Discussion Forum > Specific reason for keeping a single list?
I've posted several times on this subject.
The advantages for me to having a single list:
1. Only one place for entering items - always at the end.
2. speed of execution - lessens the time to think of which category to enter an item.
3. simplicity - one list rather than several.
I have tried dividing into what you are suggesting, and making two lists.
This will shorten the length of each list.
One still needs to think of where to enter an item. Also, sometimes it is difficult to determine where it should go. Is it a new task under a recurring or unfinished project?
Right now, I am entering new tasks under tomorrow's date (unless to be handled today), and if a recurring item does not recur today, I also enter it tomorrow. I am processing the active items one day at a time. If it recurs weekly, I put it under the date a week from when done.
So I am breaking the list down into date. I number each item per date. I am writing notes as I think of them on the next page, and mix them with the long list, subdivided by date.
I find as long as I date each page, it gives me enough structure, and I review chronologically, forward or backward. This psychologically breaks the long list into smaller sections. I sometimes keep track with a chart on which dates I have reviewed, the more dates there are.
I have started a new notebook at the start of each month.
The main problem with a single list is it can get long, and takes too long to review. Having several lists can give more balance and variety, but there is a limit how many lists can be managed. I don't find any trouble with processing the items by the date it was entered. However, once one starts to categorize them by new/unfinished/recurring and more at the task level, it slows down and interrupts the processing stage.
Perhaps, this might be useful for major projects that takes a week or a month to do. I might try that myself.
There are many ways that people on the forum handle these things, and it can get confusing. Eventually, it seems most find a method that suits them as an individual.
The advantages for me to having a single list:
1. Only one place for entering items - always at the end.
2. speed of execution - lessens the time to think of which category to enter an item.
3. simplicity - one list rather than several.
I have tried dividing into what you are suggesting, and making two lists.
This will shorten the length of each list.
One still needs to think of where to enter an item. Also, sometimes it is difficult to determine where it should go. Is it a new task under a recurring or unfinished project?
Right now, I am entering new tasks under tomorrow's date (unless to be handled today), and if a recurring item does not recur today, I also enter it tomorrow. I am processing the active items one day at a time. If it recurs weekly, I put it under the date a week from when done.
So I am breaking the list down into date. I number each item per date. I am writing notes as I think of them on the next page, and mix them with the long list, subdivided by date.
I find as long as I date each page, it gives me enough structure, and I review chronologically, forward or backward. This psychologically breaks the long list into smaller sections. I sometimes keep track with a chart on which dates I have reviewed, the more dates there are.
I have started a new notebook at the start of each month.
The main problem with a single list is it can get long, and takes too long to review. Having several lists can give more balance and variety, but there is a limit how many lists can be managed. I don't find any trouble with processing the items by the date it was entered. However, once one starts to categorize them by new/unfinished/recurring and more at the task level, it slows down and interrupts the processing stage.
Perhaps, this might be useful for major projects that takes a week or a month to do. I might try that myself.
There are many ways that people on the forum handle these things, and it can get confusing. Eventually, it seems most find a method that suits them as an individual.
May 2, 2023 at 19:50 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
The inbox / recurring division was a feature of AF4R. I found that particular divide a bit funky, though it can be done without any meaningful overhead. (What's funky is when you finish a task and come up with a follow up, is it inboxed?)
There are other ways to separate the list that some find useful. I like a division between Working on and Not working on.
There are other ways to separate the list that some find useful. I like a division between Working on and Not working on.
May 2, 2023 at 20:17 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mike H and Alan Baljeu both describe well my experiences with maintaining several lists instead of one. I myself am using a system that seperates one list to the categories of "Waiting For", "Dismissed", "Backlog", "New", "Unfinished", "Recurrent", and "Circumstantial". It is definitely less simple than maintaining one list, but the advantage is I can structure the list in the way I find to be most logical, i.e. resistance/difficulty. The arrangement of the lists above is objectively from highest resistance to lowest, and it results (for me) an easier way to work by instinct. In fact I find it better to work from the hardest to the easiest tasks because if I work in reverse I feel mentally fatigued; it is better to work on harder things when mentally fresh than not, apparently!
