Get Everything Done

Hi, I don't mean to be incendiary, but despite your own protestations at the idea, I fail to see how your method is not a glorified to-do list.

I know you say you have some issues with to-do lists. But isn't this splitting hairs? In this 'system,' you're supposed to write a list of things down, look at them, pick one to do. Re-list all things not done. There is a claim that there is something built into the system to access a 'non-rational' or 'intuitive' part of the brain, but this seems the most ephemeral and least substantial aspect of the whole system. I could simply tell someone, "Keep a to-do list, but don't be reductively obsessive about each individual item. Just be open-minded and intuitive about what you pick off the list for the next thing you do," and in saying that, I would have captured pretty much all of what you call "Autofocus."

If you can draw my attention to any important facets of your process that I am missing, I would like to know. Otherwise, this really seems like what 99% of the world would call a basic to-do list.

Of course it's a to-do list.

Quote "I could simply tell someone, "Keep a to-do list, but don't be reductively obsessive about each individual item. Just be open-minded and intuitive about what you pick off the list for the next thing you do,"

And how exactly would you do that? What instructions would you give someone?Would those 2 lines be all the instruction you gave?
Out of curiosity,what system do you have for getting your tasks done?

Jay

I have to agree with you skeptic, AF is indeed a to-do list.

I have nothing detremental to say about Mark in the slightest, GTD & DIT are absolutely brilliant books and have helped me SO much - I am very grateful to Mark for those.

But, unfortunately, AF is simply an open-ended to-do list; I have read, re-read then re-read the instructions some more, but nothing can change what it is.

I run a small business so no task can ever be "dismissed", they are all of equal importance so, at the end of the day, nothing in particular "jumps out" at me; in the end I just have to pick something at random.

For combatting procrastination and increasing motivaition, the methods in GTD & DIT work superbly; unfortunately AF does nothing of the sort on either count as far as I am concerned.

Again, this is just a personal opinion, and I am trying so hard to persevere with the AF system; I really truly want the system to work for me.

But, unfortunately, it doesn't.

GTD = David Allen
Get Everything Done and Still Have Time to Play (aka GED) = Mark Forster

I can see where you are coming from Simon, after a few false starts I am getting on well with AF at the moment. It's helped me to think 'I'm in charge of this list' as a way of defining my work instead of allowing myself to feel overwhelmed and that the list is in charge of me!

I, too, agree. AF is a (kind of) todo list. Only, that is what appeals to me. I asked for the instructions out of curiosity. I only tried it because it was so similar to what I was already doing. You see, I already had a notebook, pages filled with tasks, most of them crossed out. Write everything down; find something to do: that is as far as I got. Mark's idea is indeed a simple one. I'm not sure if it is the only one and most likely it is not perfect. But I don't care. Personally I don't care for that rational/irrational stuff, which I find very questionable. For me, the advantage of AF is quit practical. It eliminates the need for a separate "someday"-list and it eliminates the time for maintenance and reviewing. In a way, it does away with the need to manage your time.

It might not work for everyone. For example, AF doesn't really work well if most of your work is driven by tight deadlines. But in my, admittedly limited experience (coaching students), most people do not need a sophisticated time management system. AF does away with the overhead.

Simon wrote:

"For combatting procrastination and increasing motivaition, the methods in GTD & DIT work superbly; unfortunately AF does nothing of the sort on either count as far as I am concerned."

I am a master procrastinator and, since I started using AF, I've gotten more done with less effort than with any other time management system I've tried. And I guess that's what matters most. Does a system work for you? If not, then maybe it's just not the right system for you.

I do urge people to try AF (like Simon has) before making that decision though. I think many who have written AF off without actually giving it a shot would be surprised to find how well it does work for them.

Hi Simon

You say "But, unfortunately, AF is simply an open-ended to-do list; I have read, re-read then re-read the instructions some more, but nothing can change what it is." AF is not an open -ended to do list - it is a series of closed lists. That is a really material factor and may be where you are getting confused?

Also when you say "they are all of equal importance so, at the end of the day, nothing in particular "jumps out" at me" the allocating of importance or non-importance to a task is using our rational mind to grade the tasks. Again that is a material factor and it is the learning of the intuitive "jumping out" that makes the difference with AF.

All items on your lists may ultimately need to be done, but by doing them in the manner achieved through AF the levels of procrastination and resistance fall and motivation increases. it is not an easy process to pick up - or even to describe. Have a look at the FAQ's as some of the posts there may help ........

http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/645945

Thank you Leon, you're right, I did mean "GED" as opposed to "GTD" - thanks for clarifying that.

Thank you also Christine, I totally appreciate what you're saying.

