Discussion Forum > Time Surfing (An Update)
What a neat list of things I don’t incorporate! In fact there’s barely a thing named in this post that I use!
October 28, 2024 at 15:57 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I think you're point about the system fitting the individual vs. the individual fitting to the system is interesting, and I think I agree up to a point.
I do think that, for example, Time Surfing holds a particular appeal that I can't deny comes from my background and experiences. In fact, that was explicitly something that I brought up to myself in my analysis of various systems and how Time Surfing appealed to a specific "archetype" of person that I wanted.
There's a sense in which a system won't really work for us if it doesn't fit our own vision of what/who we want to be. But I think it's probably truer to say that it's about the future version of ourselves we wish to become more than just our own cultural or psychological backgrounds, though obviously the two are deeply connected.
This belies my own belief that people are more capable of change than they give themselves credit for, but that it often requires more work than they care to exert to achieve the change. So, for example, I am quite sure that I *could* make time blocking highly effective for myself. Indeed, I know I could. But, the reality is that it not only doesn't come naturally to me right now where I am, but *also* that I don't particularly find the future that it promises appealing, and so I'm disinclined to exert the energy and spend the time it would take to turn into someone for whom time blocking was natural.
That being said, I still think it is highly valuable to know about and have practiced time blocking at least a little bit. I find that the principle of time blocking can still be leveraged in other ways, even if I avoid the practice particularly in the form most people use it (daily time blocking).
Another example is the way most people take notes. I eventually came to the conclusion that taking notes almost always didn't work very well, so I stopped doing it. But, it's not like I can tell someone else, "stop taking notes," because if they just stop the note taking, and don't replace note taking with a separate practice, it won't work. And of course, the practice that I use instead of note-taking is something which takes practice and lots of mental habits to make work, which isn't what people who are attracted to the idea of "not taking notes" want to hear. People *could* do the same thing that I've done which allows me to not take notes, but most people won't, because the alternative to taking notes isn't appealing to them in the least compared to just taking notes.
I do think that, for example, Time Surfing holds a particular appeal that I can't deny comes from my background and experiences. In fact, that was explicitly something that I brought up to myself in my analysis of various systems and how Time Surfing appealed to a specific "archetype" of person that I wanted.
There's a sense in which a system won't really work for us if it doesn't fit our own vision of what/who we want to be. But I think it's probably truer to say that it's about the future version of ourselves we wish to become more than just our own cultural or psychological backgrounds, though obviously the two are deeply connected.
This belies my own belief that people are more capable of change than they give themselves credit for, but that it often requires more work than they care to exert to achieve the change. So, for example, I am quite sure that I *could* make time blocking highly effective for myself. Indeed, I know I could. But, the reality is that it not only doesn't come naturally to me right now where I am, but *also* that I don't particularly find the future that it promises appealing, and so I'm disinclined to exert the energy and spend the time it would take to turn into someone for whom time blocking was natural.
That being said, I still think it is highly valuable to know about and have practiced time blocking at least a little bit. I find that the principle of time blocking can still be leveraged in other ways, even if I avoid the practice particularly in the form most people use it (daily time blocking).
Another example is the way most people take notes. I eventually came to the conclusion that taking notes almost always didn't work very well, so I stopped doing it. But, it's not like I can tell someone else, "stop taking notes," because if they just stop the note taking, and don't replace note taking with a separate practice, it won't work. And of course, the practice that I use instead of note-taking is something which takes practice and lots of mental habits to make work, which isn't what people who are attracted to the idea of "not taking notes" want to hear. People *could* do the same thing that I've done which allows me to not take notes, but most people won't, because the alternative to taking notes isn't appealing to them in the least compared to just taking notes.
October 30, 2024 at 20:55 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
In place of taking notes, thinking through the implications of what’s being presented as it is being presented, has worked for me. If I attempted to write everything down I wouldn’t be able to truly engage with what the speaker is saying because I’d be so focused on moving hands and capturing words.
October 30, 2024 at 21:47 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Aaron:
<<There’s a sense in which a system won’t really work for us if it doesn’t fit our own vision of what/who we want to be.>>
I see it a bit differently: it’s often about what we’re accustomed to or believe in. In the early 2000s, I worked as an addiction counselor at a youth and family therapy center. Our secular staff were skeptical of abstinence-based models like AA and NA, recommending harm reduction interventions instead. Yet, countless people credit AA with their sobriety and even their lives. Still, AA/NA can be challenging if you don’t believe in a Higher Power.
A common critique of 7 Habits (Mission Statements, Weekly Planning, etc.) is that it’s too spiritual, likely rooted in Stephen Covey’s background:
“7 Habits contains many of the same principles and anecdotes as Covey’s earlier book, The Divine Center, which promoted Mormon beliefs.”
So did Covey’s success come from Quadrant Two planning and Weekly Goals? Or was it his spiritual foundation—or even his well-connected, hotelier family background?
As a musician and songwriter, I also rely on intuition—a process Loomans describes well. But as a therapist, I struggle with CBT’s approach to “turning gnawing rats into white sheep.” I could visualize calling my endodontist all morning, but it doesn’t make the root canal—cost and discomfort—any easier. Sometimes, we just have to do things that suck.
With most productivity books, about 6% sticks and becomes part of my life, 55% sounds good but goes unused, and the rest just doesn’t resonate with my background or beliefs.
** http://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/sbc-life-articles/the-7-habits-of-a-highly-successful-mormon-stephen-r-covey/
<<There’s a sense in which a system won’t really work for us if it doesn’t fit our own vision of what/who we want to be.>>
I see it a bit differently: it’s often about what we’re accustomed to or believe in. In the early 2000s, I worked as an addiction counselor at a youth and family therapy center. Our secular staff were skeptical of abstinence-based models like AA and NA, recommending harm reduction interventions instead. Yet, countless people credit AA with their sobriety and even their lives. Still, AA/NA can be challenging if you don’t believe in a Higher Power.
A common critique of 7 Habits (Mission Statements, Weekly Planning, etc.) is that it’s too spiritual, likely rooted in Stephen Covey’s background:
“7 Habits contains many of the same principles and anecdotes as Covey’s earlier book, The Divine Center, which promoted Mormon beliefs.”
So did Covey’s success come from Quadrant Two planning and Weekly Goals? Or was it his spiritual foundation—or even his well-connected, hotelier family background?
As a musician and songwriter, I also rely on intuition—a process Loomans describes well. But as a therapist, I struggle with CBT’s approach to “turning gnawing rats into white sheep.” I could visualize calling my endodontist all morning, but it doesn’t make the root canal—cost and discomfort—any easier. Sometimes, we just have to do things that suck.
With most productivity books, about 6% sticks and becomes part of my life, 55% sounds good but goes unused, and the rest just doesn’t resonate with my background or beliefs.
** http://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/sbc-life-articles/the-7-habits-of-a-highly-successful-mormon-stephen-r-covey/
October 31, 2024 at 2:28 |
avrum
avrum
@avrum re: "With most productivity books, about 6% sticks and becomes part of my life, 55% sounds good but goes unused, and the rest just doesn’t resonate with my background or beliefs."
I have been noticing a new category for myself — "things that stuck and became part of my life for a time, but then I stopped doing them not because they didn't work, but because they did! That reduced the positive pressure to do them, so I fell away, then I forgot about them."
