistent progress in the short time I have left to work on them before I have to start showing my work.
So, this is going to be a test of whether AF allows me to manage (that is, frees up more brain power, reduces fatigue and overwhelm, while also keeping me calm and stress-free) competing priorities without sacrificing deep work and "prolific quality output" towards the highest leverage projects that I'm working on.
I can already report that the initial brain dump is just as you say, delicious. I think I threw down three pages of things right off the top of my head without even trying, and the release of putting that all down on paper and knowing that I can work from that is really quite liberating in a sense.
To manage intuition, particularly around distracting tasks that I nonetheless want to be able to do at times, I plan to allow myself to appreciate what I *know* to be true, even if that is coming from the rational part of my mind. So, I'm going to be emphasizing a distinction between the real intentional part of my intuition and the pleasure/desire driven elements that may make a task "desirable" but might not actually make it right for doing right now.
I am indeed giving it a try! I like the idea of sharing notes in this thread.
For myself, the main reason I'm looking into AF over other "catch all" systems not made by Mark is to hopefully leverage AF's capacity for managing little things along with the major stuff. For me, I'm monitoring particularly how well it keeps my mind clear (stress levels down) while I continue to work under time pressures to try to make progress on the biggest things.
For tackling the bigger stuff, I'm finding that I've had some resistance to the large amount of work on my plate involved in only one or two key projects. I'm going to see if I can use AF to "operationalize" some of these big tasks on the fly as I work, to hopefully turn these bigger projects into smaller items that I feel more comfortable tackling, with the goal to make more consistent progress in the short time I have left to work on them before I have to start showing my work.
So, this is going to be a test of whether AF allows me to manage (that is, frees up more brain power, reduces fatigue and overwhelm, while also keeping me calm and stress-free) competing priorities without sacrificing deep work and "prolific quality output" towards the highest leverage projects that I'm working on.
I can already report that the initial brain dump is just as you say, delicious. I think I threw down three pages of things right off the top of my head without even trying, and the release of putting that all down on paper and knowing that I can work from that is really quite liberating in a sense.
To manage intuition, particularly around distracting tasks that I nonetheless want to be able to do at times, I plan to allow myself to appreciate what I *know* to be true, even if that is coming from the rational part of my mind. So, I'm going to be emphasizing a distinction between the real intentional part of my intuition and the pleasure/desire driven elements that may make a task "desirable" but might not actually make it right for doing right now.
September 28, 2022 at 5:26 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
I have having the hardest time in finding the right balance between short lists and long lists. I have been using short lists for the most part in the last two months, and I intended to review past days for unfinished items, but I don't do so. I have been using loose leaf paper, but the papers accumulate and they have to be organized. I am going to return somehow to a composition book. I am thinking that I can integrate the short list onto the long list, and keep notes separate (maybe they can be on looseleaf paper). I am thinking that any item longer than 7 days gets taken off the list. It is good to have one place to write new items.
From experience, a new long list works really for about a month, and begins to bog down due to the length. I am not sure whether long lists does not follow the cycle of growth, decline, and death. Maybe we are meant to start afresh, new methods become stale.
From experience, a new long list works really for about a month, and begins to bog down due to the length. I am not sure whether long lists does not follow the cycle of growth, decline, and death. Maybe we are meant to start afresh, new methods become stale.
September 28, 2022 at 16:15 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Nice post, Aaron. This part stood out to me:
<< Even if people don't use [Autofocus] today, those that have used it usually think of it fondly... The emotional qualities of the system are, as Mark has put it, quite unlike any other. >>
Yes. I still remember where I was and what I did when I used Autofocus many years ago (for a stretch of maybe six months). There is something about Autofocus that brings back nostalgia. And there is a way in which this system keeps coming back. It seems that Mark has gone back to it several times over the years. No doubt: Autofocus was a great creation.
However, I don't agree with you when you say that << Autofocus seems to have stood the test of time in ways that few other [Forster systems] have >>, though you were probably just making that claim as a devil's advocate. For me, nearly all of Mark's published systems have stood the test of time. I frequently find myself re-trying and re-discovering the old systems, including some of the more obscure ones that haven't made it onto the TM Systems page. They all have their own qualities. I'm still undecided which is best (for me).
I suppose whenever AF1 is brought up, one is also tempted to ask: "Why am I not using it now?" Two potential weaknesses come to mind. They were identified by Mark in the old "Review of the Systems." And they are by no means exclusive to AF1:
1. Urgent Tasks... I do have a bit of a problem with handling urgent tasks using the "If it needs doing now, do it" rule. I would prefer if they were dealt in the system itself, rather than by jumping outside the system, as it were. I understand that several of Mark's systems rely on this rule, but it can be a slippery slope in which one can lose one's progress or drop the rules entirely (succumbing to distraction, etc.). Perhaps alternatives such as Superfocus's "write it in column 2" or FV's "(re-)enter it with a dot at the end of the list" are superior. Even these minor steps may help to keep one grounded in the face of urgent tasks. That said, I suppose that one can get some of the same effect in AF1 as long as one actually remembers to write down the urgent task at the end of the list rather than simply winging it.
2. Sufficient Attention... In Autofocus (and other long-list systems), there may not be enough pressure to finish difficult tasks (quickly). I know this has been a problem for me. Aaron spoke of it in another thread. He said:
<< 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. >> ( http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2790260 )
This problem has led me to reconsider systems like Superfocus the Ultimate Time Management System "Improved," which flag unfinished tasks and force you to move on them. And Mark has offered other solutions to this problem over the years: everything from time-based systems like DIT and "Real Autofocus," to cognitive re-alignment and resistance-lowering strategies such as those in "Dreams" and "Resistance Zero." I suppose AF1's answer to this problem is a combination of dismissal and the "addictive" quality of the system. Those features should draw you in and keep you going. But are they enough? I can't say for sure.
Anyway, my mentioning potential weaknesses of Autofocus is meant to be constructive and not to pour cold water on the warm glow we all get when we think of this system. As I've said before--I wouldn't be surprised if I went back to AF1 someday.
<< Even if people don't use [Autofocus] today, those that have used it usually think of it fondly... The emotional qualities of the system are, as Mark has put it, quite unlike any other. >>
Yes. I still remember where I was and what I did when I used Autofocus many years ago (for a stretch of maybe six months). There is something about Autofocus that brings back nostalgia. And there is a way in which this system keeps coming back. It seems that Mark has gone back to it several times over the years. No doubt: Autofocus was a great creation.
However, I don't agree with you when you say that << Autofocus seems to have stood the test of time in ways that few other [Forster systems] have >>, though you were probably just making that claim as a devil's advocate. For me, nearly all of Mark's published systems have stood the test of time. I frequently find myself re-trying and re-discovering the old systems, including some of the more obscure ones that haven't made it onto the TM Systems page. They all have their own qualities. I'm still undecided which is best (for me).
