Discussion Forum > Getting to goals with an A-book
Mike I think I would use REWARDS instead of VALUES. In my heart of hearts, I value honesty. I believe it is one of the greatest goods. But whether I tell the truth or not in a given situation has to do with rewards and punishments. Simple B.F. Skinner stuff. If I can be thought well of and not punished for misleading someone, I may very well do it even though I still value honesty. Because I have a conscience, I will be grieved by my dishonesty which may change the reward/punishment balance next time. In other words, I may think about how guilty I'll feel if I'm not honest.
I think that's exactly what happens when it comes to task management. If I value my kids, but give way to the quick reward of web surfing rather than reading to them (which can be punishment sometimes - lol), I will feel guilty. Therein lies another aspect of the problem. Those things we most value are not always rewarding. Often they require us to forego reward and even endure punishment. To live according to one's values, we must rise above our carnal natures. Those who believe in nothing but the physical (I am not in this camp) may believe that we aren't capable of rising above our carnal natures. Therefore, values=what you do=what is most rewarding. On the contrary, I believe living according to one's values is a constant battle that I must engage in, no matter how many times I fail.
I think that's exactly what happens when it comes to task management. If I value my kids, but give way to the quick reward of web surfing rather than reading to them (which can be punishment sometimes - lol), I will feel guilty. Therein lies another aspect of the problem. Those things we most value are not always rewarding. Often they require us to forego reward and even endure punishment. To live according to one's values, we must rise above our carnal natures. Those who believe in nothing but the physical (I am not in this camp) may believe that we aren't capable of rising above our carnal natures. Therefore, values=what you do=what is most rewarding. On the contrary, I believe living according to one's values is a constant battle that I must engage in, no matter how many times I fail.
August 11, 2009 at 21:04 |
Mel
Mel
Mel,
You raise an interesting point. I'm going to give it some serious thought. My first take on it is to do a reductio ad absurdum ... that often points me in the right direction.
- I value A
- I do B rather than A
- Because B is more rewarding and/or
- A is more punishing
So I'm thinking, how is it that I can say I value A more? If I don't do it because of a reward/punishment calculation, how can I think that values have any meaning whatsoever? If I come at it that way, the things of highest value to me are the things which give me the most reward. But you have already said that you don't believe that reward (pleasure) is the most important thing. More important are those things you value, like your children. So where does that put us? Reductio ad absurdum, we should do only what gives us immediate gratification and avoid any long term gain that might come with some negative attached to it.
As you said, being human is about seeing into the future and placing long term pleasure above short term.
So as to your honesty example ... that is a seductive one. Yes, it is easy to construct a case where it seems pointless, or even cruel to tell the truth. But honesty is more than about this person and this event at this time. It is about one's own relation to facts. To be honest is to recognize the facts no matter what anyone else thinks or feels. To do otherwise is only to find reasons to not be honest. And if one finds reasons to not be honest, then one is valuing it less than other things. I can't see any way around that.
Well, there have been libraries written about this stuff. I think, in general, values and the operation of them in our ethical systems has to do with US, and not others.
But I'm going to chew on this further ;-)
You raise an interesting point. I'm going to give it some serious thought. My first take on it is to do a reductio ad absurdum ... that often points me in the right direction.
- I value A
- I do B rather than A
- Because B is more rewarding and/or
- A is more punishing
So I'm thinking, how is it that I can say I value A more? If I don't do it because of a reward/punishment calculation, how can I think that values have any meaning whatsoever? If I come at it that way, the things of highest value to me are the things which give me the most reward. But you have already said that you don't believe that reward (pleasure) is the most important thing. More important are those things you value, like your children. So where does that put us? Reductio ad absurdum, we should do only what gives us immediate gratification and avoid any long term gain that might come with some negative attached to it.
As you said, being human is about seeing into the future and placing long term pleasure above short term.
So as to your honesty example ... that is a seductive one. Yes, it is easy to construct a case where it seems pointless, or even cruel to tell the truth. But honesty is more than about this person and this event at this time. It is about one's own relation to facts. To be honest is to recognize the facts no matter what anyone else thinks or feels. To do otherwise is only to find reasons to not be honest. And if one finds reasons to not be honest, then one is valuing it less than other things. I can't see any way around that.
Well, there have been libraries written about this stuff. I think, in general, values and the operation of them in our ethical systems has to do with US, and not others.
But I'm going to chew on this further ;-)
August 11, 2009 at 21:43 |
Mike
Mike
Hi Jacqueline - no I wasn't being facetious although maybe a little tongue in cheek :-) I had not thought of envy in such a positive way - it's like the way procrastination in AF can enable us to look at the reasons for resistance - a positive viewpoint from a negative attribute.
August 11, 2009 at 22:24 |
Christine B
Christine B
Mike/Mel
The whole issue of honesty (or perhaps better related to integrity) is a lot more difficult to pin down than we often realise. I would suspect we would all say that integrity is one of our values and that we can be quite blase in thinking that "truth" is something easily definable and that we know the right thing to do. Whilst I do have very clear opinions in that regard I have found my sense of "black and white" significantly challenged when faced with a parent with dementia asking about their parents. I think learning summed up the dilemma when she referenced not telling a concentration camp cammandant that an escape tunnel was being built - evading the question may not be being honest (as in truthful) but does that breach integrity?