Example: I lost my sprinting speed, found an effective exercise, did it regularly and got my sprint back, and then stopped doing the exercise because now it subconsciously seemed less valuable. It became maintenance rather than driving desirable change. There was no more positive contrast between previous negative state and the new better state.
Example: I struggled with digital task managers, created an index card system, used it regularly for a year, and then stopped because subconsciously I was feeling less stress because it worked really well. The pain of maintenance became greater than the feeling of relief. There was no more positive contrast between previous negative state and the new better state.
Some things become grooved habits. I don't even think about them, like brushing my teeth.
Other things only seem to attract me when there is a better state to pursue. Once I reach that state, I lose interest in the maintenance. Eventually I stop doping the good thing, and over time I find myself right back where I was before, looking for a new tool to create that feeling of pursuing better.
It's a nasty cycle. Or maybe it's just inhaling and exhaling. I am not a machine, and I would not be who I am if I had picked a few things when I was young and just did them forever to the exclusion of all others. But it does frustrate me when I realize I have stopped doing something that worked well for me, and I can't think of a good reason why (other than I got bored).
I'm reminded of this: "There are all kinds of cheat codes lying around, but they usually look boring. People will routinely ignore things that already work for the hope of a slightly easier path." ~ James Clear
I have been noticing a new category for myself — "things that stuck and became part of my life for a time, but then I stopped doing them not because they didn't work, but because they did! That reduced the positive pressure to do them, so I fell away, then I forgot about them."
Example: I lost my sprinting speed, found an effective exercise, did it regularly and got my sprint back, and then stopped doing the exercise because now it subconsciously seemed less valuable. It became maintenance rather than driving desirable change. There was no more positive contrast between previous negative state and the new better state.
Example: I struggled with digital task managers, created an index card system, used it regularly for a year, and then stopped because subconsciously I was feeling less stress because it worked really well. The pain of maintenance became greater than the feeling of relief. There was no more positive contrast between previous negative state and the new better state.
Some things become grooved habits. I don't even think about them, like brushing my teeth.
Other things only seem to attract me when there is a better state to pursue. Once I reach that state, I lose interest in the maintenance. Eventually I stop doping the good thing, and over time I find myself right back where I was before, looking for a new tool to create that feeling of pursuing better.
It's a nasty cycle. Or maybe it's just inhaling and exhaling. I am not a machine, and I would not be who I am if I had picked a few things when I was young and just did them forever to the exclusion of all others. But it does frustrate me when I realize I have stopped doing something that worked well for me, and I can't think of a good reason why (other than I got bored).
I'm reminded of this: "There are all kinds of cheat codes lying around, but they usually look boring. People will routinely ignore things that already work for the hope of a slightly easier path." ~ James Clear
November 5, 2024 at 15:53 |
Scott Moehring
Scott Moehring
Some things that I know will work become a promise of overwhelm, even though I know better. Five minutes to plan my week, not even a full weekly review, is enough to say, "There's no good reason not to spend 2 hours on email on Tuesday." I know that's enough to finish new stuff and make a bit of progress on the backlog. I don't wanna deal with the backlog! Not planning at all means I can ignore it all week.
When things were running smoothly, no backlog, I didn't resist planning the week. I also enjoyed journaling then.
Do while it's new and makes noticeable difference, but not for maintenance? Sounds like physiotherapy.
When things were running smoothly, no backlog, I didn't resist planning the week. I also enjoyed journaling then.
Do while it's new and makes noticeable difference, but not for maintenance? Sounds like physiotherapy.
November 5, 2024 at 16:44 |
Cricket
Cricket
@avrum re: "With most productivity books, about 6% sticks and becomes part of my life, 55% sounds good but goes unused, and the rest just doesn’t resonate with my background or beliefs."
This is true with me, also.
But there is a part of these productivity books that is theoretical and abstract principles, and it can help for one to have an acquaintance with these books, without necessarily adopting their systems.
I think David Allen's books are intellectually satisfying; he can find words to describe what are processes of the mind, and aims to complete.
Yet it is difficult to implement a complete system from reading a book alone. It is not necesarrily the fault of the author. The author has gained wisdom from years of experience and/or teaching/coaching, and needs to write enough to fill a book worth publishing. However, it would be easier to be personally coached than to try to implement a system on one's own from reading a book.
In the end, these productivity books are primarily practical, that promise results in the real world. There is advice that is common to most of them, like keeping a calendar/appointment book, etc. If we are able to get 6% to stick, we should value it a success. It might take months to actually implement a system like GTD or others. However, what can happen is that one's previous system gets abandoned in the meantime, and one never conquers the new system either, and one is left with starting from scratch again. This is especially with case with software programs or online. I haven't used these in years, and use pen and paper.
I think that Mark Forster's no-list methods are easy to implement, and use temporarilly, without abandoning any previous system. Also, his long list methods are often interchangeable, and if one is familiar with a few, they can rotated or varied without the list changing much.
I have found some version of a long list works best for me. I have done it for several years now, and I have often varied the method and added modifications along the way. The hardest thing with a long list is the length. For the last three weeks I have been working to reduce the list. I am keeping track and counting. I counted the active lines and went from 240+ to about 150, I counted the active pages and went from 34 pages to 17. I try to each day look at each active page and cross out at least one item. I try to cross out everything older than one week, and as the one week approaches to spend more time on the remaining items. However, this a lot of maintenance, I can't see myself doing for this in the long term.
I think the one count that will work in the long term is the number of items/lines on the long list. If let's say the limit is 120, and each line has a number, when the item is rewritten the number gets rewritten, but if the item does not get rewritten, the number gets rewritten, so there is a number with a blank line, in which case a new item can be added there. If there are no numbers with a blank line, then something needs to be deleted before a new item can be added. However, what is happening is that I am not writing as many new items.
This is true with me, also.
But there is a part of these productivity books that is theoretical and abstract principles, and it can help for one to have an acquaintance with these books, without necessarily adopting their systems.
I think David Allen's books are intellectually satisfying; he can find words to describe what are processes of the mind, and aims to complete.
Yet it is difficult to implement a complete system from reading a book alone. It is not necesarrily the fault of the author. The author has gained wisdom from years of experience and/or teaching/coaching, and needs to write enough to fill a book worth publishing. However, it would be easier to be personally coached than to try to implement a system on one's own from reading a book.
In the end, these productivity books are primarily practical, that promise results in the real world. There is advice that is common to most of them, like keeping a calendar/appointment book, etc. If we are able to get 6% to stick, we should value it a success. It might take months to actually implement a system like GTD or others. However, what can happen is that one's previous system gets abandoned in the meantime, and one never conquers the new system either, and one is left with starting from scratch again. This is especially with case with software programs or online. I haven't used these in years, and use pen and paper.
I think that Mark Forster's no-list methods are easy to implement, and use temporarilly, without abandoning any previous system. Also, his long list methods are often interchangeable, and if one is familiar with a few, they can rotated or varied without the list changing much.
I have found some version of a long list works best for me. I have done it for several years now, and I have often varied the method and added modifications along the way. The hardest thing with a long list is the length. For the last three weeks I have been working to reduce the list. I am keeping track and counting. I counted the active lines and went from 240+ to about 150, I counted the active pages and went from 34 pages to 17. I try to each day look at each active page and cross out at least one item. I try to cross out everything older than one week, and as the one week approaches to spend more time on the remaining items. However, this a lot of maintenance, I can't see myself doing for this in the long term.