I suppose whenever AF1 is brought up, one is also tempted to ask: "Why am I not using it now?" Two potential weaknesses come to mind. They were identified by Mark in the old "Review of the Systems." And they are by no means exclusive to AF1:
1. Urgent Tasks... I do have a bit of a problem with handling urgent tasks using the "If it needs doing now, do it" rule. I would prefer if they were dealt in the system itself, rather than by jumping outside the system, as it were. I understand that several of Mark's systems rely on this rule, but it can be a slippery slope in which one can lose one's progress or drop the rules entirely (succumbing to distraction, etc.). Perhaps alternatives such as Superfocus's "write it in column 2" or FV's "(re-)enter it with a dot at the end of the list" are superior. Even these minor steps may help to keep one grounded in the face of urgent tasks. That said, I suppose that one can get some of the same effect in AF1 as long as one actually remembers to write down the urgent task at the end of the list rather than simply winging it.
2. Sufficient Attention... In Autofocus (and other long-list systems), there may not be enough pressure to finish difficult tasks (quickly). I know this has been a problem for me. Aaron spoke of it in another thread. He said:
<< 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. >> ( http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2790260 )
This problem has led me to reconsider systems like Superfocus the Ultimate Time Management System "Improved," which flag unfinished tasks and force you to move on them. And Mark has offered other solutions to this problem over the years: everything from time-based systems like DIT and "Real Autofocus," to cognitive re-alignment and resistance-lowering strategies such as those in "Dreams" and "Resistance Zero." I suppose AF1's answer to this problem is a combination of dismissal and the "addictive" quality of the system. Those features should draw you in and keep you going. But are they enough? I can't say for sure.
Anyway, my mentioning potential weaknesses of Autofocus is meant to be constructive and not to pour cold water on the warm glow we all get when we think of this system. As I've said before--I wouldn't be surprised if I went back to AF1 someday.
September 28, 2022 at 17:22 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Was also inspired (mainly by the AoM article) to start a new AF1 list in an A5 exercise book.
I tried AF1 once on my existing long list and found it too slow. This time I'll see how building the list from scratch goes.
I tried AF1 once on my existing long list and found it too slow. This time I'll see how building the list from scratch goes.
September 28, 2022 at 19:24 |
Virix
Virix
Update: Day 1
* Starting fresh, only could think of 10 items. By lunch, I had two full pages of tasks, goals, reminders. Felt great to capture it all.
* Most of my day was hard landscape appts, so I didn't do much Autofocus(ing)
* Didn't bother with list/rules when I had 5-10 minutes of free time **
* When my kids came home from school, no Autofocus
** Previously, this is where I ran into trouble. In my experience, following the Autofocus rules i.e. scanning list(s), feeling or intuiting "standing out", etc, requires more than 10 minutes of uninterrupted free time. Therefore I don't bother with AF during these pockets of free time. And that leads to trouble... if I do a bit of web surfing here, some email there without AF, why include them on my list at all. It doesn't take long for the habit to fall apart.
I'm trying to approach the above dilemma with a lighter touch. To paraphrase Mark's advice: It's just a tool.
* Starting fresh, only could think of 10 items. By lunch, I had two full pages of tasks, goals, reminders. Felt great to capture it all.
* Most of my day was hard landscape appts, so I didn't do much Autofocus(ing)
* Didn't bother with list/rules when I had 5-10 minutes of free time **
* When my kids came home from school, no Autofocus
** Previously, this is where I ran into trouble. In my experience, following the Autofocus rules i.e. scanning list(s), feeling or intuiting "standing out", etc, requires more than 10 minutes of uninterrupted free time. Therefore I don't bother with AF during these pockets of free time. And that leads to trouble... if I do a bit of web surfing here, some email there without AF, why include them on my list at all. It doesn't take long for the habit to fall apart.
I'm trying to approach the above dilemma with a lighter touch. To paraphrase Mark's advice: It's just a tool.
September 29, 2022 at 2:54 |
avrum
avrum
Belacqua:
I've never had much worry about urgent tasks when using AF, but I have, as you have noted and quoted, been concerned about sufficient attention on big things. The way I'm playing with this now is that I'm including more items related to my big projects in my list than I would have before. In a way, letting things get a little more "messy" by design. I'm including small next actions around my big projects and allowing them to be scattered about at various levels, including intermediate goals and next actions and various other elements. The idea I have of doing this is that by scattering them around, I will hopefully improve my "hit rate" in terms of giving myself opportunities to think about it.
I'm also trying to let myself trust the system sufficiently to actually go around it and hopefully do those things that matter, while letting myself be okay with restraint when I know I shouldn't do something, rather than letting the system act as an excuse to do something that I really shouldn't right now.
The ability to deliver sufficient attention to big "important" things will still be the hardest test, I think, for this round of experimentation. However, I'm also opening myself up to the idea of letting AF exist next to a "Frog" or Current Initiative where I essentially think of my most important task as a sort of "urgent task" that needs doing now if I haven't already spent a good deal of time on it that day. In that sense, I'm sort of letting myself spend the time on it out of band if I feel like its required. I haven't needed to do that yet, but I'm trying this time around to really let myself be okay with following and leveraging the "do it now" rule of AF, as well as dismissal.
I've never had much worry about urgent tasks when using AF, but I have, as you have noted and quoted, been concerned about sufficient attention on big things. The way I'm playing with this now is that I'm including more items related to my big projects in my list than I would have before. In a way, letting things get a little more "messy" by design. I'm including small next actions around my big projects and allowing them to be scattered about at various levels, including intermediate goals and next actions and various other elements. The idea I have of doing this is that by scattering them around, I will hopefully improve my "hit rate" in terms of giving myself opportunities to think about it.
I'm also trying to let myself trust the system sufficiently to actually go around it and hopefully do those things that matter, while letting myself be okay with restraint when I know I shouldn't do something, rather than letting the system act as an excuse to do something that I really shouldn't right now.
The ability to deliver sufficient attention to big "important" things will still be the hardest test, I think, for this round of experimentation. However, I'm also opening myself up to the idea of letting AF exist next to a "Frog" or Current Initiative where I essentially think of my most important task as a sort of "urgent task" that needs doing now if I haven't already spent a good deal of time on it that day. In that sense, I'm sort of letting myself spend the time on it out of band if I feel like its required. I haven't needed to do that yet, but I'm trying this time around to really let myself be okay with following and leveraging the "do it now" rule of AF, as well as dismissal.
September 29, 2022 at 5:49 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
So, a little update on how I'm doing with this. So far things are going well, and I fell into using the system quite well. After having "cracked" the use of AF a while back, I find it easy to return to it. I started with 3 pages of items (20 - 25 lines per page), but I'm not at 7 pages or so. Thus far, I've just been chasing the end of the list, which, in this case, isn't really a bad thing, because there were a lot of things that I needed to get done. I've found it quite comfortable to work with all the items so far. It's also going "fast" for me, so that's good.
I haven't had the opportunity to use dismissal yet, but I'm looking forward to applying it. So far I've been happy with what I've been doing, in that the stuff I've been working on has all been important and relevant to my needs at the moment. However, as I get to some of the more challenging tasks coming up, it's going to be interesting to see how things go.
Just as I second guess myself when using an MIT (Most Important Task(s)) system that something like AF would be better, I'm finding that when I use AF I always compare it to an MIT system and ask myself whether it wouldn't be easier and better to just have something like a pre-defined chain/schedule of MITs to work on.