May 3, 2023 at 15:29 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
I also tried AF4R, more than once. But with this method, there are 4 lists to keep track of, and I was using a notebook, and it got confusing which page was which list. It took too much mental effort to determine which category the item was in. If the movement of the items was quick, it impeded the progress, and it didn't much matter which list the item was on. It could make a difference on projects, though. Still, even with projects it can be hard to determine the category (one can analyze the project into subprojects, which can be new, but under an unfinished project; and the tasks under the subproject can be new/unfinished). Perhaps AF4R would work on the major project level(?).
I found the most effective way of dealing with a long list is to contiguously have the items on consecutive pages on every line with nothing else in between in a sewn notebook. The processing is fastest this way.
However, I like to carry around only one notebook, so I make notes as I go along, and also dynamic lists, which interrupt the flow of the long list. If I do this chronologically, and process a day at a time, it is still manageable. However, it could be said that this is no longer a long list, as each day is a closed list.
There is no perfect way of doing any of this.
I found the most effective way of dealing with a long list is to contiguously have the items on consecutive pages on every line with nothing else in between in a sewn notebook. The processing is fastest this way.
However, I like to carry around only one notebook, so I make notes as I go along, and also dynamic lists, which interrupt the flow of the long list. If I do this chronologically, and process a day at a time, it is still manageable. However, it could be said that this is no longer a long list, as each day is a closed list.
There is no perfect way of doing any of this.
May 3, 2023 at 15:30 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
@Mark H,
That’s why I use the app Obsidian.md on my smartphone to do my system.
It basically works thus:
1. All new tasks get entered into "New" or "Waiting For", then once done doing a task you can delete it, or rewrite in "Unfinished", "Recurrent" (if finished but will need to be done again later), "Waiting For" (if the next steps for the task needs an additional task or event to happen before you can continue), or "Circumstantial" (a task that is so easy/pleasureable to do it disrupts your work, i.e. "Time wasters").
2. Check first if there are "Waiting For" tasks that can be done today, then do them or add to "New".
3. Work "Backlog", "New", and "Unfinished" as one unit, and one can keep going around in those lists indefinitely, but if you go to "Recurrent" without doing at least one task from "Backlog", then "Backlog" becomes part of "Dismissed" and "New" becomes the new "Backlog", UNLESS you do at least one "Dismissed" task. Doing at least one "Dismissed" task prevents dismissing "Backlog".
4. Work "Recurrent" without recirculating, i.e. once you get to the end of the "Recurrent" list, you automatically go to "Circumstantial".
5. Do only up to three "Circumstantial" tasks, deciding on which ones by however means you want to. Once those three tasks are done, go back to step 2 above.
6. "Urgent" tasks are tasks that are done out of order of the above work process, and I personally do them by just doing them then returning to my previous task, or looking for the task in the list and marking it with a symbol different from the current task, e.g. ! instead of •.
So yeah it may look complex, but I find it logical and easy to do...electronically. I don’t think there’s an easy way to do it on pen and paper lol.
That’s why I use the app Obsidian.md on my smartphone to do my system.
It basically works thus:
1. All new tasks get entered into "New" or "Waiting For", then once done doing a task you can delete it, or rewrite in "Unfinished", "Recurrent" (if finished but will need to be done again later), "Waiting For" (if the next steps for the task needs an additional task or event to happen before you can continue), or "Circumstantial" (a task that is so easy/pleasureable to do it disrupts your work, i.e. "Time wasters").
2. Check first if there are "Waiting For" tasks that can be done today, then do them or add to "New".
3. Work "Backlog", "New", and "Unfinished" as one unit, and one can keep going around in those lists indefinitely, but if you go to "Recurrent" without doing at least one task from "Backlog", then "Backlog" becomes part of "Dismissed" and "New" becomes the new "Backlog", UNLESS you do at least one "Dismissed" task. Doing at least one "Dismissed" task prevents dismissing "Backlog".
4. Work "Recurrent" without recirculating, i.e. once you get to the end of the "Recurrent" list, you automatically go to "Circumstantial".
5. Do only up to three "Circumstantial" tasks, deciding on which ones by however means you want to. Once those three tasks are done, go back to step 2 above.
6. "Urgent" tasks are tasks that are done out of order of the above work process, and I personally do them by just doing them then returning to my previous task, or looking for the task in the list and marking it with a symbol different from the current task, e.g. ! instead of •.
So yeah it may look complex, but I find it logical and easy to do...electronically. I don’t think there’s an easy way to do it on pen and paper lol.
May 3, 2023 at 15:52 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Using a single list is a good way to start from scratch. It is a good way to recover if your system bombs and self-destructs or gets too complicated, and you want to start all over again.