I think the one count that will work in the long term is the number of items/lines on the long list. If let's say the limit is 120, and each line has a number, when the item is rewritten the number gets rewritten, but if the item does not get rewritten, the number gets rewritten, so there is a number with a blank line, in which case a new item can be added there. If there are no numbers with a blank line, then something needs to be deleted before a new item can be added. However, what is happening is that I am not writing as many new items.
November 5, 2024 at 19:43 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Regarding changing our systems when they are working well:
Unfortunately, life does not stand still, and our circumstances change, our jobs change, we get sick or depressed or lose our motivation. Sometimes these productivity systems work well when are at 90% capacity, but fall apart when our capacity diminishes.
Also, if we use the same mental process with our productivity system, our brain can begin to tire from overusing the same brain function. That is a good reason for using more than one method, so a long list could be varied with a short list, or no list at all. Also, a good reason for taking breaks, and doing nothing. Or taking a vacation, or traveling.
Unfortunately, life does not stand still, and our circumstances change, our jobs change, we get sick or depressed or lose our motivation. Sometimes these productivity systems work well when are at 90% capacity, but fall apart when our capacity diminishes.
Also, if we use the same mental process with our productivity system, our brain can begin to tire from overusing the same brain function. That is a good reason for using more than one method, so a long list could be varied with a short list, or no list at all. Also, a good reason for taking breaks, and doing nothing. Or taking a vacation, or traveling.
November 5, 2024 at 19:59 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
@Cricket - "Do while it's new and makes noticeable difference, but not for maintenance? Sounds like physiotherapy."
Very perceptive! :)
@Mark H. - "I think that Mark Forster's no-list methods are easy to implement, and use temporarily, without abandoning any previous system. Also, his long list methods are often interchangeable, and if one is familiar with a few, they can rotated or varied without the list changing much."
This hits on something for me. My favorite time to use Mark's no-list and long list methods are when I am feeling overwhelmed. They spin up in minutes, and immediately provide focus and relief and a sense of control that's closely tied to accepting and dancing with reality.
What amazes me is why I don't keep using them. The only time I consistently stuck with them was when I worked in a corporate office. I would review my long list during the morning staff meeting while other things were being discussed. That kept my long list ~10 pages or less.
I have often wondered if David Allen's initial success with grooving his behaviors was due to his regular long flights. I used to find those perfect for getting my systems and notes cleaned up, next actions in place, projects clarified. It was a constrained focus time with few options. The rise of the smart phone and ubiquitous wifi killed that for me. Too many other choices available.
I also like your reasoning behind using different methods, or none at all for a time. I wonder if that would keep us more in tune and engaged with our reality? I am inspired to give this some thought.
I suspect there are situations where I'm drawn to one method or another. No-List is so good for when I have too much and need to do one thing at a time, see accomplishment, and not think about what's not getting done. Long list is great when a million things are coming at me faster than I deal in the moment, and I'm afraid of forgetting something important.
What I want to think about — is there a natural transition sequence? Keep a long list. If I feel overwhelmed, scan the long list and just do No-List for today. The next day, toss the No-list, and return to the Long List, with the first step being to cross off anything I completed yesterday, which is a momentum boost. If I need a day off, treat my Long List like a DIT list, capturing but with no thought to doing today.
In other words, get clearer about the relationship between the different systems for me. Less haphazard, and less waiting until I feel bad to really implement and feel better. Proactively and consciously transitioning from one to the next. Like you alluded to, if you are familiar with them, why not jump around? The whole point is to get stuff done, and to feel good about about what are doing (one thing) and not doing (everything else) from moment to moment.
Very perceptive! :)
@Mark H. - "I think that Mark Forster's no-list methods are easy to implement, and use temporarily, without abandoning any previous system. Also, his long list methods are often interchangeable, and if one is familiar with a few, they can rotated or varied without the list changing much."
This hits on something for me. My favorite time to use Mark's no-list and long list methods are when I am feeling overwhelmed. They spin up in minutes, and immediately provide focus and relief and a sense of control that's closely tied to accepting and dancing with reality.
What amazes me is why I don't keep using them. The only time I consistently stuck with them was when I worked in a corporate office. I would review my long list during the morning staff meeting while other things were being discussed. That kept my long list ~10 pages or less.
I have often wondered if David Allen's initial success with grooving his behaviors was due to his regular long flights. I used to find those perfect for getting my systems and notes cleaned up, next actions in place, projects clarified. It was a constrained focus time with few options. The rise of the smart phone and ubiquitous wifi killed that for me. Too many other choices available.
I also like your reasoning behind using different methods, or none at all for a time. I wonder if that would keep us more in tune and engaged with our reality? I am inspired to give this some thought.
I suspect there are situations where I'm drawn to one method or another. No-List is so good for when I have too much and need to do one thing at a time, see accomplishment, and not think about what's not getting done. Long list is great when a million things are coming at me faster than I deal in the moment, and I'm afraid of forgetting something important.
What I want to think about — is there a natural transition sequence? Keep a long list. If I feel overwhelmed, scan the long list and just do No-List for today. The next day, toss the No-list, and return to the Long List, with the first step being to cross off anything I completed yesterday, which is a momentum boost. If I need a day off, treat my Long List like a DIT list, capturing but with no thought to doing today.
In other words, get clearer about the relationship between the different systems for me. Less haphazard, and less waiting until I feel bad to really implement and feel better. Proactively and consciously transitioning from one to the next. Like you alluded to, if you are familiar with them, why not jump around? The whole point is to get stuff done, and to feel good about about what are doing (one thing) and not doing (everything else) from moment to moment.
November 6, 2024 at 16:59 |
Scott Moehring
Scott Moehring
You're right about the ease of switching the long list systems.
The seasons I've done best, I begin each week with a review of the long list, to make a list for the week. I used to make it a bit long, so there's always something to suit my mood, but later found short and focused worked better, esp if I'm struggling to just do something, anything, so the day isn't a total write-off . That way when I plan the day, I don't need to look at the long list. All the most useful choices are on the week list. When I turn the page for the next week, the old page becomes part of the long list.
The seasons I've done best, I begin each week with a review of the long list, to make a list for the week. I used to make it a bit long, so there's always something to suit my mood, but later found short and focused worked better, esp if I'm struggling to just do something, anything, so the day isn't a total write-off . That way when I plan the day, I don't need to look at the long list. All the most useful choices are on the week list. When I turn the page for the next week, the old page becomes part of the long list.
November 6, 2024 at 18:30 |
Cricket
Cricket
Scott,
Many of the methods suggested by Mark Forster can be used independently of any system, especially the No-List (although there is a short list) methods. If tired, or overwhelmed, I like the method of writing only one item at a time, and doing each one. I might do this for a few minutes to warmup. I think the next easiest is "The Next Hour" methods. There are several variations of this. I like to keep the list to about 10-12 items. I sometimes write them on an index card, to keep it separate, and easy to discard when done. I like to use the FVP with this list (I have never been able to use FVP with a long list) . I use this either for work on one project in a time block, or when there is time pressure, such as preparing for a meeting in a hour, or leaving for work, or a trip. I find the FVP works best when I can see the entire list, so working FVP over a long list with multiple pages gets too confusing.