But if you treat each page as a "closed list" then you need to work on that page until it is "closed" - therefore maybe missing an important task on a later page.

I just really question the "jumping out" scenario if you have a list of completely random and unconnected tasks of which you are procrastinating about each one in equal measure - then nothing is going to stand out for you, you lose your motivation and therefore start procrastinating again.

If you therefore take this scenario out of the equation it becomes a to-do list.

Please don't get me wrong - I am still trying to use the system as described and, as I said, have great respect for Mark - it's just at the moment, using this system, I feel far more like Joe Slobb than Mick Cool, that's for sure!

Hi Simon,

Of course it's a to-do list! So is Covey's Quadrants and Allen's GTD and Fiore's Ta Da.

The difference with AF is that you actually get moving, not just add to your list.

Try it and see. Also check out some of the add-ons that the beta-testers have been using - there are a few useful tips, such as the vertical as well as horizontal crossing out to trick the mind, and the mini closed-lists on index cards.

I've tried all the well-known time management systems and this one is definitely working best for me.

I agree little b - it's the best to-do list I've come across I must admit, I like the "little & often" approach.

I think I just have to get my head around the fact that nothing is, in fact, going to "jump out" at me; so I just have to work through the list methodically.

Simon, what worked for me was to ask myself whether or not I felt resistance to an item on a page. If I felt no resistance, that meant that item was "jumping out." Once I've done all the items on a page that jumped out at me in this way, I moved on to the next page.

Plus, you only have to do one item per page (without dismissing anything) before moving on. This comes in handy if you're really in a hurry to get to something later in your notebook. And, if you have a page where you feel some resistance to every item left, but you don't want to dismiss anything, you can do the item you feel the least resistance to (even if only partially) and then move on.

Thing is, I had a lot of tasks in my notebook that I'd been resisting for ages. When I was writing them down, I figured these would be things I'd skip, as usual. But, when I came across them in my notebook, I didn't feel the resistance I used to feel, and those tasks are now done. I'm amazed by how many of the things I've been putting off for months have gotten done since I started using AF.

Hi Simon

When you say "But if you treat each page as a "closed list" then you need to work on that page until it is "closed" - therefore maybe missing an important task on a later page." I wonder if you are treating each page as needing to be "completed" before moving on. As Deej says above you only "have" to do one item. It "is" hard to "get" the standing out bit - Deej's comments above re the least resisted item could be really helpful for you in recognising how that works.

It seems impossible that items you have been resisting for months do suddenly make you feel that you want to do them but it really does happen. It is hard to make the mental switch from the structure of some of the more formal systems but do hang on in there ......
good luck!

Simon I wonder if you think standing out equates to importance and timing. It doesn't. For me standing out means I am ready and willing to do a task. At first I had to move on from a page before there were no items that stood out. Now there is a natural rhythm where after a task or 2 I am ready to move on. In DIT I spent a lot of time deciding what was most important. Now I spend no time on that. I have given myself permission to dismiss tasks I will eventually have to do. Point is I don't have to do them now. AF is a low-stress way of focusing on what's important. If all your tasks are equally important and you don't want to do any of them, are you in the right business? Best wishes...

"But if you treat each page as a "closed list" then you need to work on that page until it is "closed" - therefore maybe missing an important task on a later page."

Seems like this is often a misunderstood point. Maybe someone could do a 2 minute YouTube video showing how AF really works.

In regards to the Joe Slobb vs Mick Cool comment, I'd have to agree that it is possible to use this system and end up in the "Joe Slobb" sort of situation (ie a disorganised mess, for those who haven't read DIT). In my own experience, this happens when I spend a large amount of time working on single tasks, which then causes me not to get through the pages fast enough, which then causes me to "miss" things.

As an IT person, it seems to me that this is akin to the way computers work. For the most part[1], a computer can only do one thing at a time. However, it gives the illusion of doing multitasking by switching between a number of tasks and spending a relatively small amount of time on each (ie little and often). What happens if it spends a disproportionate time on any one program? The rest of the system becomes unresponsive, and things don't happen when they should.

So I guess this leads me to a question .. what happens if some of the real world tasks one is working on need fairly large chunks of time? I find it's not uncommon to spend 2-3 hours on a particular task. Also bear in mind that there is a cost to switching tasks, as it takes my brain get into the right mode for some tasks. So do I artificially break up the work into smaller chunks and wear the context switching cost? Or keep with the larger chunk approach and risk disorganisation creeping in?


[1] Yes I know, multi-core processors etc mean that this isn't so true anymore

ChrisK

Interesting analogy. I have to agree with you that there can be that period of time where you end up in the "Joe Slobb" ("Jane Slobb?") bracket for the reasons you state but I think there are other factors at play which impact on that time allocation.