When the list becomes too long, you can subdivide, or collect similar items together. It can speed up the initial stage of entering new items, and instead of processing them at the beginning, you can start working on them right away, and get finished with the fast moving items. It is a good method for a novice, is simple to understand and implement. It can be a good launching pad to organically grow your system as you go along.
The main complaint seems to be (if your single list is also your catch-all list) that the list gets too long after a while.
When the list becomes too long, you can subdivide, or collect similar items together. It can speed up the initial stage of entering new items, and instead of processing them at the beginning, you can start working on them right away, and get finished with the fast moving items. It is a good method for a novice, is simple to understand and implement. It can be a good launching pad to organically grow your system as you go along.
The main complaint seems to be (if your single list is also your catch-all list) that the list gets too long after a while.
May 4, 2023 at 19:55 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
The use of a single list in MF's catch all systems is actually a side effect of wanting to combine the process of capturing things to do with organizing and actioning them from the same list. Systems like GTD still try to optimize capture down to as few "inboxes" as possible. In this sense, they are the same as MF systems that all try to get things captured down into a single space or as few spaces as possible. Where MF's systems differ is that you then work directly from that list rather than taking items from that list and then processing them into and organized system that you use for taking action. GTD, on the other hand, and other systems like BuJo or Personal Kanban, takes this input list and has a separate phase of processing that leads those items to leave the inbox list and move to other lists.
Thus, most systems recognize a high value for having a single place to add new incoming items to a single list. The real question is whether there is value in working those items from that same list, or whether it makes more sense to organize them into some other schema first.
Thus, most systems recognize a high value for having a single place to add new incoming items to a single list. The real question is whether there is value in working those items from that same list, or whether it makes more sense to organize them into some other schema first.
May 4, 2023 at 23:56 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron - good summary.
<< The real question is whether there is value in working those items from that same list, or whether it makes more sense to organize them into some other schema first.>>
I think the pertinent question is: Do you know thy self enough to choose the method that works best for your emotional and cognitive disposition.
When I first saw Mark's AF YouTube video, I thought: This guy is very methodical and rule based, I wonder if he had any army experience?
In theory, AF rules make sense to me. But for whatever reason, I have a negative reaction to rule-based scanning, etc throughout the day. I find it increases my anxiety and resistance.
As a therapist, I have come to appreciate that just because something sounds/feels right, it might not be right for you.
<< The real question is whether there is value in working those items from that same list, or whether it makes more sense to organize them into some other schema first.>>
I think the pertinent question is: Do you know thy self enough to choose the method that works best for your emotional and cognitive disposition.
When I first saw Mark's AF YouTube video, I thought: This guy is very methodical and rule based, I wonder if he had any army experience?
In theory, AF rules make sense to me. But for whatever reason, I have a negative reaction to rule-based scanning, etc throughout the day. I find it increases my anxiety and resistance.
As a therapist, I have come to appreciate that just because something sounds/feels right, it might not be right for you.
May 5, 2023 at 13:23 |
avrum
avrum
Personally, the most helpful division of lists is to acknowledge that there are some tasks that break any system I try and separate them from the main list. That is, there are "time wasters", tasks that I like so much that they get automatically chosen, breaking the system. Therefore when I place them in another list, they don't affect the main list. I call it a "Circumstantial" list, and I only choose three tasks from it then go back to the main list after.
This is such a great game changer that I am thinking of just doing a "Simple List + Circumstantial" system and see if it works.
This is such a great game changer that I am thinking of just doing a "Simple List + Circumstantial" system and see if it works.
May 5, 2023 at 21:59 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Thanks all for the responses.
It seems, based on the discussion, that most of these advantages apply to paper systems. It's also interesting to know that so many are able to process an unorganized list in an effective way. In my current system, I seek to overcome my intuition's poor decision-making. As such, I've created a system that allows me to rely on my intellect, using information about the task and my work history to choose my next task, and keeping my impulsive feelings at bay. For example, I find it much better to say "This task should repeat three days after I last did it," than to to ask "Is this task ready to be done now?" My digital system automates quite a bit of the overhead of determining where a task should be re-entered, and when it should next show up for review.
I think another key difference is that my approach to productivity is primarily based on "managing ADHD/anxiety-like symptoms", whereas it seems like others have something else entirely in mind when they work.