There is no "approved" system of combining a long list with no-lists. Mark Forster did recommend that one could put the no-list at the end of the long list. Also, people on this forum use the long list in different ways. Initially, the Autofocus list was a catch-all list, which would produce a very long list. Some use it for only items that are ready to be done, which would make the list shorter. Also, some of the no-list methods were designed to be used without a long list. Most seem to refer to a long list every day, and often several times a day. If that is the case, then the long list cannot be too long to get through in a day. Also, is the long list only to be referred to like a Master List, or used as one is working (which seems to be the intention of Autofocus). To me, the long list is accumulated over several days, and lasts for several days, so items that only apply for today for a few minutes or session can go on a short list (no-list). So the long list is my primary list, and other lists are secondary.
However, if you use the no-lists as your primary list, that cuts into the time on a long list, which then can be a Master list to be referred to. The long list and short lists can be used about equally if they are used at different times and clearly defined, such as one for work, the other for personal, or different times of the day.
Although on the Forum, they are labelled "Systems", I think that word should only be applied to to ways that show how to interlock productivity tools. GTD is a complicated system. Do It Tomorrow approaches a system. How a long list interlocks with other tools is left up to the individual.
Many of the methods suggested by Mark Forster can be used independently of any system, especially the No-List (although there is a short list) methods. If tired, or overwhelmed, I like the method of writing only one item at a time, and doing each one. I might do this for a few minutes to warmup. I think the next easiest is "The Next Hour" methods. There are several variations of this. I like to keep the list to about 10-12 items. I sometimes write them on an index card, to keep it separate, and easy to discard when done. I like to use the FVP with this list (I have never been able to use FVP with a long list) . I use this either for work on one project in a time block, or when there is time pressure, such as preparing for a meeting in a hour, or leaving for work, or a trip. I find the FVP works best when I can see the entire list, so working FVP over a long list with multiple pages gets too confusing.
There is no "approved" system of combining a long list with no-lists. Mark Forster did recommend that one could put the no-list at the end of the long list. Also, people on this forum use the long list in different ways. Initially, the Autofocus list was a catch-all list, which would produce a very long list. Some use it for only items that are ready to be done, which would make the list shorter. Also, some of the no-list methods were designed to be used without a long list. Most seem to refer to a long list every day, and often several times a day. If that is the case, then the long list cannot be too long to get through in a day. Also, is the long list only to be referred to like a Master List, or used as one is working (which seems to be the intention of Autofocus). To me, the long list is accumulated over several days, and lasts for several days, so items that only apply for today for a few minutes or session can go on a short list (no-list). So the long list is my primary list, and other lists are secondary.
However, if you use the no-lists as your primary list, that cuts into the time on a long list, which then can be a Master list to be referred to. The long list and short lists can be used about equally if they are used at different times and clearly defined, such as one for work, the other for personal, or different times of the day.
Although on the Forum, they are labelled "Systems", I think that word should only be applied to to ways that show how to interlock productivity tools. GTD is a complicated system. Do It Tomorrow approaches a system. How a long list interlocks with other tools is left up to the individual.
November 6, 2024 at 18:54 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
<<I have often wondered if David Allen's initial success with grooving his behaviors was due to his regular long flights.>>
I have an unproven theory: for a productivity system to thrive, it often needs to be linked to one’s income. When you write a book or give talks, the pressure to maintain the system intensifies—you need to keep the lights on, after all.
My own daily/weekly system has remained largely consistent for years, except for the daily portion, which I’m still fine-tuning. I’m close, though. Currently, I’m using a variation of Mark’s Scatter Map idea. At the end of each day, I take my notes and have trained ChatGPT to transcribe them into a clear daily journal entry. The non-linear nature of the Scatter Map works for me in a way that traditional lists don’t. Why? I’m not entirely sure, maybe it’s a texture thing. Just as some people prefer the feel of suede while others don’t, the Scatter Map makes the process of choosing/doing feel less Dilbert-like.
I have an unproven theory: for a productivity system to thrive, it often needs to be linked to one’s income. When you write a book or give talks, the pressure to maintain the system intensifies—you need to keep the lights on, after all.
My own daily/weekly system has remained largely consistent for years, except for the daily portion, which I’m still fine-tuning. I’m close, though. Currently, I’m using a variation of Mark’s Scatter Map idea. At the end of each day, I take my notes and have trained ChatGPT to transcribe them into a clear daily journal entry. The non-linear nature of the Scatter Map works for me in a way that traditional lists don’t. Why? I’m not entirely sure, maybe it’s a texture thing. Just as some people prefer the feel of suede while others don’t, the Scatter Map makes the process of choosing/doing feel less Dilbert-like.
November 7, 2024 at 12:59 |
avrum
avrum
@Mark H. "Mark Forster did recommend that one could put the no-list at the end of the long list."
I missed that along the way! Fascinating idea. The intentional blending of list types. Similar to Cricket and others talking about a separate planning or task page simply being absorbed into the long list as pages get turned.
I mean, they are all just lists of potential action placeholders, right? The items are the same, they are just grouped differently.
Worth noting: "a category is a grouping from a perspective." Very powerful idea. If you'd like to know more I can expand. It's from DSRP Theory, one of my new favorite things I've learned in the last 4 years.
@avrum - I like the idea of attachment to income. I think your theory has merit. For me, it has to be much shorter term. Income can be weeks or months after the actions that created the income, so it's very hard for me to feel the deep connection and immediate motivation. However, "my boss's angry face and my feeling of embarrassment during the weekly staff meeting" is plenty motivating.
I'm highly intrinsically motivated to do things that interest me. Unfortunately, I'm the opposite for things I "have" to do. External social pressure works for me for those things. It's not a great way to live, but it's been my experience for over half a century.
For your Scatter Maps, do you scan them and then ChatGPT translates the scan? Is it able to interpret any connecting lines or enclosing shapes? I would love to know more about this process.
I missed that along the way! Fascinating idea. The intentional blending of list types. Similar to Cricket and others talking about a separate planning or task page simply being absorbed into the long list as pages get turned.
I mean, they are all just lists of potential action placeholders, right? The items are the same, they are just grouped differently.
Worth noting: "a category is a grouping from a perspective." Very powerful idea. If you'd like to know more I can expand. It's from DSRP Theory, one of my new favorite things I've learned in the last 4 years.
@avrum - I like the idea of attachment to income. I think your theory has merit. For me, it has to be much shorter term. Income can be weeks or months after the actions that created the income, so it's very hard for me to feel the deep connection and immediate motivation. However, "my boss's angry face and my feeling of embarrassment during the weekly staff meeting" is plenty motivating.
I'm highly intrinsically motivated to do things that interest me. Unfortunately, I'm the opposite for things I "have" to do. External social pressure works for me for those things. It's not a great way to live, but it's been my experience for over half a century.
For your Scatter Maps, do you scan them and then ChatGPT translates the scan? Is it able to interpret any connecting lines or enclosing shapes? I would love to know more about this process.
November 7, 2024 at 15:36 |
Scott Moehring
Scott Moehring
Scott
<<For your Scatter Maps, do you scan them and then ChatGPT translates the scan? Is it able to interpret any connecting lines or enclosing shapes? I would love to know more about this process.
>>
Yes. I use a multicoloured pen (Blue for context (Time of day, location, mood), Green for things I want/should/must do, black for general updates, thoughts, observations, and red for items that stir a lot of fear or anxiety for me. Throughout the day, I add a context, scatter map a few things I might want to do, circle something, and then provide an update. At the end of the day, I snap a photo, and upload to chatgpt (I have the pro version, and created a special GPT based on certain criteria). I've also uploaded a sample of my writing so it gets my tone during the transcription. Not only does it transcribe correctly and put it into a readable narrative, it provides coaching as well (based on criteria that I required of it i.e. Nudge me when I'm avoiding certain projects).