Firstly I think that it can take some time for the system to "settle down" in that we have to (a) get used to how it works, (b) learn to trust it and (c) recognise the fact that we are probably in a partially fire fighting mode as a result of past practices which impacts on the amount of time needed on certain tasks.

Secondly I think that the rational approach vs the intuitive approach has a significant bearing on the ability to multitask and that is actually a major part of standard time management issues. I read once that the conscious mind (rational thought) is only able to fully focus on one thing at a time, whereas the subconscious (intuitive) can focus on 10 things at a time. If that is correct then many of us will have been juggling a considerably higher number than 10 items in our subconscious, which probably explains the state of panic that can ensue. For me, the Auto"FOCUS" element of the system somehow gives my subconscious permission to concentrate on the tasks "it" knows to be important, even though that may be at the expense of tasks that have lesser real importance. So far I have not missed any urgent deadlines, I have progressed tasks I had been resisting for eons, and can see that areas that would have become problems in the future will not now be, because the system has already enabled me to address the root cause. In the process some things have "fallen by the wayside" and yes, I have been concerned about that. However, stopping to look at those areas objectively I can see that, whilst they are irritants, they are not as important to have completed as those things I have done.

Interestingly, I find that I am able to recognise my subconscious working more on tasks "behind the scenes" than previously - as if my brain has stepped up to that multi-core processing level.

Christine,

I think this post should go to FAQs, but I am not sure where to add it.

Chris - sometimes I block out time for those larger tasks on my calendar, and sometimes that helps. Then I can focus the remaining discretionary time on my AF list.

Sometimes this approach doesn't work -- for example, if find myself resisting that large task.

So, another approach that can help is to use the timer. When that particular task "stands out", and you've got the suspicion that it might suck you in for 2-3 hours, set a maximum amount of time to work on it -- say, an hour. If you're like me, your timer will beep in an hour, and you'll keep on working anyway, maybe for another whole hour, but you've got that reminder that you really need to get back to your list and attend to your other priorities. It's best actually to just STOP midstream, so that when you come back to it later, you can pick right back up again, but I haven't managed to develop that discipline yet.

Anyway, just some ideas, your mileage may vary.

Mark,

Jonah Lehrer can write all he wants, that doesn't make it true. The
second quote smells a bit like pseudo-science to me. Well, maybe not,
depends on interpretation. For all practical purposes, nothing we do
is devoid of emotions, not even when we solve equations. On the other
hand, it is hard to find find any action that is not in some way
rational. (BTW if something has to be balanced with the ›rational‹, is
the not necessarily *not* rational, i.e. ›irrational‹?)

Depending on your taste, this is interesting philosophy or useless
metaphysics. I wonder, why you feel you need that. AF is simple. It
does away with lots of complicated methods about planning, reviewing,
etc. Methods, which are not exactly rationally sound, either. AF might
in fact be more rational than more complicated ›systems‹. It gets
(almost) everything out of the way between you and your work. Why not
leave it at that?

(And on the original topic: a traditional todo list doesn't do that.
It requires reviewing and maintenance. It kind of works, I have done
it. But it produces overhead. AF might solve this; I'll write about my
first impressions in a month or so.)

ChrisK

The AF methode allows you to let the estimated duration time of a task to be a part of the reminder of the task.

E.g. "Clean living room (30 min)", "Write letter to grandma (20 min)", "Draft proposal (2 h)", etc.

This way you can let your logic, your emotions, and your gut instinct work together to make decisions you can trust, i.e. decisions that you can be confident to see through to completion.

Silvia

Thanks for that - I was only thinking about a half hour ago that I'd need to look at updating the FAQ's again!

Hi Olaf,

You said: "Depending on your taste, this is interesting philosophy or useless
metaphysics."

Please don't denigrate philosophy. It is the study of the very way we think and live in this world. And, just a minor point, metaphysics IS philosophy ... in the sense that it is one of the major subdivisions of philosophy .... others include epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

So please have a care before brushing aside the efforts of the greatest human minds throughout history.

pssssst

don't feed the trolls

learning as I go

my misinterpretation....I apologize.
learning as I go

I think some of this discussion stems from the fact that we don't really know why AF works. I don't think about AF in terms of rational/irrational or conscious/subconscious. I think I understand why AF works for me. I don't know why it might work for someone else. Here are some of the reasons it works for me:

All tasks, including recreational and restorative tasks are given equal value (e.g., I have no guilt about reading now). I find I have a natural balance in my life that I have sought but failed to achieve using any other approach.

Little and often. I can easily talk myself into doing tasks I resist because I know that every little bit counts. Before I felt that I didn't deserve credit for what I DID do if the task wasn't complete. That was demotivating to me. This is the most effective anti-procrastination approach I have found.