At the end of the day we are all answerable for our maintenance of our levels of integrity - the more we depart from the actions dictated by our conscience the more desensitised our conscience becomes ..........
Interesting debate ........
The whole issue of honesty (or perhaps better related to integrity) is a lot more difficult to pin down than we often realise. I would suspect we would all say that integrity is one of our values and that we can be quite blase in thinking that "truth" is something easily definable and that we know the right thing to do. Whilst I do have very clear opinions in that regard I have found my sense of "black and white" significantly challenged when faced with a parent with dementia asking about their parents. I think learning summed up the dilemma when she referenced not telling a concentration camp cammandant that an escape tunnel was being built - evading the question may not be being honest (as in truthful) but does that breach integrity?
At the end of the day we are all answerable for our maintenance of our levels of integrity - the more we depart from the actions dictated by our conscience the more desensitised our conscience becomes ..........
Interesting debate ........
August 11, 2009 at 22:46 |
Christine B
Christine B
Hi Christine,
In my day we used to call that "lifeboat ethics" ;-) IOW, you can't develop a system of ethics based on what you might have to do in an emergency. And to make it all the more difficult, it begs the question of what is an emergency and who defines it.
To go back to first principles we need to look at how philosophy is organized:
- Metaphysics
- Epistemology
- Ethics
- Politics
in that order. The order is important because that is how what we know aligns with what is. First we consider what is, then we consider how we know, then we consider how we relate to others, then we consider how we relate to society.
With regard to "truth", we must first consider what "is" and how do we know it and are we willing to put that first in our understanding of our universe and our place in it. That is a hell of a tall order and we have not even gotten to the lady next door asking if her coughing annoys us, let alone the concentration camp guards.
Obviously there are cases where the literal recitation of the facts is not what is called for. It depends on circumstance ... but that is a difficult road. If I'm a doctor I'm not going to give a patient just out of unconsciousness some very bad news that is likely to hurt him. My JOB is to help and part of helping is managing the "truth". But I don't do it simply to benefit myself or make myself feel better. I'm "treating" at the time. (And, in that regard, medicine has taken a very wrong turn since the days of the medicine man. In those days, he'd say "Drink this and you'll get better." And you might. Or you might die. No matter, it was the best he had to offer and he was unambiguous about it. Today doctors say: "I don't know for sure. If you take this you have a 53.754% chance of improving. If not, then your chances are only 48.271%. But hell, why not get a second opinion ... I'm probably just a dunce after all." Of course, our insane legal system has had a lot to do with it, but still. If you want to help, tell the person he is going to get better if he follows your advice. He may. Or he may not. But his chances are better if he believes in you. O.K. Pet peeve off. ;-)
Likewise, if a person is going to do me harm, then I'm going to protect myself and just as if I would kill to do it, I would lie as well. In the fist place "killing" is not "murder" and in the second telling a falsehood is not telling a "lie" ... his use of force on me has put him outside of any requirement upon me to respect his life or his right to the truth.
The slope gets very slippery though when we start to apply lifeboat ethics to our everyday lives. If our everyday lives were indeed a lifeboat situation ... our first obligation would be to fix that! So if I continually lie to someone because I don't think they can handle hearing the truth or I want to make life simpler for myself ... the problem is that I'm undermining my own sense of self. I'm essentially saying my feeling comfortable or not stressed is more important than my relation to reality. And worse, as time goes on things just get worse until, someday, I find that I don't even know any longer what is true. I just say whatever works.
In my day we used to call that "lifeboat ethics" ;-) IOW, you can't develop a system of ethics based on what you might have to do in an emergency. And to make it all the more difficult, it begs the question of what is an emergency and who defines it.
To go back to first principles we need to look at how philosophy is organized:
- Metaphysics
- Epistemology
- Ethics
- Politics
in that order. The order is important because that is how what we know aligns with what is. First we consider what is, then we consider how we know, then we consider how we relate to others, then we consider how we relate to society.
With regard to "truth", we must first consider what "is" and how do we know it and are we willing to put that first in our understanding of our universe and our place in it. That is a hell of a tall order and we have not even gotten to the lady next door asking if her coughing annoys us, let alone the concentration camp guards.
Obviously there are cases where the literal recitation of the facts is not what is called for. It depends on circumstance ... but that is a difficult road. If I'm a doctor I'm not going to give a patient just out of unconsciousness some very bad news that is likely to hurt him. My JOB is to help and part of helping is managing the "truth". But I don't do it simply to benefit myself or make myself feel better. I'm "treating" at the time. (And, in that regard, medicine has taken a very wrong turn since the days of the medicine man. In those days, he'd say "Drink this and you'll get better." And you might. Or you might die. No matter, it was the best he had to offer and he was unambiguous about it. Today doctors say: "I don't know for sure. If you take this you have a 53.754% chance of improving. If not, then your chances are only 48.271%. But hell, why not get a second opinion ... I'm probably just a dunce after all." Of course, our insane legal system has had a lot to do with it, but still. If you want to help, tell the person he is going to get better if he follows your advice. He may. Or he may not. But his chances are better if he believes in you. O.K. Pet peeve off. ;-)
Likewise, if a person is going to do me harm, then I'm going to protect myself and just as if I would kill to do it, I would lie as well. In the fist place "killing" is not "murder" and in the second telling a falsehood is not telling a "lie" ... his use of force on me has put him outside of any requirement upon me to respect his life or his right to the truth.