It's a remarkable tool, and I'm only scratching the surface. I truly love the analog pen/paper during the day, and ChatGPT/AI at night combo
<<For your Scatter Maps, do you scan them and then ChatGPT translates the scan? Is it able to interpret any connecting lines or enclosing shapes? I would love to know more about this process.
>>
Yes. I use a multicoloured pen (Blue for context (Time of day, location, mood), Green for things I want/should/must do, black for general updates, thoughts, observations, and red for items that stir a lot of fear or anxiety for me. Throughout the day, I add a context, scatter map a few things I might want to do, circle something, and then provide an update. At the end of the day, I snap a photo, and upload to chatgpt (I have the pro version, and created a special GPT based on certain criteria). I've also uploaded a sample of my writing so it gets my tone during the transcription. Not only does it transcribe correctly and put it into a readable narrative, it provides coaching as well (based on criteria that I required of it i.e. Nudge me when I'm avoiding certain projects).
It's a remarkable tool, and I'm only scratching the surface. I truly love the analog pen/paper during the day, and ChatGPT/AI at night combo
November 7, 2024 at 18:01 |
avrum
avrum
I am searching for where Mark Forster advises putting the no-list (short list) at the end of the long list. Maybe someone knows where it is. It is blog post.
Going back reading through no-list methods, some of them assume that there is no long list, and lasts for no more than a day. Some of them look fun to try out, and perhaps on a non-work day, one could do it, without having to abandon the long list, and treat it like a game. A day break from the long list might be a good idea. However, the long list needs to be maintained, or it won't be of much use.
Although some of Mark Forster's methods can be combined, other methods seem to be mutually exclusive, or duplicate the same process. I think "no-list" actually means "no long list" as in Autofocus, even though there is a short list. Some of the methods seem to be use diametrically opposites. This can be confusing if one is expecting a logically consistent universal system of absolute commandments. But perhaps it is more like card games, where the cards stay the same, but the rules change from one game to another.
Keeping up a long list is a skill that needs time to develop, especially the habit of writing and crossing out and rewriting, and reading the list. It takes getting used to, if one is not used to writing what one is doing. The long list will likely take several days to accumulate the items. The rewriting can go on future dates, and the next actions can be go on future dates, or appointments. Once the habit is formed it can grow beyond the long list. Despite whatever advantages there are to no-list methods, rather than abandon the long list, and the skill acquired to use it, and makes more sense to me to add to the skill.
Right now I am trying to keep the long list contiguous. I have in the past blended the pages of long lists, short lists, and notes, plans in one notebook, so that a no-list had its own page, and notes have its own page. However, I found that keeping the long list together contiguously, with ideally one item per line, speeds up the processing and scanning. I am keeping the notes separate in the back of the notebook.
If I want to apply FVP to items, I might find the items on the long list, and then rewrite them at the end, and then process them by FVP, or rotating them. Or write them without consulting the long list, and after I have done them, go back through the long list, and cross out any duplicates.
Going back reading through no-list methods, some of them assume that there is no long list, and lasts for no more than a day. Some of them look fun to try out, and perhaps on a non-work day, one could do it, without having to abandon the long list, and treat it like a game. A day break from the long list might be a good idea. However, the long list needs to be maintained, or it won't be of much use.
Although some of Mark Forster's methods can be combined, other methods seem to be mutually exclusive, or duplicate the same process. I think "no-list" actually means "no long list" as in Autofocus, even though there is a short list. Some of the methods seem to be use diametrically opposites. This can be confusing if one is expecting a logically consistent universal system of absolute commandments. But perhaps it is more like card games, where the cards stay the same, but the rules change from one game to another.
Keeping up a long list is a skill that needs time to develop, especially the habit of writing and crossing out and rewriting, and reading the list. It takes getting used to, if one is not used to writing what one is doing. The long list will likely take several days to accumulate the items. The rewriting can go on future dates, and the next actions can be go on future dates, or appointments. Once the habit is formed it can grow beyond the long list. Despite whatever advantages there are to no-list methods, rather than abandon the long list, and the skill acquired to use it, and makes more sense to me to add to the skill.
Right now I am trying to keep the long list contiguous. I have in the past blended the pages of long lists, short lists, and notes, plans in one notebook, so that a no-list had its own page, and notes have its own page. However, I found that keeping the long list together contiguously, with ideally one item per line, speeds up the processing and scanning. I am keeping the notes separate in the back of the notebook.
If I want to apply FVP to items, I might find the items on the long list, and then rewrite them at the end, and then process them by FVP, or rotating them. Or write them without consulting the long list, and after I have done them, go back through the long list, and cross out any duplicates.
November 7, 2024 at 19:24 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
@avrum - That sounds super cool! I have ChatGPT, but it can't process images. I'll see if Perplexity can.
One of my favorite personal GTD eras was when I had a paper/digital workflow. I kept my lists on my computer. I just used standard system folders for incredible simplicity. Each folder was a task or Project, but I only used the folder names, so it was essentially an outliner. I just liked how I could move the folders around (to a Waiting For folder, for example). Also, there was no additional software!
I would print the folder names and keep them in a binder. I only worked from the binder all week. Then on Friday I would go through the paper lists, and sync up the digital folders. Delete, move, add, etc. Then print a fresh set of lists, and throw away the old ones. It was the longest I ever "worked clean". I touched every item once a week, and always started with freshly printed lists.
@Mark H. - the only No-List I currently use is where I think of anything I want to do or work on, then write it down, then work on it. When I'm done working on it, I cross it off, and choose something else. Once I start, I do not pull from another list, only from my head. The only rule is I can't do anything — important project or make a sandwich — unless I choose, then write it down, then do it.
I love how it makes it so clear that I can only do one thing at a time. It instantly makes me intentional. And at the end of the day I have a long list of things I've done, with maybe the last thing undone. It's such a great feeling.
I will refresh by looking over my long list (in whatever form that is). But then I will start over the next day with a clean sheet and the first thing I've chosen to work on.
One of my favorite personal GTD eras was when I had a paper/digital workflow. I kept my lists on my computer. I just used standard system folders for incredible simplicity. Each folder was a task or Project, but I only used the folder names, so it was essentially an outliner. I just liked how I could move the folders around (to a Waiting For folder, for example). Also, there was no additional software!
I would print the folder names and keep them in a binder. I only worked from the binder all week. Then on Friday I would go through the paper lists, and sync up the digital folders. Delete, move, add, etc. Then print a fresh set of lists, and throw away the old ones. It was the longest I ever "worked clean". I touched every item once a week, and always started with freshly printed lists.
@Mark H. - the only No-List I currently use is where I think of anything I want to do or work on, then write it down, then work on it. When I'm done working on it, I cross it off, and choose something else. Once I start, I do not pull from another list, only from my head. The only rule is I can't do anything — important project or make a sandwich — unless I choose, then write it down, then do it.
I love how it makes it so clear that I can only do one thing at a time. It instantly makes me intentional. And at the end of the day I have a long list of things I've done, with maybe the last thing undone. It's such a great feeling.
I will refresh by looking over my long list (in whatever form that is). But then I will start over the next day with a clean sheet and the first thing I've chosen to work on.
