Discussion Forum > Attenuation and Dismissal
Aaron,
I am not sure what you mean by dismissal here.
It sounds like you are deferring items or deleting them from the list. Are you also including asking dismissal questions such as in autofocus?
I posted a thread a while ago on Mark Forster on over commitment on catch-all lists. And he had suggestions on how to keep it from having more work than you can do. However after this he came up with simple scanning which did not have any structures or boundaries with a long list to keep it from getting too long, other than one's intuition.
I am thinking that perhaps he was right that there needs to be some limits to a long list and that it might be wise to add limits. I'm trying to limit my long list to 7 days and a limit of about 150 items. I also thought that it might be good to dismiss the items older than 7 days from the list. However I have found that I rewrite it and cross it off the list and attend to examine it like dismissal in autofocus but I am neglecting to do that. I am thinking it would be better to have it remain on the list until I actually know why I'm not doing it. In other words keep it on the list until I dismiss it. Perhaps have a rule that I need to dismiss it on the next pass.
I am having a little difficulty with understanding Mark Forster on Resistance. I have asked him about this and he answered in a post. However I have been reading his book get everything done and there is a lot in the book on Resistance. He has a method on working in the order of resistance from the most resistance working down. Also asking repeatedly throughout the day what one is resisting the most and then doing it, and also writing for 15 minutes on something one is resisting. This last idea I think could be profitable for me to do. However after the book was written there was a blog post where he said that he found that working on the most resisting items - he could not keep it up in a long term. Working with zero resistance items seems to be the exact opposite of what he recommended before. He seems to like to work with dualities and polarities and opposites and and I wonder if there is some harmonization where both polarities need to be operating. So that perhaps one should go back and forth between 0 resistance and most resistant.
I am not sure what you mean by dismissal here.
It sounds like you are deferring items or deleting them from the list. Are you also including asking dismissal questions such as in autofocus?
I posted a thread a while ago on Mark Forster on over commitment on catch-all lists. And he had suggestions on how to keep it from having more work than you can do. However after this he came up with simple scanning which did not have any structures or boundaries with a long list to keep it from getting too long, other than one's intuition.
I am thinking that perhaps he was right that there needs to be some limits to a long list and that it might be wise to add limits. I'm trying to limit my long list to 7 days and a limit of about 150 items. I also thought that it might be good to dismiss the items older than 7 days from the list. However I have found that I rewrite it and cross it off the list and attend to examine it like dismissal in autofocus but I am neglecting to do that. I am thinking it would be better to have it remain on the list until I actually know why I'm not doing it. In other words keep it on the list until I dismiss it. Perhaps have a rule that I need to dismiss it on the next pass.
I am having a little difficulty with understanding Mark Forster on Resistance. I have asked him about this and he answered in a post. However I have been reading his book get everything done and there is a lot in the book on Resistance. He has a method on working in the order of resistance from the most resistance working down. Also asking repeatedly throughout the day what one is resisting the most and then doing it, and also writing for 15 minutes on something one is resisting. This last idea I think could be profitable for me to do. However after the book was written there was a blog post where he said that he found that working on the most resisting items - he could not keep it up in a long term. Working with zero resistance items seems to be the exact opposite of what he recommended before. He seems to like to work with dualities and polarities and opposites and and I wonder if there is some harmonization where both polarities need to be operating. So that perhaps one should go back and forth between 0 resistance and most resistant.
August 21, 2025 at 23:51 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Aaron,
I have continued interacting with ChatGPT on Mark Forster's systems, and it has ranked the systems on a spectrum from most open/intuitive (Dreams, Simple Scanning) to most closed/structured (DIT and GED).
It notices these polarities.
1. List length (long list, short list, no list)
2. List closure (open list, closed list)
3. Selection style (structured, intuitive)
4. Amount of scanning- little (Dreams, no-list) to great (Simple Scanning)
So perhaps, Dreams being on one end of the spectrum is hardest to integrate with the other methods. However, any system that uses a long list can borrow tips from the other long list methods.
I have continued interacting with ChatGPT on Mark Forster's systems, and it has ranked the systems on a spectrum from most open/intuitive (Dreams, Simple Scanning) to most closed/structured (DIT and GED).
It notices these polarities.
1. List length (long list, short list, no list)
2. List closure (open list, closed list)
3. Selection style (structured, intuitive)
4. Amount of scanning- little (Dreams, no-list) to great (Simple Scanning)
So perhaps, Dreams being on one end of the spectrum is hardest to integrate with the other methods. However, any system that uses a long list can borrow tips from the other long list methods.
August 22, 2025 at 1:01 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
One of the classic issues with a long list system is the length growth of the list, but "modern" long list systems tend to have no explicit method of dismissing items. I've never had a major issue with list growth myself, but what I have become more aware of while I experiment with Re:Zero this time around is how the list highlighting "languishing" tasks on this list helps facilitate what I consider a very natural timeline for dismissal.
In my case, as my list has matured, I've found that I'm getting good progress on most things, and the list is "moving" but for a few specific items that always seem to stay behind. As they stay behind, this helps to provide naturally paced highlight for those items' consideration.
I think Re:Zero is particularly good for this, because I am reviewing these items all the time (I don't review such items as often with FVP style systems), and I've found that by the time I get to a single or maybe two or three items on a single page, I've had a chance to ponder these languishing items for a while.
Often, I become aware of a lack of clarity around my intent with these items, and that allows me to reframe the issue and make some progress on it. Other times, these are just items that I *want* to do only periodically, so it's fine to allow them to sit around for a while and then they sort of stand out more strongly to me as they become lonely on the list by themselves on the page, and I get to them at a more leisurely pace.
But sometimes, these items really should be dismissed. I find that having them sit alone on the page tends to create an interesting emotional balance for myself that makes it easier for me to dismiss them, because doing so has an immediate reward (I clear that page off and usually clean up my list processing as a result), and I've had a chance to say goodbye to that thing for a while. Often, it occurs that I find that I've come to feel that this is not something I want to do right now, but I do still want to do it. I know that I won't get to this any time soon, so I shift to putting it into a tickler list on my calendar so that I can add it back onto the list at a time that makes me comfortable.
For me, this has been making the question of dismissing items off my list very natural feeling, and seems to be working quite well. It's probably old hat for a few of you, but I wanted to highlight this for myself as something that I haven't fully appreciated before.