The slope gets very slippery though when we start to apply lifeboat ethics to our everyday lives. If our everyday lives were indeed a lifeboat situation ... our first obligation would be to fix that! So if I continually lie to someone because I don't think they can handle hearing the truth or I want to make life simpler for myself ... the problem is that I'm undermining my own sense of self. I'm essentially saying my feeling comfortable or not stressed is more important than my relation to reality. And worse, as time goes on things just get worse until, someday, I find that I don't even know any longer what is true. I just say whatever works.
August 12, 2009 at 0:14 |
Mike
Mike
Hi Mike
As I say - interesting debate .......... :-) All very valid points - as I said above we all have a responsibility for our integrity and to listen to our conscience and as you say making life simpler by lying would most definitely impact upon that. What is the impact of colouring the truth - or evading the question upon our integrity? In the majority of cases there is often the ability to be truthful and evade the question without causing offence. For example, in the case of the coughing neighbour rather than a lie - "no your coughing does not annoy me" it is easy to say, "well I do hear you but please don't worry about it, I understand how difficult it is for you". I think though that some people would not necessarily consider the need to avoid what they would term "a white lie".
Curious the use of colour references in relation to truth ....... black and white, shades of grey, colouring the truth ...............
I think this is one of those debates which could become circular so as you say - something to chew on :-)
As I say - interesting debate .......... :-) All very valid points - as I said above we all have a responsibility for our integrity and to listen to our conscience and as you say making life simpler by lying would most definitely impact upon that. What is the impact of colouring the truth - or evading the question upon our integrity? In the majority of cases there is often the ability to be truthful and evade the question without causing offence. For example, in the case of the coughing neighbour rather than a lie - "no your coughing does not annoy me" it is easy to say, "well I do hear you but please don't worry about it, I understand how difficult it is for you". I think though that some people would not necessarily consider the need to avoid what they would term "a white lie".
Curious the use of colour references in relation to truth ....... black and white, shades of grey, colouring the truth ...............
I think this is one of those debates which could become circular so as you say - something to chew on :-)
August 12, 2009 at 0:46 |
Christine B
Christine B
I moved to two books - one A book, and one C book, 4 days ago. Here's the stats:
For the C book (using AF1) - no time sensitive tasks, those went in the A book:
- 67 items dismissed
- 55 open items
- 14 items completed in the last 4 days
- 2 items added
For the A book (using AF2 with no dismissal - apart from pre-dismissal):
- 49 items dismissed (including a whole page of writing tasks)
- 10 items added (all were completed)
- 29 items completed (including 3 writing tasks with ease - thanks to "learning as I go"!)
- 60 items open - this seems high, but I'm hoping my son will help with / complete some
My criteria for dismissal the first time was "what can I do in 2 weeks." The second time around was "what can I do in the next couple of weeks that will make the biggest difference, bring me peace of mind that it's taken care of, or that I really enjoy." It reminds me of the advice I try to follow for decluttering - "keep it if it's useful or beautiful."
I'm not dismissing on my A book because most of the work I do on it needs the larger chunk of time I have on weekends.
I've even become motivated at my regular job. I'm choosing my few most important things to do for the day, and after those are done, just picking through my inbox in an AF kind of way, looking for what stands out. I was so unmotivated after coming back from holidays in July and actually have stuff in my inbox to do (only about 25 emails, so it's not a huge backlog), but it was always empty before.
I've only been working on the C book for about 1/2 hour a day, one day I didn't even open it. :-) What having the two separate books does for me is force the conscious thought of "you are choosing to do unimportant things at the expense of what is important." And it does it a lot better than the old Covey A1, A2 way. So far, so good...
For the C book (using AF1) - no time sensitive tasks, those went in the A book:
- 67 items dismissed
- 55 open items
- 14 items completed in the last 4 days
- 2 items added
For the A book (using AF2 with no dismissal - apart from pre-dismissal):
- 49 items dismissed (including a whole page of writing tasks)
- 10 items added (all were completed)
- 29 items completed (including 3 writing tasks with ease - thanks to "learning as I go"!)
- 60 items open - this seems high, but I'm hoping my son will help with / complete some
My criteria for dismissal the first time was "what can I do in 2 weeks." The second time around was "what can I do in the next couple of weeks that will make the biggest difference, bring me peace of mind that it's taken care of, or that I really enjoy." It reminds me of the advice I try to follow for decluttering - "keep it if it's useful or beautiful."
I'm not dismissing on my A book because most of the work I do on it needs the larger chunk of time I have on weekends.