It seems, based on the discussion, that most of these advantages apply to paper systems. It's also interesting to know that so many are able to process an unorganized list in an effective way. In my current system, I seek to overcome my intuition's poor decision-making. As such, I've created a system that allows me to rely on my intellect, using information about the task and my work history to choose my next task, and keeping my impulsive feelings at bay. For example, I find it much better to say "This task should repeat three days after I last did it," than to to ask "Is this task ready to be done now?" My digital system automates quite a bit of the overhead of determining where a task should be re-entered, and when it should next show up for review.
I think another key difference is that my approach to productivity is primarily based on "managing ADHD/anxiety-like symptoms", whereas it seems like others have something else entirely in mind when they work.
May 17, 2023 at 16:53 |
Voluntas
Voluntas
Voluntas:
<<my approach to productivity is primarily based on "managing ADHD/anxiety-like symptoms">>
I'm a productivity nerd, so I empathize with your approach.
However, I have found my clients need to manage their relationships (marriage, family of origin, parenting), diet/exercise and sleep before tweaking productivity systems to manage anxiety and/or ADHD symptoms.
My hunch is that people start with list-making and apps/tools because there's little friction for setup, avoids dealing with humans :) , and the novelty factor.
<<my approach to productivity is primarily based on "managing ADHD/anxiety-like symptoms">>
I'm a productivity nerd, so I empathize with your approach.
However, I have found my clients need to manage their relationships (marriage, family of origin, parenting), diet/exercise and sleep before tweaking productivity systems to manage anxiety and/or ADHD symptoms.
My hunch is that people start with list-making and apps/tools because there's little friction for setup, avoids dealing with humans :) , and the novelty factor.
May 19, 2023 at 19:02 |
avrum
avrum
All sorts of issues are raised here, and I'm not going to try to comment on all of them. But here are a few points that I would like to make:
1. A single list not actually a single list. It is that part of your entire system which you want to be working on at the present time. Nothing should go on the list other than that, except stuff which you want to try on for size. Everything else will be in the form of Bring Forwards, Calendar Entries, follow-ups, someday/maybe lists and so on.
2. A single list is much easier to work from than more complicated systems. Everything you are currently engaged in is on the one list, which means that you can adapt to changes in circumstances easily. You can flow round obstacles that present themselves. This might not matter if every working day consisted of exactly the same available time, and there were never any emergencies or unexpected time drains. But who among us has predictable days like that?
3. A single list can deal with all types of "work", even if that work is in fact play. If you work from home there's no different type of organisation needed for "Send out invoices" and "Practice golf swing". They are both actions, they both take up time, and they can both be dealt with in the same way.
4. Someone (Avrum I think) mentioned the Army. Actually armies work on standard procedures, routines, drills, programs, synchronised actions by all involved, and so on. Almost the polar opposite of pouring everything into a single list and organising it on the fly!
1. A single list not actually a single list. It is that part of your entire system which you want to be working on at the present time. Nothing should go on the list other than that, except stuff which you want to try on for size. Everything else will be in the form of Bring Forwards, Calendar Entries, follow-ups, someday/maybe lists and so on.
2. A single list is much easier to work from than more complicated systems. Everything you are currently engaged in is on the one list, which means that you can adapt to changes in circumstances easily. You can flow round obstacles that present themselves. This might not matter if every working day consisted of exactly the same available time, and there were never any emergencies or unexpected time drains. But who among us has predictable days like that?
3. A single list can deal with all types of "work", even if that work is in fact play. If you work from home there's no different type of organisation needed for "Send out invoices" and "Practice golf swing". They are both actions, they both take up time, and they can both be dealt with in the same way.
4. Someone (Avrum I think) mentioned the Army. Actually armies work on standard procedures, routines, drills, programs, synchronised actions by all involved, and so on. Almost the polar opposite of pouring everything into a single list and organising it on the fly!
May 20, 2023 at 15:36 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<<4. Someone (Avrum I think) mentioned the Army. Actually armies work on standard procedures, routines, drills, programs, synchronised actions by all involved, and so on. Almost the polar opposite of pouring everything into a single list and organising it on the fly!>>
I recall watching you explain Autofocus to Tara on YouTube. The methodical way you went line by line down your multiple lists, spread across a number of pages. To my mind, working off lists the way you do requires a certain type of discipline - perhaps it's a chicken/egg thing i.e. army vs upbringing. Maybe it's genetic.
Whatever the case - over the years I've tried working off a single list, and within a few days, I develop resistance to the system.