November 7, 2024 at 23:20 |
Scott Moehring
Scott Moehring
Scott:
<<paper/digital workflow.>>
We're both guitar players. I don't know about your setup, but my electric guitar can emulate an acoustic guitar via a pickup, and a bit of eq. It's easier to play (due to thiner neck and string gauge), but there’s just something special about strumming an acoustic. I write different songs on it, and my thinking, playing, and composing shift between the electric and acoustic.
That’s exactly how I feel about my iPad mini compared to my Levenger Circa notebook. Sure, I could do everything on the iPad mini that I do in my notebook. But each one sparks a different part of my brain and engages my visual sense in unique ways. I find that I work and focus differently depending on which tool I’m using.
<<paper/digital workflow.>>
We're both guitar players. I don't know about your setup, but my electric guitar can emulate an acoustic guitar via a pickup, and a bit of eq. It's easier to play (due to thiner neck and string gauge), but there’s just something special about strumming an acoustic. I write different songs on it, and my thinking, playing, and composing shift between the electric and acoustic.
That’s exactly how I feel about my iPad mini compared to my Levenger Circa notebook. Sure, I could do everything on the iPad mini that I do in my notebook. But each one sparks a different part of my brain and engages my visual sense in unique ways. I find that I work and focus differently depending on which tool I’m using.
November 8, 2024 at 1:22 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
<<I see it a bit differently: it’s often about what we’re accustomed to or believe in.>>
I guess for me, I tend to equate vision a lot with "what we believe in". To me, what you're accustomed to is a reflection of past vision, and what you believe in now equates to a future vision. It's not *really* a future vision if you don't believe it, and vice versa.
Though, I think I generally agree with your point. The popular Youtube/Twitch/Author Dr. K has a whole discussion about the role that meditation can/does play in "fixing your life," and so he would probably argue that at least one effective approach to productivity is driven by meditation as a root-cause mechanism that enables many of the other practices. [1]
<<But as a therapist, I struggle with CBT’s approach to “turning gnawing rats into white sheep.” I could visualize calling my endodontist all morning, but it doesn’t make the root canal—cost and discomfort—any easier. Sometimes, we just have to do things that suck.>>
I do think you're selling the rats-to-sheep rule a little short here. In my understanding of that rule, you're not just "visualizing" doing the action, but the whole point is to spend internal time confronting the gnawing rat and coming to a critical understanding of your relationship with the task. In this case of a root canal, the idea is to gain perspective on the task as a whole, appreciate the cause for avoiding the task, which is the inevitable cost and discomfort, that is, a type of fear, and then allowing yourself to accept and address the emotions directly. So, I'd say that in the case of the root canal, it would be not just visualizing making the call, but sitting down and visualizing and sitting with the reality of the cost and the pain, and then making peace with that, and allowing yourself to embrace that pain and suffering as something that can take on value to you because of the benefits that you gain.
So, if the thing you want to do has no upside whatsoever, and has no value, but is only destructive, well, then maybe it's not a gnawing rat, but actually something you should just avoid entirely. But if it is something you need to do, that means there is at least something there that you consider valuable enough to make you care about it to some degree that you don't want to dismiss it or leave it. That means that such a task has some kind of internal conflict that you have to resolve, such as the associated downsides that you want to avoid, but can't. In a lot of cases, the resolution, I think, does not mean you can avoid the negatives, but that you come to see the negatives as worthwhile because you have a "bigger" perspective. And in so doing, you can accept them and they no longer have to drive you away from the task.
It's like with cold water plunges. They are objectively uncomfortable. However, they can have value simply in the fact that they are an easy way to reduce inflammation for people who need to do that, or to give you practice with facing discomfort and accepting it. The source of the discomfort doesn't ever go away (not really, on a fundamental level), but that discomfort doesn't have to cause all the emotional distress that a cold water plunge can cause when you first try it.
I find that most things we do in life aren't nearly as "sucky" as we make them. Even when I've broken bones and such in the past, there is an objective pain and suffering that comes with that, but the last bone I broke was a lot less sucky than the first one, even though it was an objectively worse break, simply because I didn't see it the same way as I saw the first bone I broke.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET2__BGIZMM
<<I see it a bit differently: it’s often about what we’re accustomed to or believe in.>>
I guess for me, I tend to equate vision a lot with "what we believe in". To me, what you're accustomed to is a reflection of past vision, and what you believe in now equates to a future vision. It's not *really* a future vision if you don't believe it, and vice versa.
Though, I think I generally agree with your point. The popular Youtube/Twitch/Author Dr. K has a whole discussion about the role that meditation can/does play in "fixing your life," and so he would probably argue that at least one effective approach to productivity is driven by meditation as a root-cause mechanism that enables many of the other practices. [1]
<<But as a therapist, I struggle with CBT’s approach to “turning gnawing rats into white sheep.” I could visualize calling my endodontist all morning, but it doesn’t make the root canal—cost and discomfort—any easier. Sometimes, we just have to do things that suck.>>
I do think you're selling the rats-to-sheep rule a little short here. In my understanding of that rule, you're not just "visualizing" doing the action, but the whole point is to spend internal time confronting the gnawing rat and coming to a critical understanding of your relationship with the task. In this case of a root canal, the idea is to gain perspective on the task as a whole, appreciate the cause for avoiding the task, which is the inevitable cost and discomfort, that is, a type of fear, and then allowing yourself to accept and address the emotions directly. So, I'd say that in the case of the root canal, it would be not just visualizing making the call, but sitting down and visualizing and sitting with the reality of the cost and the pain, and then making peace with that, and allowing yourself to embrace that pain and suffering as something that can take on value to you because of the benefits that you gain.
So, if the thing you want to do has no upside whatsoever, and has no value, but is only destructive, well, then maybe it's not a gnawing rat, but actually something you should just avoid entirely. But if it is something you need to do, that means there is at least something there that you consider valuable enough to make you care about it to some degree that you don't want to dismiss it or leave it. That means that such a task has some kind of internal conflict that you have to resolve, such as the associated downsides that you want to avoid, but can't. In a lot of cases, the resolution, I think, does not mean you can avoid the negatives, but that you come to see the negatives as worthwhile because you have a "bigger" perspective. And in so doing, you can accept them and they no longer have to drive you away from the task.
It's like with cold water plunges. They are objectively uncomfortable. However, they can have value simply in the fact that they are an easy way to reduce inflammation for people who need to do that, or to give you practice with facing discomfort and accepting it. The source of the discomfort doesn't ever go away (not really, on a fundamental level), but that discomfort doesn't have to cause all the emotional distress that a cold water plunge can cause when you first try it.
I find that most things we do in life aren't nearly as "sucky" as we make them. Even when I've broken bones and such in the past, there is an objective pain and suffering that comes with that, but the last bone I broke was a lot less sucky than the first one, even though it was an objectively worse break, simply because I didn't see it the same way as I saw the first bone I broke.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET2__BGIZMM
November 8, 2024 at 4:57 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron - Gnawing Rats/White Sheep sounded a lot like watered down MBSR/CBT** to me. I have professional training in both, and don't find the theory/claims play out in practice. However, if someone finds it helpful, embrace it and go deep, I say.
** mindfulness-based-stress-reduction/cognitive-behavioral-therapy
** mindfulness-based-stress-reduction/cognitive-behavioral-therapy
November 8, 2024 at 15:14 |
avrum
avrum
I found MBSR/CBT to be very helpful, but maybe that was because our instructor had 20+ years as a PscyAssoc, and 20+ years in various types of meditation. He followed the book, but supported it with his own experience.