I've even become motivated at my regular job. I'm choosing my few most important things to do for the day, and after those are done, just picking through my inbox in an AF kind of way, looking for what stands out. I was so unmotivated after coming back from holidays in July and actually have stuff in my inbox to do (only about 25 emails, so it's not a huge backlog), but it was always empty before.
I've only been working on the C book for about 1/2 hour a day, one day I didn't even open it. :-) What having the two separate books does for me is force the conscious thought of "you are choosing to do unimportant things at the expense of what is important." And it does it a lot better than the old Covey A1, A2 way. So far, so good...
August 12, 2009 at 4:08 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
Hi Jacqueline
Interesting experiment ..................
I do see the logic of your approach but for me the non-grading of tasks is a key feature. Saying that, AF2 made me realise that I was still grading tasks under AF1 in the way I had been using avoidance tactics "legitimately". My whole use of AF has changed - I had assumed that the number of active items would stabilise somewhere around the 100 to 150 mark but as yet there has only been one day since I started AF2 that my numbers increased (and then only by 2!). I do miss the choice of hundreds of items but am enjoying getting old stuff finally addressed. i think you've always been a lot better at that than me :-)
<<60 items open - this seems high>>
LOL - I have 65 items open - that seems low!!!
Interesting experiment ..................
I do see the logic of your approach but for me the non-grading of tasks is a key feature. Saying that, AF2 made me realise that I was still grading tasks under AF1 in the way I had been using avoidance tactics "legitimately". My whole use of AF has changed - I had assumed that the number of active items would stabilise somewhere around the 100 to 150 mark but as yet there has only been one day since I started AF2 that my numbers increased (and then only by 2!). I do miss the choice of hundreds of items but am enjoying getting old stuff finally addressed. i think you've always been a lot better at that than me :-)
<<60 items open - this seems high>>
LOL - I have 65 items open - that seems low!!!
August 12, 2009 at 5:10 |
Christine B
Christine B
ps Jacqueline
No need to envy the warmth here - not so much warm yesterday as humid:-(
And now I'm seeing the sky turning pink and Venus fading - nice view but I'd rather be sleeping ......... yawn ............. :-)
No need to envy the warmth here - not so much warm yesterday as humid:-(
And now I'm seeing the sky turning pink and Venus fading - nice view but I'd rather be sleeping ......... yawn ............. :-)
August 12, 2009 at 5:13 |
Christine B
Christine B
Good Morning Christine,
Grrrr, do I ever hate this forum software. I lost another post by hitting the backspace key ... sometimes a cat comes up and bumps me and ... whooos, all gone. Grrrrr.
As you say, interesitng debate. Yes, one can avoid the problem by avoiding answering the question: "I'm sure you'll get well soon." The thing is that most people are not interested in what you have to say, let alone the truth. Most people want affirmation, respect, acknowledgemt ... all kinds of things other than the truth. Their quesitons only seed to ferret out those things from us. Sometimes the emotional content is more important.
If you listen to the best politicans you'll see that they speak to those needs as a way to avoid taking a position. Clinton was a master of that:
- "Do you support this new tax?"
- "Well, Mary, it is important that we all work together to assure a better world for our children."
HUH? Yet that works because people don't care about the answer to their stated question in the first place.
Truth = Color ... don't get me started on metaphor ;-)
Grrrr, do I ever hate this forum software. I lost another post by hitting the backspace key ... sometimes a cat comes up and bumps me and ... whooos, all gone. Grrrrr.
As you say, interesitng debate. Yes, one can avoid the problem by avoiding answering the question: "I'm sure you'll get well soon." The thing is that most people are not interested in what you have to say, let alone the truth. Most people want affirmation, respect, acknowledgemt ... all kinds of things other than the truth. Their quesitons only seed to ferret out those things from us. Sometimes the emotional content is more important.
If you listen to the best politicans you'll see that they speak to those needs as a way to avoid taking a position. Clinton was a master of that:
- "Do you support this new tax?"
- "Well, Mary, it is important that we all work together to assure a better world for our children."
HUH? Yet that works because people don't care about the answer to their stated question in the first place.
Truth = Color ... don't get me started on metaphor ;-)
August 12, 2009 at 8:46 |
Mike
Mike
<<Truth = Color ... don't get me started on metaphor ;-) >>
OK Mike - I won't !! :-) LOL
OK Mike - I won't !! :-) LOL
August 12, 2009 at 11:44 |
Christine B
Christine B
Christine, I'm not sure what you mean by this?
>>>the non-grading of tasks is a key feature. Saying that, AF2 made me realise that I was still grading tasks under AF1 in the way I had been using avoidance tactics "legitimately".
Key feature of AF? For what purpose? Do you mean reverse grading tasks under AF1 (by avoiding the important ones)? In effect saying that you "had to take out the garbage before you could leave the house?" (using Lakein's phrasing). I'm confused...
>>>the non-grading of tasks is a key feature. Saying that, AF2 made me realise that I was still grading tasks under AF1 in the way I had been using avoidance tactics "legitimately".