I'm aware this might be a shortcoming on my part, or that I don't fully appreciate the rules.
<<4. Someone (Avrum I think) mentioned the Army. Actually armies work on standard procedures, routines, drills, programs, synchronised actions by all involved, and so on. Almost the polar opposite of pouring everything into a single list and organising it on the fly!>>
I recall watching you explain Autofocus to Tara on YouTube. The methodical way you went line by line down your multiple lists, spread across a number of pages. To my mind, working off lists the way you do requires a certain type of discipline - perhaps it's a chicken/egg thing i.e. army vs upbringing. Maybe it's genetic.
Whatever the case - over the years I've tried working off a single list, and within a few days, I develop resistance to the system.
I'm aware this might be a shortcoming on my part, or that I don't fully appreciate the rules.
May 21, 2023 at 2:07 |
avrum
avrum
I wonder how much working off a list at all is a matter of comfort and security. I think for many people, there is a real sense of calm that can come from having a process that you can follow and a list that you can 'rely" on, whereas I know some people strongly express a sense of dread around a list, what it represents, or the sense of constraint in using it.
Of course, I think that these two things could live within the same person at different times, so it's probably not entirely genetic. I know Mark Forster spent lots of time during his no-list experiments with a sense of dread around long lists, which was one of the reasons for doing no-list in the first place, but when a shift in perspective and attitude suddenly made long lists viable and less emotionally taxing.
Of course, I think that these two things could live within the same person at different times, so it's probably not entirely genetic. I know Mark Forster spent lots of time during his no-list experiments with a sense of dread around long lists, which was one of the reasons for doing no-list in the first place, but when a shift in perspective and attitude suddenly made long lists viable and less emotionally taxing.
May 21, 2023 at 15:11 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
<<Mark Forster spent lots of time [...] doing no-list [...] a shift in perspective and attitude suddenly made long lists viable>>
And I think that's one of the reasons why David Allen (GTD) and Stephen Covey (7 Habits) were so successful. They developed a philosophy and built a system that is (seemingly) rock solid. Even now, David Allen defends contexts (which seem silly to me). But from a marketing perspective, it's soothing to many people who are looking for clear answers to complex problems.
As a therapist, I see this all over the place re: psychotherapy. Without getting into the weeds of why I think CBT is entirely overblown (Note: I'm trained in CBT and MBSR, and have worked in that capacity), it provides clear and consistent answers and rituals to a life full of ambiguous and messy problems.
I think Mark has been very honest in his productivity experiments. However with each new iteration, it dilutes the very human need to find the ONE THING to reduce my anxiety and bring meaning into my life.
<<Mark Forster spent lots of time [...] doing no-list [...] a shift in perspective and attitude suddenly made long lists viable>>
And I think that's one of the reasons why David Allen (GTD) and Stephen Covey (7 Habits) were so successful. They developed a philosophy and built a system that is (seemingly) rock solid. Even now, David Allen defends contexts (which seem silly to me). But from a marketing perspective, it's soothing to many people who are looking for clear answers to complex problems.
As a therapist, I see this all over the place re: psychotherapy. Without getting into the weeds of why I think CBT is entirely overblown (Note: I'm trained in CBT and MBSR, and have worked in that capacity), it provides clear and consistent answers and rituals to a life full of ambiguous and messy problems.
I think Mark has been very honest in his productivity experiments. However with each new iteration, it dilutes the very human need to find the ONE THING to reduce my anxiety and bring meaning into my life.
May 21, 2023 at 17:20 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
<< However with each new iteration, it dilutes the very human need to find the ONE THING to reduce my anxiety and bring meaning into my life. >>
Not sure about that. I have plenty of meaning in my life, but what I need is a way which I can rely on in order to translate that meaning into action without having the strong framework which formal work gives.
In other words I'm trying to produce a system or systems for people like myself who don't have or no longer have a strong framework in which to work. I'm in the state of having the freedom to do anything I want. That sounds like everybody's dream, but the problem is that, when you have no boundaries to what you could do, the tendency is to expand beyond what you can do.
So what I've been trying to produce is a system which can:
a. put into order a shapeless mass of possibilities
b. weed out the ones which are going nowhere so one ends up with the right amount of projects for the time available.
c. and hopefully with the by-product of being useful for those who do have a framework, but have trouble working within its constraints.