One thing that I definitely find uncomfortable is setting up the "stop point" for my work. Since I have almost no appointments, I've tackled this two ways in the past: I either have a defined cut-off for when I stop working the list and go to bed, or I actually put "Sleep" into the list and action it when I come around to it. I'm not really happy with either option. I find that I'm never really happy with having a defined cut off point, but I also find that I tend to do a little too much stuff at the wrong time if I am hunting for the "Sleep" item. This goes back, I think, to my lack of skill in applying the "do it now" rule. I'll also readily admit that this is something somewhat unique to my own situation, as not many people are so unscheduled as I am.
I haven't had the opportunity to use dismissal yet, but I'm looking forward to applying it. So far I've been happy with what I've been doing, in that the stuff I've been working on has all been important and relevant to my needs at the moment. However, as I get to some of the more challenging tasks coming up, it's going to be interesting to see how things go.
Just as I second guess myself when using an MIT (Most Important Task(s)) system that something like AF would be better, I'm finding that when I use AF I always compare it to an MIT system and ask myself whether it wouldn't be easier and better to just have something like a pre-defined chain/schedule of MITs to work on.
One thing that I definitely find uncomfortable is setting up the "stop point" for my work. Since I have almost no appointments, I've tackled this two ways in the past: I either have a defined cut-off for when I stop working the list and go to bed, or I actually put "Sleep" into the list and action it when I come around to it. I'm not really happy with either option. I find that I'm never really happy with having a defined cut off point, but I also find that I tend to do a little too much stuff at the wrong time if I am hunting for the "Sleep" item. This goes back, I think, to my lack of skill in applying the "do it now" rule. I'll also readily admit that this is something somewhat unique to my own situation, as not many people are so unscheduled as I am.
September 29, 2022 at 20:10 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Update 2:
In theory, I like the features of AF. I believe my most successful AF run occurred in 2009, before any of my children were born, and my private practice consisted of two clients.
It's 2022, my practice is full and I have three kids under 12. Three days with AF, and I'm pretty sure the rules/workflow aren't the best for my needs.
In theory, I like the features of AF. I believe my most successful AF run occurred in 2009, before any of my children were born, and my private practice consisted of two clients.
It's 2022, my practice is full and I have three kids under 12. Three days with AF, and I'm pretty sure the rules/workflow aren't the best for my needs.
September 29, 2022 at 20:32 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
Regardless of whether you continue with AF, thanks for jumping in and experimenting with me. :-) For you, are you mostly finding the scanning time and limited discretionary time the biggest hurdles?
Regardless of whether you continue with AF, thanks for jumping in and experimenting with me. :-) For you, are you mostly finding the scanning time and limited discretionary time the biggest hurdles?
September 29, 2022 at 23:28 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
The biggest hurdle is me and my tendency to get pulled by new shiny things, and nostalgia.
I have a good thing going with my current system - I'm back to using that.
I have a good thing going with my current system - I'm back to using that.
September 30, 2022 at 4:36 |
avrum
avrum
OK, I have a started a new long list. This is my fourth day. I date the pages. I number each item. When I delete an item, I add the number to the end of the list, and add new items to blank numbers. I have 127 items. The easiest way to fill up the list is to write down everything that you do when you do it.
Right now I am putting a check by an item that has been started and done before.
I like using it as a catch-all list, but if that is the case, then some dismissal needs to be done. I am thinking to review any items not actioned after 7 days.
I find that some items can only be done at home or on a computer, so I am using Simple Scanning.
Right now I am putting a check by an item that has been started and done before.
I like using it as a catch-all list, but if that is the case, then some dismissal needs to be done. I am thinking to review any items not actioned after 7 days.
I find that some items can only be done at home or on a computer, so I am using Simple Scanning.
September 30, 2022 at 18:40 |
Mark H
Mark H
I still find AF really easy to use and very effective, but one of the main issues I'm finding is that I still struggle with the idea that some things I want to do might be better done scheduled outside of AF. For example, maybe a morning routine, following by a "Frog" or my main most important thing that needs to get done, followed by actioning my AF list, and then an evening shutdown routine. That sounds perfectly reasonable, but I find myself somewhat annoyed at the very idea.
In essence, what I *want* from AF is to be able to put it all in the list and let those routines happen from *within* the system, rather than having AF only be an auxiliary that I use after the MIT or other big Frog is done. But if I do that, I find that I'm actioning some of my routine stuff at hours of the day that feel weird to me. I think a lot of that comes back to the resistance I have to the "do it now" rule.
The problem for me is that it is also just so much *fun* to use AF.
In essence, what I *want* from AF is to be able to put it all in the list and let those routines happen from *within* the system, rather than having AF only be an auxiliary that I use after the MIT or other big Frog is done. But if I do that, I find that I'm actioning some of my routine stuff at hours of the day that feel weird to me. I think a lot of that comes back to the resistance I have to the "do it now" rule.
The problem for me is that it is also just so much *fun* to use AF.
October 1, 2022 at 4:19 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
<< In essence, what I *want* from AF is to be able to put it all in the list and let those routines happen from *within* the system, rather than having AF only be an auxiliary... I think a lot of that comes back to the resistance I have to the "do it now" rule. >>
This is what I was getting at when talking about urgent tasks in AF1 (above). I wasn't referring to emergencies. (Compare Mark's analysis of levels of urgency in the DIT book.) One can drop everything to handle emergencies no matter what system is used. I meant the semi-urgent stuff we get every day where it would be really nice to respond promptly or instantaneously while staying within the rules of the system (and not putting the system on hold to "do it now").
However, I concede that this may be a matter of attitude. Maybe if one accepts that the "do it now" rule is *part* of the rules of AF1 then one won't feel bad for "breaking the rules" every time "do it now" is invoked!
Also, some systems may be so generally awesome to use that it's simply worth accepting that one has to invoke the "do it now" rule from time to time. AF1 may be such a system. And several other Forster systems also require use of "do it now." To give just one example: ASEM (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/20/another-simple-and-effective-method.html ). Maybe some of these systems get as close to perfection as one can expect and "do it now" is a minor price to pay.
The handling of urgent tasks in Mark's long-list systems could be (and probably has been) the subject of another thread. Some of Mark's systems do allow for (near-)instant handling of urgent tasks within the rules of the system (for example: Superfocus or the Ultimate Time Management System).
<< In essence, what I *want* from AF is to be able to put it all in the list and let those routines happen from *within* the system, rather than having AF only be an auxiliary... I think a lot of that comes back to the resistance I have to the "do it now" rule. >>
This is what I was getting at when talking about urgent tasks in AF1 (above). I wasn't referring to emergencies. (Compare Mark's analysis of levels of urgency in the DIT book.) One can drop everything to handle emergencies no matter what system is used. I meant the semi-urgent stuff we get every day where it would be really nice to respond promptly or instantaneously while staying within the rules of the system (and not putting the system on hold to "do it now").
However, I concede that this may be a matter of attitude. Maybe if one accepts that the "do it now" rule is *part* of the rules of AF1 then one won't feel bad for "breaking the rules" every time "do it now" is invoked!
Also, some systems may be so generally awesome to use that it's simply worth accepting that one has to invoke the "do it now" rule from time to time. AF1 may be such a system. And several other Forster systems also require use of "do it now." To give just one example: ASEM (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/20/another-simple-and-effective-method.html ). Maybe some of these systems get as close to perfection as one can expect and "do it now" is a minor price to pay.