Key feature of AF? For what purpose? Do you mean reverse grading tasks under AF1 (by avoiding the important ones)? In effect saying that you "had to take out the garbage before you could leave the house?" (using Lakein's phrasing). I'm confused...
August 12, 2009 at 14:39 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
Mike, holy moly, I'm not sure I have enough brain cells firing to respond to your post! lol I can say that I do believe that transcending the pull of rewards/punishments to live according to one's highest values is rare, but possible (think Braveheart). As for your discussion of specific instances, I think one always has to look at intent/motive. Our legal system certainly does. Did you shoot someone to prevent him from shooting someone else or because you wanted to take what he had? Of course, we could discuss the issue of whether someone's motives were virtuous or not. Everyone will have a different opinion. Some would be furious not to be told the whole truth by a doctor. Others would be glad. As for honesty, I try to live by "speak the truth in love." I don't always do one aspect of that (either I'm not entirely truthful or not entirely loving), but it is my value. You might assume that I'm not a big fan of "whatever works" ethics and you would be correct. But I also know that this is exactly how most of us live. It's also a very complex world we live in that offers no easy answers to our ethical dilemmas. Judging others' decisions (especially those with different values) is not my job. My guess is we could chew on this subject for a very long time. ;-)
Jacqueline, thanks so much for the update! I realized that the system I use of associated lists is very much like what you're doing. Only A's (time sensitive, important, highly rewarding) tasks go on my main AF list keeping it very streamlined. All the non-time-sensitive tasks that I may not ever get to go on electronic lists by category (blog posts to write, organizing projects to do, etc.). So far, I absolutely love the idea I got from Mike to review these associated lists each week and choose those tasks I'd like to accomplish in the next week. Only these associated-list tasks go on the main list. I don't plan on doing any formal dismissing from these lists. Only during my weekly review will I delete those I no longer wish to do.
Strangely enough I was really enjoying using paper for my main list! I started using the idea of putting tasks on one page and notes on the other. Now I am testing Tony's iPhone app. The biggest advantage of the app so far is the ability to automatically re-add the task to the end (like Andreas's web app). That is a time saver. Time will tell what I end up relying upon.
Jacqueline, thanks so much for the update! I realized that the system I use of associated lists is very much like what you're doing. Only A's (time sensitive, important, highly rewarding) tasks go on my main AF list keeping it very streamlined. All the non-time-sensitive tasks that I may not ever get to go on electronic lists by category (blog posts to write, organizing projects to do, etc.). So far, I absolutely love the idea I got from Mike to review these associated lists each week and choose those tasks I'd like to accomplish in the next week. Only these associated-list tasks go on the main list. I don't plan on doing any formal dismissing from these lists. Only during my weekly review will I delete those I no longer wish to do.
Strangely enough I was really enjoying using paper for my main list! I started using the idea of putting tasks on one page and notes on the other. Now I am testing Tony's iPhone app. The biggest advantage of the app so far is the ability to automatically re-add the task to the end (like Andreas's web app). That is a time saver. Time will tell what I end up relying upon.
August 12, 2009 at 15:20 |
Mel
Mel
Mel, it seems so interesting that you and Mike are basically doing AF condensed, only on a weekly, not daily basis. At the time I was doing AFC, I thought of the regular AF list as my "master list" and my culled tasks as my "hope to do" list. I wasn't as good as I could be at picking the priorities though. I think I knew I could make myself feel good temporarily by crossing off lots of C's.
I don't know, will time end up telling what you rely upon? Or will you just keep adding tools to your tool chest, coming to a better and better mousetrap all the time? I hope that's what I end up doing anyway, ending up with a completely customized system for me.
Seth Godin had a good blog post yesterday that's kind of related to this experimentation we're all doing.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/08/the-scientific-method.html
Here's a paragraph:
"Some people read business books looking for confirmation. I read them in search of disquiet. Confirmation is cheap, easy and ineffective. Restlessness and the scientific method, on the other hand, create a culture of testing and inquiry that can't help but push you forward."
I don't know, will time end up telling what you rely upon? Or will you just keep adding tools to your tool chest, coming to a better and better mousetrap all the time? I hope that's what I end up doing anyway, ending up with a completely customized system for me.
Seth Godin had a good blog post yesterday that's kind of related to this experimentation we're all doing.
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/08/the-scientific-method.html
Here's a paragraph:
"Some people read business books looking for confirmation. I read them in search of disquiet. Confirmation is cheap, easy and ineffective. Restlessness and the scientific method, on the other hand, create a culture of testing and inquiry that can't help but push you forward."
August 12, 2009 at 18:07 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
Hi Jacqueline
What I meant was the fact that under AF1 we were encouraged to put everything into AF - ie without grading - and to let the system (our intuition) sort it for us. That did work really well for me until my lists got too big, and it was with the advent of AF2 that I realised I had inadvertantly created a form of grading by the addition of my "easy" repetitive tasks on each page, such as Coffee; check forum etc. Maybe grading is not strictly correct but I was adding a higher proportion of known non-urgent tasks which then enabled me to procrastinate legitimately. AF2's Line Of Doom does not give an option - it is Do or Die whereas I had got a lot of tasks that were in the "how long can I avoid this for" bracket.