He didn't ask us to believe all the gnawing rats were white sheep. He asked us to look at the data we had and think of alternative explanations, and sometimes look for more data. We learned that sometimes our initial beliefs were correct. Sometimes, even though we didn't know the truth, we had to act as our fears were correct, to stay safe. Often enough, though, questioning the belief led to openness to other explanations, and quests for more data.
He didn't ask us to believe all the gnawing rats were white sheep. He asked us to look at the data we had and think of alternative explanations, and sometimes look for more data. We learned that sometimes our initial beliefs were correct. Sometimes, even though we didn't know the truth, we had to act as our fears were correct, to stay safe. Often enough, though, questioning the belief led to openness to other explanations, and quests for more data.
November 8, 2024 at 17:30 |
Cricket
Cricket
I don't have a full grasp on CBT and MBSR training, but my impression of it is that it's more like a scientific attempt to capture what is often captured by religious practices. As an Orthodox Christian, there's a very strong tradition within Orthodoxy around silent prayer coupled with a variety of other things that could very well be interpreted through MBSR/CBT as a lens, but I would consider using the CBT lens as incomplete to fully encapsulate the Faith elements.
Because of that, I'm probably more inclined to think favorably about some of the MBSR stuff. It's also the best explanation I have for some of the very successful self work I have done throughout my life, and the positive relationship that I have with martial arts.
I personally would criticize MBSR/CBT more on its attempt to overly "scientificify" things.
However, I'd love to hear more about how you find the theory and claims lacking in practice!
Because of that, I'm probably more inclined to think favorably about some of the MBSR stuff. It's also the best explanation I have for some of the very successful self work I have done throughout my life, and the positive relationship that I have with martial arts.
I personally would criticize MBSR/CBT more on its attempt to overly "scientificify" things.
However, I'd love to hear more about how you find the theory and claims lacking in practice!
November 8, 2024 at 21:15 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
<<However, I'd love to hear more about how you find the theory and claims lacking in practice!>>
If you have a phobia of flying, spiders, or similar, CBT and related behavioral interventions tend to work well for motivated individuals. However, the problems I encounter—professionally and personally—are almost always more complex (as a family/marriage therapist, my referrals rarely involve single-variable issues). My main criticism of CBT/MBSR is the “follow the money” factor: these therapies are often the cheapest, easiest, and safest to train across roles like OTs, nurses, and GPs. In my 10 years working with non-profits, they were consistently promoted over therapies requiring multiyear training programs and carrying higher costs, yet often under the “evidence-based” banner. There’s also been significant debate recently around what “evidence-based” in psychology truly means. **
Productivity issues, for example, are multi-layered. David Allen, with his structured GTD system, often gets asked, “Okay, great, but how do I actually choose the best thing to do now?” His answer typically points to intuition as the guide. But how, exactly? I’d pose a similar question to Paul Loomans: how do you differentiate genuine intuition from pleasure-seeking when, in the moment, I just want to watch YouTube all afternoon? Or if I feel guilty about skipping piano practice and end up practicing—does guilt factor into intuition?
What I value most in Loomans’ work is his advice to “prime the pump” of intuition. I think he’s onto something here, and I also agree with Allen’s approach to decision-making. What I’m really seeking are ways to strengthen that internal guidance. I suspect that upbringing (and some neurochemical advantages) may also play a role in this.
** A small sample:
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-12933-003
http://jonathanshedler.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Shedler-2018-Where-is-the-evidence-for-evidence-based-therapy.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#:~:text=The%20replication%20crisis%20is%20frequently,the%20reasons%20for%20the%20failure.
If you have a phobia of flying, spiders, or similar, CBT and related behavioral interventions tend to work well for motivated individuals. However, the problems I encounter—professionally and personally—are almost always more complex (as a family/marriage therapist, my referrals rarely involve single-variable issues). My main criticism of CBT/MBSR is the “follow the money” factor: these therapies are often the cheapest, easiest, and safest to train across roles like OTs, nurses, and GPs. In my 10 years working with non-profits, they were consistently promoted over therapies requiring multiyear training programs and carrying higher costs, yet often under the “evidence-based” banner. There’s also been significant debate recently around what “evidence-based” in psychology truly means. **
Productivity issues, for example, are multi-layered. David Allen, with his structured GTD system, often gets asked, “Okay, great, but how do I actually choose the best thing to do now?” His answer typically points to intuition as the guide. But how, exactly? I’d pose a similar question to Paul Loomans: how do you differentiate genuine intuition from pleasure-seeking when, in the moment, I just want to watch YouTube all afternoon? Or if I feel guilty about skipping piano practice and end up practicing—does guilt factor into intuition?
What I value most in Loomans’ work is his advice to “prime the pump” of intuition. I think he’s onto something here, and I also agree with Allen’s approach to decision-making. What I’m really seeking are ways to strengthen that internal guidance. I suspect that upbringing (and some neurochemical advantages) may also play a role in this.
** A small sample:
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-12933-003
http://jonathanshedler.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Shedler-2018-Where-is-the-evidence-for-evidence-based-therapy.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#:~:text=The%20replication%20crisis%20is%20frequently,the%20reasons%20for%20the%20failure.
November 11, 2024 at 15:33 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
Thanks a bunch for clarifying your meaning! I have to say that in the sense you're speaking about here, I probably wholeheartedly agree. In particular, things like the social science replication crisis, the lack of real "evidence" around a lot of things, and the tendency to have a very big gap between trials and practice "in the large" are the things I'd point to as most critical.
I have a unified criticism of pretty much all application of "systems" as they tend to be applied throughout industry. I see the same thing in business, education, productivity, etc., where a given system is expressed, which has a specific set of underlying axioms and ideas behind it, and then people proceed to apply the most superficially observable elements of the system while completely discarding the underlying ontological framework that the system depends on.
Or put a less precise way, people tend to copy what they can see, without understanding. I completely believe (though I don't work in that field), that CBT treatments are mishandled in the way you describe above, because I have seen the same thing applied in marketing, learning sciences, and software engineering.
I think the important thing about any system or process described is to understand the underlying ontology that drives that system, and to use that to increase the ability to understand new situations. However, I usually see people who are trying to find systems with the implicit (often unaware) goal of trying to apply a system in order to avoid deeper understanding.
When systems and methods are applied as a mechanism for increased understanding, by people who prioritize understanding and introspection, I tend to find that they work well to support increased competency and productivity, but when people try to use them as a shortcut to avoid deeper understanding, I think they often do more harm than good.
I think in the productivity space, we have a lot of that. I think people are often afraid of directly confronting their lives, and so they look for systems that will help them get what they want without having to "face facts" and actually understand what they are going through. Whenever they do that, they inevitably find that the systems "break" at some point, usually right where they have to actually come to some sort of understanding.
People, I've observed, often want to try to incorporate something that they see into their own belief structure without having to also pay the cost of changing anything about their belief structure. I rarely find this to be very effective. They hunt for things they can incorporate, instead of ways to alter or refine their belief structure through the application of new systems.