The handling of urgent tasks in Mark's long-list systems could be (and probably has been) the subject of another thread. Some of Mark's systems do allow for (near-)instant handling of urgent tasks within the rules of the system (for example: Superfocus or the Ultimate Time Management System).
October 1, 2022 at 13:57 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Belacqua wrote:
<< However, I concede that this may be a matter of attitude. Maybe if one accepts that the "do it now" rule is *part* of the rules of AF1 then one won't feel bad for "breaking the rules" every time "do it now" is invoked! >>
For me, it was never an issue about breaking the rules. It was more that it broke my flow. AF1 introduces a very nice, almost meditative state of flow. The "do it now" rule always broke that flow. Whenever I would invoke the "do it now" rule, I would do the urgent thing that needed doing, but then would find myself in a crisis-response mode, wanting to go find the NEXT urgent thing. It was very hard to go against this, once I first decided to invoke the "do it now" rule. It was very hard to settle back into the list.
The long-term result is that I would fall into a mental conflict every time I faced an urgent task: do I "do it now" and risk falling into the crisis-response mode, or do I try to let AF1 handle it in the normal course of things and risk dropping a truly urgent responsibility?
I was always looking for ways to overcome that -- for example, putting a sticky note on my current AF1 page, and writing the urgent thing on the sticky, so when I was done with the urgent thing, I would just throw away the sticky, and there below it was my AF1 list, just waiting for me. That would help me get right back into the AF1 list.
I had to find tricks like this, because it's the buildup of mental conflict that always causes me to abandon a system in the end.
<< However, I concede that this may be a matter of attitude. Maybe if one accepts that the "do it now" rule is *part* of the rules of AF1 then one won't feel bad for "breaking the rules" every time "do it now" is invoked! >>
For me, it was never an issue about breaking the rules. It was more that it broke my flow. AF1 introduces a very nice, almost meditative state of flow. The "do it now" rule always broke that flow. Whenever I would invoke the "do it now" rule, I would do the urgent thing that needed doing, but then would find myself in a crisis-response mode, wanting to go find the NEXT urgent thing. It was very hard to go against this, once I first decided to invoke the "do it now" rule. It was very hard to settle back into the list.
The long-term result is that I would fall into a mental conflict every time I faced an urgent task: do I "do it now" and risk falling into the crisis-response mode, or do I try to let AF1 handle it in the normal course of things and risk dropping a truly urgent responsibility?
I was always looking for ways to overcome that -- for example, putting a sticky note on my current AF1 page, and writing the urgent thing on the sticky, so when I was done with the urgent thing, I would just throw away the sticky, and there below it was my AF1 list, just waiting for me. That would help me get right back into the AF1 list.
I had to find tricks like this, because it's the buildup of mental conflict that always causes me to abandon a system in the end.
October 1, 2022 at 17:26 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Interesting discussion.
I am still very fond of Autofocus myself, but in spite of the fact that I stuck to it for months when I first developed it, I now find that the problems with the system outweigh the advantages.
The main problem is that it doesn't deal with urgency well. And as Aaron has pointed out if you leave the system to go and "do it now" it's actualy quite difficult to get back into the right mental framework.
Before i read this discussion today, I'd been writing out what my ideal long-list system would need to be capable of. Here's what I wrote:
1 The list must be capable of including everything one has to do
2 Every task must be accessible at any time
3 It must be easy to respond to urgency as well as importance
4 It must be systematic, so every task gets dealt with appropriately to its urgency and importance
5 The system itself must have minimum overhead
6 It must be free of resistance
7 It musn't be boring
As you can see, Autofocus fails on several of these counts, particularly 2, 3, and 4.
Having written these requirements, I then examined all my long-list systems (or at least those which I still use) to see how they fit. Rather to my surprise there was only one system which met all the requirements.
I feel a blog post coming on!
I am still very fond of Autofocus myself, but in spite of the fact that I stuck to it for months when I first developed it, I now find that the problems with the system outweigh the advantages.
The main problem is that it doesn't deal with urgency well. And as Aaron has pointed out if you leave the system to go and "do it now" it's actualy quite difficult to get back into the right mental framework.
Before i read this discussion today, I'd been writing out what my ideal long-list system would need to be capable of. Here's what I wrote:
1 The list must be capable of including everything one has to do
2 Every task must be accessible at any time
3 It must be easy to respond to urgency as well as importance
4 It must be systematic, so every task gets dealt with appropriately to its urgency and importance
5 The system itself must have minimum overhead
6 It must be free of resistance
7 It musn't be boring
As you can see, Autofocus fails on several of these counts, particularly 2, 3, and 4.
Having written these requirements, I then examined all my long-list systems (or at least those which I still use) to see how they fit. Rather to my surprise there was only one system which met all the requirements.
I feel a blog post coming on!
October 1, 2022 at 23:04 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I have found that doing Simple Scanning can take care of the urgent items. You can scan for the items that need doing today, then tomorrow, etc.
The original Autofocus treated each page as a closed list, that was processed in the order of the pages. So it is possible to delay getting to the urgent tasks at the end of the list, and not leave enough time to get complete them by the deadline.
If the long list starts as the catch-all list, then it spaces out over a period of time the processing of the items, unlike other systems where it is done at the front end. However, the catch all list is likely to have items that really don't need to done at all, but might be tempting to do anyway. So there is more a need for dismissal in this case.
The long list really facilitates the "little and often" dynamic, and works well with it, but not so well with time blocking, deep work, etc. It handles the many on-off tasks that one would forget about if using a no-list.
My main problem has always been the list grows too big, and the task switching and decision fatigue, and reading past cross out items slows the process down.
There are probably work arounds for all these. The medium can make a difference, whether it's a notebook, or a loose leaf binder.
The original Autofocus treated each page as a closed list, that was processed in the order of the pages. So it is possible to delay getting to the urgent tasks at the end of the list, and not leave enough time to get complete them by the deadline.
If the long list starts as the catch-all list, then it spaces out over a period of time the processing of the items, unlike other systems where it is done at the front end. However, the catch all list is likely to have items that really don't need to done at all, but might be tempting to do anyway. So there is more a need for dismissal in this case.
The long list really facilitates the "little and often" dynamic, and works well with it, but not so well with time blocking, deep work, etc. It handles the many on-off tasks that one would forget about if using a no-list.
My main problem has always been the list grows too big, and the task switching and decision fatigue, and reading past cross out items slows the process down.
There are probably work arounds for all these. The medium can make a difference, whether it's a notebook, or a loose leaf binder.
October 1, 2022 at 23:22 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark:
<<Having written these requirements, I then examined all my long-list systems (or at least those which I still use) to see how they fit. Rather to my surprise there was only one system which met all the requirements.>>
You really know how to tease a systems analysis junky! That's quite a list of requirements you've put together, and I certainly am interested to see the results of your explorations.
<<Having written these requirements, I then examined all my long-list systems (or at least those which I still use) to see how they fit. Rather to my surprise there was only one system which met all the requirements.>>
You really know how to tease a systems analysis junky! That's quite a list of requirements you've put together, and I certainly am interested to see the results of your explorations.