I'm not sure I've explained myself any better - I see why you were confused - I was too when I read it back :-) I'll blame it on the time of day (night!) and lack of sleep!!!
What I meant was the fact that under AF1 we were encouraged to put everything into AF - ie without grading - and to let the system (our intuition) sort it for us. That did work really well for me until my lists got too big, and it was with the advent of AF2 that I realised I had inadvertantly created a form of grading by the addition of my "easy" repetitive tasks on each page, such as Coffee; check forum etc. Maybe grading is not strictly correct but I was adding a higher proportion of known non-urgent tasks which then enabled me to procrastinate legitimately. AF2's Line Of Doom does not give an option - it is Do or Die whereas I had got a lot of tasks that were in the "how long can I avoid this for" bracket.
I'm not sure I've explained myself any better - I see why you were confused - I was too when I read it back :-) I'll blame it on the time of day (night!) and lack of sleep!!!
August 12, 2009 at 18:14 |
Christine B
Christine B
Thanks for that, Jacqueline. I know I have a great need for new challenges in my life. I like to start new programs and then turn them over to someone else. My friends are always just getting into my last "latest and greatest" when I've moved on. lol What's good is that I accept that now as not being a character flaw, but a positive part of my personality. It can make keeping up with repetitive, mundane chores difficult, but even then I try to find new approaches to make them (or rather, me) work. I am using a today list within the FocusPad app right now. I just went through my list and highlighted my hope-to-do's for the day. I really like that they are within the main list (no looking back and forth) and I can't help but peek at the non- hope to do's. You know what will happen. I will get everything but those highlighted tasks done. LOL But it's easy to un-highlight and start over tomorrow or not highlight at all. Hope your day is full of highlights. :-)
August 12, 2009 at 18:28 |
Mel
Mel
Wow! Can't believe how good the 2 book thing is working. I've bought almost everything for my bathroom reno, assembled the hardwood floor in one bedroom, and made beacoup bucks on my client work.
Here's the email I got from our a guy in the tax department down in the states today:
"Wow Jacqueline you rock. Thanks for going the extra mile and out of your way for us to get the w/p’s out."
I can put back on my sign saying "will work for pats on the head." :-)
Unfortunately, my house is getting kind of messy again. :-(
It's time to pay my son to clean it.
Here's the email I got from our a guy in the tax department down in the states today:
"Wow Jacqueline you rock. Thanks for going the extra mile and out of your way for us to get the w/p’s out."
I can put back on my sign saying "will work for pats on the head." :-)
Unfortunately, my house is getting kind of messy again. :-(
It's time to pay my son to clean it.
August 14, 2009 at 3:05 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
Hi Jacq
I'm so GLAD that you're 2 book tweak is working so well for you......and a hearty CONGRATS with your A accomplishments! ! !
"It's time to pay my son to clean it."
ROTFL! ! ! Oh my, it didn't take you long to master the art of delegating the b's and c's while you're knocking out those high-powered a's ! ! !
Learning beaming with pride as she pats Jacq's head!
learning as I go
I'm so GLAD that you're 2 book tweak is working so well for you......and a hearty CONGRATS with your A accomplishments! ! !
"It's time to pay my son to clean it."
ROTFL! ! ! Oh my, it didn't take you long to master the art of delegating the b's and c's while you're knocking out those high-powered a's ! ! !
Learning beaming with pride as she pats Jacq's head!
learning as I go
August 14, 2009 at 4:09 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Oh learning, I'm just sorry to report that I haven't written in the last couple of days. But I've been percolating! Definitely percolating...
I want to "make hay while the sun shines" with the client stuff though. I keep thinking that gravy train will end soon, but it keeps dragging on. It helps to write down how much I'm making every time I fulfil a request - guess you can do that when you work hourly. It helps with the billing too. I've always thought as well that people will work harder for appreciation than they will for money - it's so seldom in life that we get that.
Having the book in hand and telling myself at the 2 hardware stores that I frequent "you are not leaving until you make a decision" on those taps, that flooring, was key. Heheh, even got 50% off on my grout because the box was open.
My 8 y.o. son and I are now doing a C-task - burning my 1994-6 receipts and banking information in the fireplace. I just can't believe I let this stuff linger on this long. It's sad to see how bad I was with money back then (and I was an accountant!) Peter was definitely paying Paul - oh well, you do the best you know how to do at the time, right?
I want to "make hay while the sun shines" with the client stuff though. I keep thinking that gravy train will end soon, but it keeps dragging on. It helps to write down how much I'm making every time I fulfil a request - guess you can do that when you work hourly. It helps with the billing too. I've always thought as well that people will work harder for appreciation than they will for money - it's so seldom in life that we get that.
Having the book in hand and telling myself at the 2 hardware stores that I frequent "you are not leaving until you make a decision" on those taps, that flooring, was key. Heheh, even got 50% off on my grout because the box was open.