Freedom to work with changing energy levels and interests. With some other methods (including DIT), I felt tremendous pressure to do certain tasks at certain times. This feeling of obligation created resistance for me and didn't take advantage of my natural inclinations throughout the day. You can do it the hard way (forcing yourself) or you can do it the easy way (when the resistance is gone). I choose the easy way!

Easy decision-making. Instead of looking at a massive list of tasks and deciding what's most important, I decide based on what I do. It's the old "actions speak louder than words." I can say task X is important, but if I don't do it, it either isn't or I need to rethink my approach to it.

Tasks are broken up into manageable chunks. Even using GTD's contexts, the sheer number of tasks to review for one context was overwhelming. With AF, I only have to think about a maximum of 32 tasks at a time.

It provides an easy way to gauge productivity. Count the number of tasks completed or number of pages completed or the number of active pages and you have a numerical assessment of what is happening in your work life.

The benefits of "mind like water" and "trusted system" without the time-consuming organization and review of GTD. I love being able to put anything and everything down that pops into my head. I love that I no longer have that "I have an hour to work; what should I do?" confusion.

It may be with AF though that we never fully understand why it works. So what! As long as it does, we should be thankful. If it doesn't work for someone, that's fine! I know plenty of people who manage their tasks beautifully without any kind of system. I also know people who spend all their time telling me why such and such won't work and almost no time doing anything. Mark, as a psychologist, whenever I have found myself working harder to help someone than they are working to help themselves, I know it's time to move on. I hope you will adopt the same philosophy.

Mark, I would agree, I think that time estimates next to the task would not be a good idea, and actually increase resistance. I already have enough trouble resisting tasks that I know will take time, and knowing I have the choice of working on it for even 5 minutes, and then switching to something else makes it a lot easier.

So I guess what I should consider doing to improve things is:
a) using a timer on tasks where I think time might get away from me
b) Work out quick and easy ways to "bookmark" my progress in a task/project so I take less time to get back to it when it "stands out" again.

Hi there,
my name is Norbert. I work as a content partnership manager for Sony.
I discovered Autofocus two days ago.

Having a job that has lots of daily tasks that HAVE to be done, I disagree with you, Simon.

You write:
"I run a small business so no task can ever be "dismissed", they are all of equal importance so, at the end of the day, nothing in particular "jumps out" at me; in the end I just have to pick something at random."

My answer:
This is exactly what you shouldn't do: picking something at random. The strength of AF is that it combines subconscious activities and conscious decisions. This is not how AF works.

In my job, I have to establish new contacts and keep in touch with dozens of business partners, on a daily basis. I couldn't imagine that Autofocous is able to handle that, but I decided to give it a try. The result is: It works perfectly.

I know that I have a certain number of daily tasks, for instance checking the status of data exchange between a company and my branch, or helping partners get their XML codes right. These tasks have to be resolved daily.

THE DIFFERENCE between picking one task at random because you don't think it matters and letting your subconscious mind choose a task that it finds interesting is a HUGE one. I've been working as a growth coach on the side for years, and if one thing can help us achieve more things done, it's handing over tasks to your subconsciousness.

The good thing about this is that if you let your subconsciousness pick a task that it likes or wants to do, you'll get it done quicker than if you consciously chose one. This definitely helps you get things done in a very effective manner.

You wrote:
"For combatting procrastination and increasing motivaition, the methods in GTD & DIT work superbly; unfortunately AF does nothing of the sort on either count as far as I am concerned."

My answer:
If you follow the AF rules, and this also means LETTING your subconscious mind choose, you'll notice a boost in motivation because your subconscious mind gets to play around and choose tasks. It is actually very self-empowering.

However: There's one thing you have to do to make AF work:
Allow yourself to trust the system.

Best wishes
Norbert

Referring back to an earlier comment by Mark; Radio 4 have been serialising 'How we decide' this week. Worth checking whether it is available on 'listen again' on the Radio 4 website. Also it might only be available to listeners in the UK, but that's the benefit of paying our license fee :-)

Dave

Hi Norbert

Great post - it really is that letting the subconscious mind choose that is the key to AF. And it works right from the first item - if you let it!

...however, my subconscious seems to work better with a weekly (or more) look at my project list. Otherwise, I'd still be cleaning the garage....

My Dad (who was an architect) kept a system very similar to this. He would write everything into a journal. Each day he would go back and check off the items that he had done and look for new stuff to work on. His system was not as well thought out as Autofocus, but I can now see why it worked so well for him. It gave him a context for all the items in his life and when they occurred. He also was a very hard worker and rarely allowed important items to slip too far back.