October 1, 2022 at 23:31 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Mark,
Ditto what Aaron said... That's a great list of requirements.
Of course, we are all interested to hear about your current take on the "perfect system."
Ditto what Aaron said... That's a great list of requirements.
Of course, we are all interested to hear about your current take on the "perfect system."
October 2, 2022 at 0:27 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
My favourite "throw everything into the system and let the rules (and intuition) take care of it" was DWM. However dismissal was left up to the user. At the time, I thought a good solution would be an electronic task app i..e Omnifocus or Things with a built-in automatic dismiss/delete option for tasks/projects that miss their due date. The feature - not a bug - would be the task/project would be completely removed from your list without any chance of recovery. That type of pressure might have saved me from my own internal justifications for not dismissing when I know I should.
p.s. Seraphim - so much of what you typed above captured my struggles with long-list systems.
p.s. Seraphim - so much of what you typed above captured my struggles with long-list systems.
October 2, 2022 at 3:13 |
avrum
avrum
Belacqua:
<< Of course, we are all interested to hear about your current take on the "perfect system." >>
I don't think I said it was the perfect system, just that it fulfilled my list of requirements for an ideal long list system.
<< Of course, we are all interested to hear about your current take on the "perfect system." >>
I don't think I said it was the perfect system, just that it fulfilled my list of requirements for an ideal long list system.
October 2, 2022 at 10:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
All:
I've woken up this morning to find that all the blog content (including the Comment Section) has been pushed over to the right hand side of the screen, which is extremely annoying though not fatal.
I'm wondering if that is just peculiar to me, or whether it is affecting everyone.
So please let me know how you are seeing it where you are, either in these commnets or by email to markforster@aol.com
I've woken up this morning to find that all the blog content (including the Comment Section) has been pushed over to the right hand side of the screen, which is extremely annoying though not fatal.
I'm wondering if that is just peculiar to me, or whether it is affecting everyone.
So please let me know how you are seeing it where you are, either in these commnets or by email to markforster@aol.com
October 2, 2022 at 10:31 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Same thing for me, Mark - not just you. Good luck with fixing it.
October 2, 2022 at 10:40 |
Margaret1
Margaret1
PS - this also applies to General Discussion, and no doubt other tabs.
October 2, 2022 at 10:42 |
Margaret1
Margaret1
Yes, I'm seeing the same problem as well.
October 2, 2022 at 13:02 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Sounds like everyone is having the same problem.
So now I have to decide whether to spend hours/days fixing it, or pretend it's my radical new cutting-edge design, which has taken my team years to develop.
So now I have to decide whether to spend hours/days fixing it, or pretend it's my radical new cutting-edge design, which has taken my team years to develop.
October 2, 2022 at 14:02 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Re: AF1:
My current trial of AF1 has the rule: if I really have/want to do something right now, I do it, reinput as appropriate and then return to where I was in the notebook. I think this really has to be Rule 0 of every system I actually use. I don't have any problems making this mental shift in either direction (used this rule to make this post).
Re: MF's new preferred system:
Shall we make bets on what it is? :p I was going with SS until I read the "mustn't be boring" requirement, now my money's on the evergreen NQ-FVP.
Oh and good luck fixing the site Mark, must be a pain.
My current trial of AF1 has the rule: if I really have/want to do something right now, I do it, reinput as appropriate and then return to where I was in the notebook. I think this really has to be Rule 0 of every system I actually use. I don't have any problems making this mental shift in either direction (used this rule to make this post).
Re: MF's new preferred system:
Shall we make bets on what it is? :p I was going with SS until I read the "mustn't be boring" requirement, now my money's on the evergreen NQ-FVP.
Oh and good luck fixing the site Mark, must be a pain.
October 2, 2022 at 15:02 |
Virix
Virix
The system I identified as meeting my requirements is AF2. I've ditched the dismissal rules, and instead brought in a new rule that if a scan reaches the beginning of the list without a task being selected, it reverses direction and continues back toward the end of the list. That seems to have made the system much more effective for reasons I don't really understand. I think I've only actually reversed direction once, but the knowledge that it's available affects every scan.
Let's have a look at how it meets my list of requirments
The list must be capable of including everything one has to do
Like any long list system you can throw anything at it within reason. But it must be understood that the "within reason" bit is important. Currently I have 61 tasks on the list and it is working fine. These tasks cover the range from major projects to minor queries.
Every task must be accessible at any time
Every scan in AF2 can potentially select any task on the list
It must be easy to respond to urgency as well as importance
For AF2 this should really be "easy to respond to importance as well as urgency" since the scans always start with the latest additions to the list. But the new rule seems to give a very good spread across the list.
It must be systematic, so every task gets dealt with appropriately to its urgency and importance
This is probably the least appropriate of my requirements, since AF2 does not systematically visit every task. However I've not in practice found this to be a problem.
The system itself must have minimum overhead
Although there is a lot of scanning, it's very straightforward and can be done very fast since you know that if you miss a task it can be picked up on the next scan.
It must be free of resistance
So far I've had no resistance at all to it. There's never any compulsion to do any particular task. And it's good fun.
It musn't be boring
I'm not quite sure why, but I find this system the least boring of any system I've tried. Maybe it's because each scan can pick a task to suit my mood, so the work always fits how I feel at the moment.
Let's have a look at how it meets my list of requirments
The list must be capable of including everything one has to do
Like any long list system you can throw anything at it within reason. But it must be understood that the "within reason" bit is important. Currently I have 61 tasks on the list and it is working fine. These tasks cover the range from major projects to minor queries.
Every task must be accessible at any time
Every scan in AF2 can potentially select any task on the list
It must be easy to respond to urgency as well as importance
For AF2 this should really be "easy to respond to importance as well as urgency" since the scans always start with the latest additions to the list. But the new rule seems to give a very good spread across the list.
It must be systematic, so every task gets dealt with appropriately to its urgency and importance
This is probably the least appropriate of my requirements, since AF2 does not systematically visit every task. However I've not in practice found this to be a problem.
The system itself must have minimum overhead
Although there is a lot of scanning, it's very straightforward and can be done very fast since you know that if you miss a task it can be picked up on the next scan.
It must be free of resistance
So far I've had no resistance at all to it. There's never any compulsion to do any particular task. And it's good fun.
It musn't be boring
I'm not quite sure why, but I find this system the least boring of any system I've tried. Maybe it's because each scan can pick a task to suit my mood, so the work always fits how I feel at the moment.
October 3, 2022 at 11:31 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Virix:
<< now my money's on the evergreen NQ-FVP >>
That fails on several counts for me (which doesn't mean it isn't a good system):
Every task is not accessible at any time
It has quite a bit of overhead in the sense of different rules applying at different times
I find it eventually gets boring, which of course then brings resistance in.
<< now my money's on the evergreen NQ-FVP >>
That fails on several counts for me (which doesn't mean it isn't a good system):
Every task is not accessible at any time
It has quite a bit of overhead in the sense of different rules applying at different times
I find it eventually gets boring, which of course then brings resistance in.
October 3, 2022 at 11:40 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I cannot recall AF2 and when I go to the TM systems and click on AF2, nothing shows up. When I do a search for AF2 and click on instructions for AF2, nothing comes up. I am sure we are all wanting to brush up on AF2 now, and perhaps others are having the same trouble.