My 8 y.o. son and I are now doing a C-task - burning my 1994-6 receipts and banking information in the fireplace. I just can't believe I let this stuff linger on this long. It's sad to see how bad I was with money back then (and I was an accountant!) Peter was definitely paying Paul - oh well, you do the best you know how to do at the time, right?
August 14, 2009 at 4:32 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
(((Jacq))) Don't worry....Ecclesiastes 3.1......
"To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven." CHERISH the percolating perhaps even more than the actual doing........I think of percolating as intuiting that a "seed" has been planted.....percolating is the seed germinating......and I also think of the metaphor of "fallow time" as in rotating crops and letting the land lay as it replenishes itself.
Bottom Line: You'll begin to write forced stuff if you don't indulge the percolating process! LOL! I like having varied interests.....who knows? While you're making the dollars, kneading the bread or hiking up a trail, that might be the precise experience your brain needed to "get" what it needed....or simply the distraction of your conscious mind ruminating and fretting too much about it. This isn't universal fact.....I'm merely relating how the creative process cycles in and out of my exeriencing life.
I, too, burn my culled files when I'm doing them year end file purge! LOL! Otherwise, I feed my shredder incrementally with the mail and my copious journaling notes.....*blush*
Don't be too hard on yourself.....It's the plumber who has the leaky faucet.....by the time we get off the job, we don't want to do more of the same thing for free! LOL!
learning as I go
"To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven." CHERISH the percolating perhaps even more than the actual doing........I think of percolating as intuiting that a "seed" has been planted.....percolating is the seed germinating......and I also think of the metaphor of "fallow time" as in rotating crops and letting the land lay as it replenishes itself.
Bottom Line: You'll begin to write forced stuff if you don't indulge the percolating process! LOL! I like having varied interests.....who knows? While you're making the dollars, kneading the bread or hiking up a trail, that might be the precise experience your brain needed to "get" what it needed....or simply the distraction of your conscious mind ruminating and fretting too much about it. This isn't universal fact.....I'm merely relating how the creative process cycles in and out of my exeriencing life.
I, too, burn my culled files when I'm doing them year end file purge! LOL! Otherwise, I feed my shredder incrementally with the mail and my copious journaling notes.....*blush*
Don't be too hard on yourself.....It's the plumber who has the leaky faucet.....by the time we get off the job, we don't want to do more of the same thing for free! LOL!
learning as I go
August 14, 2009 at 5:16 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
p,s,
Odd thing about me.....when I did my talents because of pure inspiration, appreciation and money were secondary.......I was hoping to create and share as my prime motive....yet when I was expecting to be paid, I valued the money over the appreciation except for references and repeat business. I mad money to live.....gave away way more than I ever kept.....but when I was "selling" my passions, no amount was too much! LOL! I guess my Bohemian spirit ruled more than worldly ambitions....You're making money to garner your FREEDOM......the really worthy pats on the head will come in the form of worthy people feeling grateful to know you...not some boss or fan....It didn't take me long to learn that.
learning as I go
Odd thing about me.....when I did my talents because of pure inspiration, appreciation and money were secondary.......I was hoping to create and share as my prime motive....yet when I was expecting to be paid, I valued the money over the appreciation except for references and repeat business. I mad money to live.....gave away way more than I ever kept.....but when I was "selling" my passions, no amount was too much! LOL! I guess my Bohemian spirit ruled more than worldly ambitions....You're making money to garner your FREEDOM......the really worthy pats on the head will come in the form of worthy people feeling grateful to know you...not some boss or fan....It didn't take me long to learn that.
learning as I go
August 14, 2009 at 5:28 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
p.s.s. When your prime connection to people is them enamoured and/or admiring what you're doing...............they run like rats from a sinking ship when you can't do these things anymore.........Believe me.......I know that , Hell, some even resent you for no longer having the talent or the reputation.....worse....the guilt of having to look at you stipped of your glory....stripped of your future......like I chose this? ROTFL!
learning
learning
August 14, 2009 at 5:35 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
(((Jacq)))
Bottom Line: just be what you ARE as often as life allows it.....make the bucks to secure your freedom and to help others out.....but don't feel guilty about doing what you naturally are......only push yourself with your passions during those times you "sold a piece of it" and have to make a deadline or need to appease the bread butterer! LOL! These things come in waves and cycles when you're not under a contract LOL!
learning as I go
Bottom Line: just be what you ARE as often as life allows it.....make the bucks to secure your freedom and to help others out.....but don't feel guilty about doing what you naturally are......only push yourself with your passions during those times you "sold a piece of it" and have to make a deadline or need to appease the bread butterer! LOL! These things come in waves and cycles when you're not under a contract LOL!
learning as I go
August 14, 2009 at 5:43 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Can anyone give us a thumbnail definition of As and Cs? And Bs and Ds, too, if helpful.
Sorry if I've missed it in this thread. I haven't been following it, I admit, because I strongly resist the idea of separate lists - let alone separate books - for different types of task.
Chris
Sorry if I've missed it in this thread. I haven't been following it, I admit, because I strongly resist the idea of separate lists - let alone separate books - for different types of task.