GTD is a good example. If people look at what David Allen says around intuition, he's essentially remarking on the value of creating organization as a means of gaining perspective over one's work so that you can confront the big questions about what is important in your life and how to manage your obligations and get a true picture of your reality. The implication here is that you then have to actually *deal* with that reality in some way. That's why I think people tend to fall down on the Weekly Review more than any other habit, because it's easy and fun to collect all your stuff and avoid doing the real work, but then when you actually have to take all that stuff that you have collected and reflect on it and assess your reality, start putting things into a Someday/Maybe list, or otherwise deal with the fact that you've overcommitted yourself, then they don't want to do that. They start using GTD as a way to not look at their life, rather than to gain better perspective.
I think the same thing can be said for Time Surfing. Things like guilt and the urge to avoid things en masse are emotions and signals, and Paul's method suggests that you have to sit down with those and actually figure out what's going on by reflecting on the emotions and allowing them to inform you about underlying issues. For example, the guilt around piano might be the interplay between the difficulty, your vision, and maybe something else (uncertainty, fear, questions of identity, etc.), and you have to feel those all out. But Time Surfing has a lot of requirements around noticing those things and then actually going into the mind and working with those feelings and thoughts. I'd say a global malaise is something of the same thing, where you have to go in and allow your body to reset itself and communicate the issues through a combination of feelings and then understanding.
The problem with Time Surfing for people who don't have any practice with this is that you do actually have to cultivate that skill, and it's not one that people are trained to do from an early age, I've found. That is why I think rules 4 - 6 are very hard for people to follow. That's also where breathers come in, because I find that people resist taking breathers, but the breathers are necessary for resetting, and if you aren't "reset" during that time, it means you probably need to take a bigger breather, but people are often too afraid to do that.
Basically, I think it comes down to the same fundamental issue with all systems, in that systems can only highlight the things you need to address in your life, and potentially provide some mechanisms to help address them, but ultimately, everyone has to come to know themselves and confront their reality at some point, and if you don't *want* to do that, then you'll always find any system unsatisfactory, at some point.
Thanks a bunch for clarifying your meaning! I have to say that in the sense you're speaking about here, I probably wholeheartedly agree. In particular, things like the social science replication crisis, the lack of real "evidence" around a lot of things, and the tendency to have a very big gap between trials and practice "in the large" are the things I'd point to as most critical.
I have a unified criticism of pretty much all application of "systems" as they tend to be applied throughout industry. I see the same thing in business, education, productivity, etc., where a given system is expressed, which has a specific set of underlying axioms and ideas behind it, and then people proceed to apply the most superficially observable elements of the system while completely discarding the underlying ontological framework that the system depends on.
Or put a less precise way, people tend to copy what they can see, without understanding. I completely believe (though I don't work in that field), that CBT treatments are mishandled in the way you describe above, because I have seen the same thing applied in marketing, learning sciences, and software engineering.
I think the important thing about any system or process described is to understand the underlying ontology that drives that system, and to use that to increase the ability to understand new situations. However, I usually see people who are trying to find systems with the implicit (often unaware) goal of trying to apply a system in order to avoid deeper understanding.
When systems and methods are applied as a mechanism for increased understanding, by people who prioritize understanding and introspection, I tend to find that they work well to support increased competency and productivity, but when people try to use them as a shortcut to avoid deeper understanding, I think they often do more harm than good.
I think in the productivity space, we have a lot of that. I think people are often afraid of directly confronting their lives, and so they look for systems that will help them get what they want without having to "face facts" and actually understand what they are going through. Whenever they do that, they inevitably find that the systems "break" at some point, usually right where they have to actually come to some sort of understanding.
People, I've observed, often want to try to incorporate something that they see into their own belief structure without having to also pay the cost of changing anything about their belief structure. I rarely find this to be very effective. They hunt for things they can incorporate, instead of ways to alter or refine their belief structure through the application of new systems.
GTD is a good example. If people look at what David Allen says around intuition, he's essentially remarking on the value of creating organization as a means of gaining perspective over one's work so that you can confront the big questions about what is important in your life and how to manage your obligations and get a true picture of your reality. The implication here is that you then have to actually *deal* with that reality in some way. That's why I think people tend to fall down on the Weekly Review more than any other habit, because it's easy and fun to collect all your stuff and avoid doing the real work, but then when you actually have to take all that stuff that you have collected and reflect on it and assess your reality, start putting things into a Someday/Maybe list, or otherwise deal with the fact that you've overcommitted yourself, then they don't want to do that. They start using GTD as a way to not look at their life, rather than to gain better perspective.
I think the same thing can be said for Time Surfing. Things like guilt and the urge to avoid things en masse are emotions and signals, and Paul's method suggests that you have to sit down with those and actually figure out what's going on by reflecting on the emotions and allowing them to inform you about underlying issues. For example, the guilt around piano might be the interplay between the difficulty, your vision, and maybe something else (uncertainty, fear, questions of identity, etc.), and you have to feel those all out. But Time Surfing has a lot of requirements around noticing those things and then actually going into the mind and working with those feelings and thoughts. I'd say a global malaise is something of the same thing, where you have to go in and allow your body to reset itself and communicate the issues through a combination of feelings and then understanding.
The problem with Time Surfing for people who don't have any practice with this is that you do actually have to cultivate that skill, and it's not one that people are trained to do from an early age, I've found. That is why I think rules 4 - 6 are very hard for people to follow. That's also where breathers come in, because I find that people resist taking breathers, but the breathers are necessary for resetting, and if you aren't "reset" during that time, it means you probably need to take a bigger breather, but people are often too afraid to do that.
Basically, I think it comes down to the same fundamental issue with all systems, in that systems can only highlight the things you need to address in your life, and potentially provide some mechanisms to help address them, but ultimately, everyone has to come to know themselves and confront their reality at some point, and if you don't *want* to do that, then you'll always find any system unsatisfactory, at some point.
November 13, 2024 at 1:05 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron: That's quite a post, sir.
Have you heard of Dr. Kourosh Dini or his work? He's a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst - out of Chicago, I believe - who talks/teaches about productivity, etc. Super interesting guy, I think you'd dig him:
http://www.kouroshdini.com/about-kourosh/
Have you heard of Dr. Kourosh Dini or his work? He's a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst - out of Chicago, I believe - who talks/teaches about productivity, etc. Super interesting guy, I think you'd dig him:
http://www.kouroshdini.com/about-kourosh/
November 13, 2024 at 12:48 |
avrum
avrum
avrum: Hah, yeah. I meant to respond with a short post saying that I totally agree with you, and it kind of just got away from me. :-)
November 13, 2024 at 21:25 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
It’s a bit like the Asian Efficiency podcast. Cultural habits don’t always translate easily. As a Jew, if I wrote a ‘Jewish productivity’ book suggesting people observe a Sabbath or eat challah to succeed**, it’d be odd. Cultural practices aren’t just hacks we can transplant.
Maybe the best productivity systems are those we adapt to fit our own backgrounds while we work around universal challenges like procrastination. But it’s a tricky balance!
To date, here are the ideas I've incorporated into my evolving system:
* Cultivate intuition/Standing Out (Allen, Forster, Loomans)
* Scatter Maps (Forster)
* Little and Often (Forster)
* Weekly Review/Plan (Merrill/Covey/Allen)
* Journaling (D. Gregory)
* Emotional Touchstones for goals (B. Sher)
* Work with others to get things done (Bowen Family Systems Theory and many others)
* Pen/Paper (Allen)
* ChatGPT for coaching, trend and pattern spotting in my journal (A new addition)
** http://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/the-chosen-few-a-new-explanati