October 3, 2022 at 14:15 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Very interesting, Mark! This choice may have surprised some pundits.
Oddly enough, I tried AF2 (the original instructions) recently. It has some notable advantages. I liked starting scanning with the most recent items. I liked the handling of urgent tasks.
I find scanning backwards more difficult mentally, but I imagine that this becomes easier with practice. (Alternatives to permit forward scanning would include electronic implementation or filling a notebook from back to front but these may be worse. I don't like digital lists. And, with the reverse notebook, I imagine smeared ink, etc.)
The variant you describe here is different from "The Bounce" (http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2006818#post2070863 ), because here, you aren't reversing direction after each task. Here, you only reverse if you get to the beginning of the list. I wonder what the trade-offs are. Perhaps The Bounce involves too much scanning?
One of your criteria is that "every task gets dealt with appropriately to... importance." To play devil's advocate, my only worry with AF2 is that the really important tasks might get passed over or worked on insufficiently. One might be tempted to spend too much time on the easy tasks. You raised similar concerns in your 2011 review of AF2. You wrote, under "disadvantages": "Although better than AF1 at dealing with urgent tasks [AF2] was even more liable than AF1 to favour easy tasks over more difficult ones. With a long list, it could also take a considerable time to decide on the next task as often many pages had to be gone through before a tasks could be selected." (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/category/review-of-systems ). Perhaps, now, you have greater confidence in the user's intuition to sort things out?
About AF2 not being "boring," maybe it has to do with scanning backwards. We're so used to scanning forwards that reversing is more entertaining. Or maybe it's just scanning the recent stuff first that adds a freshness to the system.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your latest thoughts. This has inspired me to do another run of AF2 in the near future.
Oddly enough, I tried AF2 (the original instructions) recently. It has some notable advantages. I liked starting scanning with the most recent items. I liked the handling of urgent tasks.
I find scanning backwards more difficult mentally, but I imagine that this becomes easier with practice. (Alternatives to permit forward scanning would include electronic implementation or filling a notebook from back to front but these may be worse. I don't like digital lists. And, with the reverse notebook, I imagine smeared ink, etc.)
The variant you describe here is different from "The Bounce" (http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2006818#post2070863 ), because here, you aren't reversing direction after each task. Here, you only reverse if you get to the beginning of the list. I wonder what the trade-offs are. Perhaps The Bounce involves too much scanning?
One of your criteria is that "every task gets dealt with appropriately to... importance." To play devil's advocate, my only worry with AF2 is that the really important tasks might get passed over or worked on insufficiently. One might be tempted to spend too much time on the easy tasks. You raised similar concerns in your 2011 review of AF2. You wrote, under "disadvantages": "Although better than AF1 at dealing with urgent tasks [AF2] was even more liable than AF1 to favour easy tasks over more difficult ones. With a long list, it could also take a considerable time to decide on the next task as often many pages had to be gone through before a tasks could be selected." (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/category/review-of-systems ). Perhaps, now, you have greater confidence in the user's intuition to sort things out?
About AF2 not being "boring," maybe it has to do with scanning backwards. We're so used to scanning forwards that reversing is more entertaining. Or maybe it's just scanning the recent stuff first that adds a freshness to the system.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your latest thoughts. This has inspired me to do another run of AF2 in the near future.
October 3, 2022 at 14:16 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Mark H,
Here are the original instructions for AF2:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2009/6/27/autofocus-2-time-management-system-af2.html?SSScrollPosition=114
Here are the original instructions for AF2:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2009/6/27/autofocus-2-time-management-system-af2.html?SSScrollPosition=114
October 3, 2022 at 14:18 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Belacqua:
<<Perhaps, now, you have greater confidence in the user's intuition to sort things out? >>
First of all thanks for posting the reference for the original AF2 instructions.
What I've found is that the new instruction (i.e. reversing when reaching the end) seems to make more difference than I would have expected. It's not that it comes into play very often - I've still only reversed once. It's that they change my mindset about the end of the list. I can explore back to the beginning without feeling that it's irrevocable. That causes me to spend more time going back to near the end of the list. By the nature of things, tasks at the beginning of the list tend to get isolated and therefore it's easy just to give a glance at the first active column to see what's still to be done. If you know what you're aiming for, scans get considerably quicker.
<<Perhaps, now, you have greater confidence in the user's intuition to sort things out? >>
First of all thanks for posting the reference for the original AF2 instructions.
What I've found is that the new instruction (i.e. reversing when reaching the end) seems to make more difference than I would have expected. It's not that it comes into play very often - I've still only reversed once. It's that they change my mindset about the end of the list. I can explore back to the beginning without feeling that it's irrevocable. That causes me to spend more time going back to near the end of the list. By the nature of things, tasks at the beginning of the list tend to get isolated and therefore it's easy just to give a glance at the first active column to see what's still to be done. If you know what you're aiming for, scans get considerably quicker.
October 3, 2022 at 17:45 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster:
Well, I did not see that (AF2) coming at all.
I've never formally tried it, though generally when I don't have a clear idea of what to do, I've found myself doing stuff on the last page, which I guess is something like AF2.
I have to admit it always sounded like a dull and tedious system to me!
Well, I did not see that (AF2) coming at all.
I've never formally tried it, though generally when I don't have a clear idea of what to do, I've found myself doing stuff on the last page, which I guess is something like AF2.
I have to admit it always sounded like a dull and tedious system to me!
October 3, 2022 at 17:58 |
Virix
Virix
Mark Forster:
<< What I've found is that the new instruction (i.e. reversing when reaching the end) seems to make more difference than I would have expected. It's not that it comes into play very often - I've still only reversed once. It's that they change my mindset about the end of the list. I can explore back to the beginning without feeling that it's irrevocable. That causes me to spend more time going back to near the end of the list. >>
It seems to me that a decent alternative would be to start scanning backwards from the end of the list if you reach the beginning of the list without selecting a task. This would also give you a "second chance" at the list; there wouldn't be pressure to do a task on your first go. Presumably, this is how the original AF2 system would handle this situation (but I'm not sure if that was ever made explicit).
But perhaps the reversal of direction has a subtle effect. Of course, I can't say having never tried it.
Anyway, I suppose either of these rules would be invoked rarely, as you say.
<< What I've found is that the new instruction (i.e. reversing when reaching the end) seems to make more difference than I would have expected. It's not that it comes into play very often - I've still only reversed once. It's that they change my mindset about the end of the list. I can explore back to the beginning without feeling that it's irrevocable. That causes me to spend more time going back to near the end of the list. >>
It seems to me that a decent alternative would be to start scanning backwards from the end of the list if you reach the beginning of the list without selecting a task. This would also give you a "second chance" at the list; there wouldn't be pressure to do a task on your first go. Presumably, this is how the original AF2 system would handle this situation (but I'm not sure if that was ever made explicit).
But perhaps the reversal of direction has a subtle effect. Of course, I can't say having never tried it.
Anyway, I suppose either of these rules would be invoked rarely, as you say.
October 3, 2022 at 18:18 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Having never tried AF2, it's very interesting to see it mentioned! Hrm,...gets me thinking.
October 4, 2022 at 3:27 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Mark,
Your seven requirements are demanding, but I'm wondering if any of your other systems might satisfy them as well.