<< However with each new iteration, it dilutes the very human need to find the ONE THING to reduce my anxiety and bring meaning into my life. >>
Not sure about that. I have plenty of meaning in my life, but what I need is a way which I can rely on in order to translate that meaning into action without having the strong framework which formal work gives.
In other words I'm trying to produce a system or systems for people like myself who don't have or no longer have a strong framework in which to work. I'm in the state of having the freedom to do anything I want. That sounds like everybody's dream, but the problem is that, when you have no boundaries to what you could do, the tendency is to expand beyond what you can do.
So what I've been trying to produce is a system which can:
a. put into order a shapeless mass of possibilities
b. weed out the ones which are going nowhere so one ends up with the right amount of projects for the time available.
c. and hopefully with the by-product of being useful for those who do have a framework, but have trouble working within its constraints.
May 22, 2023 at 11:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<<That sounds like everybody's dream, but the problem is that, when you have no boundaries to what you could do, the tendency is to expand beyond what you can do.>>
While I think avrum was talking about the marketing and perception element of productivity systems, in which having a "total system" that works for any concieviable need and situation if you only just tweak it a little here and there can be much more appealing to people, I find that your statement above is the exact situation I have been in for a while. I have essentially no formal frameworks pushing on me externally, which means I have to "create" all the discipline for action myself.
<<That sounds like everybody's dream, but the problem is that, when you have no boundaries to what you could do, the tendency is to expand beyond what you can do.>>
While I think avrum was talking about the marketing and perception element of productivity systems, in which having a "total system" that works for any concieviable need and situation if you only just tweak it a little here and there can be much more appealing to people, I find that your statement above is the exact situation I have been in for a while. I have essentially no formal frameworks pushing on me externally, which means I have to "create" all the discipline for action myself.
May 22, 2023 at 14:48 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
<< a "total system" that works for any concieviable need and situation >>
In essence that exactly what I'm trying to produce. And although I would be delighted if it helped other people, I'm essentially doing it for myself.
<< a "total system" that works for any concieviable need and situation >>
In essence that exactly what I'm trying to produce. And although I would be delighted if it helped other people, I'm essentially doing it for myself.
May 22, 2023 at 16:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<< avrum:
However with each new iteration, it dilutes the very human need to find the ONE THING to reduce my anxiety and bring meaning into my life.
mark:
Not sure about that. I have plenty of meaning in my life, but what I need is a way which I can rely on in order to translate that meaning into action without having the strong framework which formal work gives.>>
I was referring to people in general, I wasn't thinking about you (or your situation) at all. I think GTD, the Bullet Journal, 7 Habits built a following because the founders didn't change the rules or tools. Part of the magic (placebo?) was the consistency of the system over time. This avoids the paradox of choice dilemma that Dr. Barry Schwartz often talks about. If I'm looking to gain some control over my day/life, the Bullet Journal method offers me ONE method. GTD is the same. However this: http://markforster.squarespace.com/tm-systems/ makes me want to grab a bottle of Ativan ;)
<< avrum:
However with each new iteration, it dilutes the very human need to find the ONE THING to reduce my anxiety and bring meaning into my life.
mark:
Not sure about that. I have plenty of meaning in my life, but what I need is a way which I can rely on in order to translate that meaning into action without having the strong framework which formal work gives.>>
I was referring to people in general, I wasn't thinking about you (or your situation) at all. I think GTD, the Bullet Journal, 7 Habits built a following because the founders didn't change the rules or tools. Part of the magic (placebo?) was the consistency of the system over time. This avoids the paradox of choice dilemma that Dr. Barry Schwartz often talks about. If I'm looking to gain some control over my day/life, the Bullet Journal method offers me ONE method. GTD is the same. However this: http://markforster.squarespace.com/tm-systems/ makes me want to grab a bottle of Ativan ;)
May 22, 2023 at 23:15 |
avrum
avrum
Hope you have been well. Happy belated Beltane!
Lately, I've found that one feature of MF-style systems simply doesn't work for me. Adding all new entries to the end of the same list creates a jumble that I find difficult to process. Instead, I have been using a digital system that lets me separate items which have been re-entered (unfinished/recurring tasks) from those which have been added for the first time (An "inbox"). I have found this organization so helpful for myself that I must now ask the question:
Have you found any specific *advantages* to entering all tasks at the end of the same list?
The main one that comes to mind is that this is the easiest way to manage a list on paper, but this is such a small advantage that I wonder whether it's worth the tradeoffs. Does the community have any other thoughts?
-V