UTMS (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2013/6/13/the-ultimate-time-management-system.html ) seems to come close. On the handling of urgent tasks in that system, see Suggestion #3 from the link above: "If a task comes up which needs to be done immediately, write it down at the end of the New List, stop what you are doing and go straight to it. This is quite in accordance with Rules 4 and 8."
But maybe you find that UTMS becomes a little boring (Requirement 7)? Presumably, that's why Simple Scanning didn't make the cut. (You have written previously that you find that system a bit boring.)
Your seven requirements are demanding, but I'm wondering if any of your other systems might satisfy them as well.
UTMS (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2013/6/13/the-ultimate-time-management-system.html ) seems to come close. On the handling of urgent tasks in that system, see Suggestion #3 from the link above: "If a task comes up which needs to be done immediately, write it down at the end of the New List, stop what you are doing and go straight to it. This is quite in accordance with Rules 4 and 8."
But maybe you find that UTMS becomes a little boring (Requirement 7)? Presumably, that's why Simple Scanning didn't make the cut. (You have written previously that you find that system a bit boring.)
October 4, 2022 at 4:48 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
AF4 (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/5/preliminary-instructions-for-autofocus-v-4.html ) and AF4R (http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1325521 ) also seem to come close. Both run afoul of Requirement 2 ("Every task must be accessible at any time"). But it seems that one can move pretty smoothly between the lists as soon as no task stands out in the Old List.
DWM (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/1/dit2-af5-who-cares-what-its-called-this-is-what-im-working-o.html ) and DWM2 (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/26/my-favourite-time-management-system.html#comment10307721 ) seem to meet the requirements. Though I've never tried those systems.
Real Autofocus, an attractive variant of Simple Scanning (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/7/19/real-autofocus.html ), seems to come close. But when you're deleting, deferring, and doing in that system, you're locked into handling those tasks, so all tasks aren't accessible. In the link above, I wrote a comment about this problem. Perhaps this system also raises resistance, since it forces you to address tasks after a few days?
"The Bounce" (http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2006818#post2070863 ) seems to meet all requirements, since it's variant of AF2. But I haven't tried it.
That's all I've come up with going through the TM Systems page and recalling any other long-list I've used. The requirement that "Every task must be accessible at any time" eliminates a lot of systems. And it's certainly tough to meet all seven of Mark's requirements!
DWM (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/1/dit2-af5-who-cares-what-its-called-this-is-what-im-working-o.html ) and DWM2 (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/26/my-favourite-time-management-system.html#comment10307721 ) seem to meet the requirements. Though I've never tried those systems.
Real Autofocus, an attractive variant of Simple Scanning (http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/7/19/real-autofocus.html ), seems to come close. But when you're deleting, deferring, and doing in that system, you're locked into handling those tasks, so all tasks aren't accessible. In the link above, I wrote a comment about this problem. Perhaps this system also raises resistance, since it forces you to address tasks after a few days?
"The Bounce" (http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2006818#post2070863 ) seems to meet all requirements, since it's variant of AF2. But I haven't tried it.
That's all I've come up with going through the TM Systems page and recalling any other long-list I've used. The requirement that "Every task must be accessible at any time" eliminates a lot of systems. And it's certainly tough to meet all seven of Mark's requirements!
October 4, 2022 at 13:48 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
avrum:
>> My favourite "throw everything into the system and let the rules (and intuition) take care of it" was DWM. However dismissal was left up to the user. At the time, I thought a good solution would be an electronic task app i..e Omnifocus or Things with a built-in automatic dismiss/delete option for tasks/projects that miss their due date. <<
This is indeed a good idea. In the thread about which system we managed to stuck the longest…
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2788137?lastPage=true#new-post-button
…I answered with just that:
>> […] a digital implementation of DWM in OmniOutliner.
(I did some scripting which did two things. It deleted the tasks ready for dismissal automatically and it colored tasks that approached that deadline. I can't remember how exactly that worked, it's years past.) <<
>> My favourite "throw everything into the system and let the rules (and intuition) take care of it" was DWM. However dismissal was left up to the user. At the time, I thought a good solution would be an electronic task app i..e Omnifocus or Things with a built-in automatic dismiss/delete option for tasks/projects that miss their due date. <<
This is indeed a good idea. In the thread about which system we managed to stuck the longest…
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2788137?lastPage=true#new-post-button
…I answered with just that:
>> […] a digital implementation of DWM in OmniOutliner.
(I did some scripting which did two things. It deleted the tasks ready for dismissal automatically and it colored tasks that approached that deadline. I can't remember how exactly that worked, it's years past.) <<
October 20, 2022 at 17:21 |
Christopher
Christopher
Christopher - that's a really need idea re: OmniOutliner and scripting. Back in the day, I used Omnifocus to implement DWM. However SIRI "Hey SIRI, remind me in 30 days to...) and Reminders play so nicely together, it's cinch implementing DWM in this way. So far, I've been faithful to Mark's original dismissal rules, and delete anything that turns "red/overdue" in Reminders.
October 20, 2022 at 20:31 |
avrum
avrum
I wanted to see how DWM compares against Mark's seven criteria for an ideal long list system. Let's see…
>>1 The list must be capable of including everything one has to do<<
Check. Seems to be a no-brainer, actually.
>>2 Every task must be accessible at any time<<
Check.
>>3 It must be easy to respond to urgency as well as importance<<
Check. This seems to flow a little bit out of the prior criterion. In DWM you can just add a task and immediately work on it for as much as you deem fit.
>>4 It must be systematic, so every task gets dealt with appropriately to its urgency and importance<<
Check. Mercilessly so with the automativ dismissal.
>>5 The system itself must have minimum overhead<<
Well, it has two entry points for tasks and it needs a daily divider, but that it's about it. I would say it passes the test.
>>6 It must be free of resistance<<
In a Simple Scanning way it is free of resistance. The automatic dismissal forces you to make decisions, that remembers me a bit of structured procrastination, where you pit one bit against another. Only here it is the anxiety of the being dismissed.
>>7 It musn't be boring<<
Also "check" I would say. It's interesting to observe how the list orders itself for the upcoming seven days and how your ideas "come in rolling" down from the 30 days marker to be invariably be dismissed or acted on, that creates a funny tension.
Yeah, so, it passes on all seven, guess DWM is a terrific TMS!
>>1 The list must be capable of including everything one has to do<<
Check. Seems to be a no-brainer, actually.
>>2 Every task must be accessible at any time<<
Check.
>>3 It must be easy to respond to urgency as well as importance<<
Check. This seems to flow a little bit out of the prior criterion. In DWM you can just add a task and immediately work on it for as much as you deem fit.
>>4 It must be systematic, so every task gets dealt with appropriately to its urgency and importance<<
Check. Mercilessly so with the automativ dismissal.
>>5 The system itself must have minimum overhead<<
Well, it has two entry points for tasks and it needs a daily divider, but that it's about it. I would say it passes the test.
>>6 It must be free of resistance<<
In a Simple Scanning way it is free of resistance. The automatic dismissal forces you to make decisions, that remembers me a bit of structured procrastination, where you pit one bit against another. Only here it is the anxiety of the being dismissed.
>>7 It musn't be boring<<
Also "check" I would say. It's interesting to observe how the list orders itself for the upcoming seven days and how your ideas "come in rolling" down from the 30 days marker to be invariably be dismissed or acted on, that creates a funny tension.
Yeah, so, it passes on all seven, guess DWM is a terrific TMS!
October 23, 2022 at 15:17 |
Christopher
Christopher
Christopher:
<<
>>6 It must be free of resistance<<
In a Simple Scanning way it is free of resistance. The automatic dismissal forces you to make decisions, that remembers me a bit of structured procrastination, where you pit one bit against another. Only here it is the anxiety of the being dismissed. >>
Earlier, I was thinking that DWM might hit all 7 of Mark's requirements. But on second thought, maybe any system with dismissal will provoke at least a tiny bit of resistance. On a basic level, dismissal forces one to do something one wouldn't do otherwise, no? Or is that wrong? At least, I experienced some resistance or need to "push through" to complete the tasks when using DWM with a 2-day dismissal. The 30/7-day original would be (much) more relaxed, I bet! But maybe still a little different from, say, Simple Scanning or Resistance Zero, where you basically do what you want.
If correct, this is not to say that DWM is bad. But maybe it isn't zero resistance, which was Mark's requirement.
<<
>>6 It must be free of resistance<<
In a Simple Scanning way it is free of resistance. The automatic dismissal forces you to make decisions, that remembers me a bit of structured procrastination, where you pit one bit against another. Only here it is the anxiety of the being dismissed. >>
Earlier, I was thinking that DWM might hit all 7 of Mark's requirements. But on second thought, maybe any system with dismissal will provoke at least a tiny bit of resistance. On a basic level, dismissal forces one to do something one wouldn't do otherwise, no? Or is that wrong? At least, I experienced some resistance or need to "push through" to complete the tasks when using DWM with a 2-day dismissal. The 30/7-day original would be (much) more relaxed, I bet! But maybe still a little different from, say, Simple Scanning or Resistance Zero, where you basically do what you want.
If correct, this is not to say that DWM is bad. But maybe it isn't zero resistance, which was Mark's requirement.
October 24, 2022 at 20:42 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Belacqua:
When discussing Autofocus (AF1) in the past, I stated several times on these boards, that I experience it as a zero resistance system. It is like a grinder that will deal with anything you throw in it.
So, to me the proposed calculation "dismissal process creates resistance" does not work out.
You state that dismissal forces one to do something that one wouldn't otherwise do. I'd say the contrary is true. Dismissal means you do not do anything at all, you dismiss a task.
Mark stated countless times that people misunderstand dismissal as such as that they are seing the act of dismissing a task as a form of failure. But that's not what it is!
If a task needs to be done and you need to "push through" to get it done, than I do not see how a dismissal process creates the fact that that task is a task that needs to be done.
If you view this task as "needs to get done, regardless" then it was never a task that could be dismissed, regardless of how the system you are using deals with that.
If you have such a task in your system and do not get to do it in 30 days, then it is also no problem to dismiss that task and re-enter it into the system on a later day.
When discussing Autofocus (AF1) in the past, I stated several times on these boards, that I experience it as a zero resistance system. It is like a grinder that will deal with anything you throw in it.
So, to me the proposed calculation "dismissal process creates resistance" does not work out.
You state that dismissal forces one to do something that one wouldn't otherwise do. I'd say the contrary is true. Dismissal means you do not do anything at all, you dismiss a task.
Mark stated countless times that people misunderstand dismissal as such as that they are seing the act of dismissing a task as a form of failure. But that's not what it is!
If a task needs to be done and you need to "push through" to get it done, than I do not see how a dismissal process creates the fact that that task is a task that needs to be done.
If you view this task as "needs to get done, regardless" then it was never a task that could be dismissed, regardless of how the system you are using deals with that.
If you have such a task in your system and do not get to do it in 30 days, then it is also no problem to dismiss that task and re-enter it into the system on a later day.
October 25, 2022 at 18:02 |
Christopher
Christopher
Christopher:
<< You state that dismissal forces one to do something that one wouldn't otherwise do. I'd say the contrary is true. Dismissal means you do not do anything at all, you dismiss a task. >>
Perhaps I meant to say: "Dismissal forces one to do something sooner than one would have otherwise."
One might even be able to replace dismissal with another word in this context.
I was trying to draw a distinction between systems like Simple Scanning, Resistance Zero, and (no dismissal) AF2, where you essentially do what you want--and other long-list systems that involve some "forcing," however minimal. That could be AF1 gently nudging you to action a task because few tasks are left on the page, etc. It seemed to me that the latter systems might involve some resistance.
Whether the distinction holds is another matter, but that is what I was trying to express.
<< You state that dismissal forces one to do something that one wouldn't otherwise do. I'd say the contrary is true. Dismissal means you do not do anything at all, you dismiss a task. >>
Perhaps I meant to say: "Dismissal forces one to do something sooner than one would have otherwise."
One might even be able to replace dismissal with another word in this context.
I was trying to draw a distinction between systems like Simple Scanning, Resistance Zero, and (no dismissal) AF2, where you essentially do what you want--and other long-list systems that involve some "forcing," however minimal. That could be AF1 gently nudging you to action a task because few tasks are left on the page, etc. It seemed to me that the latter systems might involve some resistance.
Whether the distinction holds is another matter, but that is what I was trying to express.
October 25, 2022 at 22:36 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Well, after spending a lot of time recently with what amount to no-list systems of various sorts, or Kanban style systems (Frog, Ivy Lee, etc.), I've recently been feeling the pressures that come from the overwhelm associated with having too much of your mental landscape occupied with your task list. This has prompted me to return to the benefits of a long list system (namely, that you can brain dump out of your head and gain significant cognitive relief from overwhelm just by having everything written out on a list).
This has naturally brought me back into consider various long list systems, and, the more I look through Mark's systems, the more it occurs to me that Autofocus seems to have stood the test of time in ways that few others have. Even if people don't use it today, those that have used it usually think of it fondly. Moreover, it's probably Mark's most well known system even after many other systems have had a chance to get out into the public eye. Like the Art of Manliness article recently, when people think about Mark's work, it often comes write back to Autofocus, and in a good way.
Maybe it's branding: "Autofocus" is just a cool name. But I think it's more than that. The emotional qualities of the system are, as Mark has put it, quite unlike any other. I think AF also tends to stand as a unique alternative to many other systems in a way that many other long list systems just aren't. I think this tends to make it memorable to people who are looking for something that isn't provided by other systems like GTD or the myriad of other options out there.
It also seems like Autofocus is consistently one of those systems that just keeps on working, and working well, years down the road. Despite what I perceive as years of attempts to find something better (and maybe FVP being that "better"), there seems to be something that continues to keep AF as the yardstick by which all other long list systems are judged, IMO.
Maybe everyone is secretly using FVP and succeeding with it, but it seems to me that if we are to look at which of Mark's systems has continued to remain the most impactful to the most number of people based on "noise" out in the wild, I'd have to give the nod to AutoFocus.
And for myself personally, when I think of using a long list system, the one that seems to have matured with me the best over time, remains Autofocus. None of the other systems have quite the same level of usability that Autofocus does.