Chris
August 14, 2009 at 8:24 |
Chris Cooper
Chris Cooper
Chris,
>>> Can anyone give us a thumbnail definition of As and Cs? And Bs and Ds, too, if helpful. <<<
They are priorities and so have no deffinition beyond that. If you have 10 tasks to do you pick the top three. Then of that three you decide which is the TOP priority and that is an "A", the next is a "B", and the third is a "C". You do that for each "area" of your life and this gives you a list of several A, B, and C tasks. You then examine the B tasks, and triage them as well. You sort them into the A and C lists according to importance then forget about the C list and go to work on the A list. Basically, when you are done, you have a list of things you WILL do and the rest you will NOT do ... at least until you do the exercise again.
The whole point of this is to get OUT of your view anything that is not "important", however you personally define that. In Covery terminology it is identifying everything's quadrant, then combining Q1 and Q3, the urgent tasks, trashing the Q4 tasks, and working primarily on the Q2 while doing the Q1&Q3 tasks as you need to.
This whole concept works somewhat against the AF system in that you do not just put a mixture of everything in one big list and let circumstance sort it out. I think it pays to face that fact up front. You will be applying AF to a subset of things you want to do rather than letting AF make the choices for you.
>>> Sorry if I've missed it in this thread. I haven't been following it, I admit, because I strongly resist the idea of separate lists - let alone separate books - for different types of task. <<<
I do as well. But I do like the principle. In my case, I simply decide what I'll work on this week and what I won't. The former go on the AF list and the rest onto my someday/maybe list. In my weekly review, I go through everything and reset.
>>> Can anyone give us a thumbnail definition of As and Cs? And Bs and Ds, too, if helpful. <<<
They are priorities and so have no deffinition beyond that. If you have 10 tasks to do you pick the top three. Then of that three you decide which is the TOP priority and that is an "A", the next is a "B", and the third is a "C". You do that for each "area" of your life and this gives you a list of several A, B, and C tasks. You then examine the B tasks, and triage them as well. You sort them into the A and C lists according to importance then forget about the C list and go to work on the A list. Basically, when you are done, you have a list of things you WILL do and the rest you will NOT do ... at least until you do the exercise again.
The whole point of this is to get OUT of your view anything that is not "important", however you personally define that. In Covery terminology it is identifying everything's quadrant, then combining Q1 and Q3, the urgent tasks, trashing the Q4 tasks, and working primarily on the Q2 while doing the Q1&Q3 tasks as you need to.
This whole concept works somewhat against the AF system in that you do not just put a mixture of everything in one big list and let circumstance sort it out. I think it pays to face that fact up front. You will be applying AF to a subset of things you want to do rather than letting AF make the choices for you.
>>> Sorry if I've missed it in this thread. I haven't been following it, I admit, because I strongly resist the idea of separate lists - let alone separate books - for different types of task. <<<
I do as well. But I do like the principle. In my case, I simply decide what I'll work on this week and what I won't. The former go on the AF list and the rest onto my someday/maybe list. In my weekly review, I go through everything and reset.
August 14, 2009 at 10:09 |
Mike
Mike
Mike wrote:
"This whole concept works somewhat against the AF system in that you do not just put a mixture of everything in one big list and let circumstance sort it out. I think it pays to face that fact up front. You will be applying AF to a subset of things you want to do rather than letting AF make the choices for you."
AFAIK it isn't 'circumstance' which sorts out the list, but our intuition. Leaving it to circumstance would be tantamount to using GTD style contexts, which probably wouldn't work well at all with AF (although I am sure somebody, somewhere is doing just that!)
Grading items ABC according to one's rational assessment of their importance certainly does work against AF, both in spirit and in practice. I think there are several reasons why AF doesn't grade items in this way:
- it prevents your intuition from telling you what is truly important. Presumably the ABC people actually want to do this. But for anyone who has benefitted from the way that AF allows intuition to play its part, the ABC system would be a mistake.
- it creates resistance (though admittedly some people thrive on knowing that they are tackling the big ticket tasks - but they probably don't really need AF to start with!) I think one of the major aims of AF is to dissolve our resistance to doing things that seem intimidating - labelling tasks ABC makes them more intimidating, not less.
- it complicates things by having more than one list (as Chris and Mike have already said). Everyone who comments on it seems to like the simplicity of AF, so I think we should be very very careful only to add complications when truly necessary. Perhaps I just don't like tweaking systems - I have only made one change, quite recently, which is to have separate lists for different locations. This is something Mark actually recommended to other people right from the start (okay, I was a little slow there!)
What I find interesting is why the ABC system should even be necessary, when AF already gives us permission to deem any item on the list a 'priority' simply by virtue of it standing out or not, and then to work on it for as long as we want.
If something we regard as important never actually stands out, that tells us that something is out of kilter. Either we are fooling ourselves about its importance, relative to everything else in our lives, or we are not letting our intuition select it when we read through the list. On seeing that, I would probably cross it through and add an item to re-evaluate my goals - and then see if that stands out! Admittedly, I don't do a lot of thinking about goals - but that maybe because I 'kind of' know what they are without thinking too much about it - the occasional chat with friends over a glass of wine is usually as much of a re-evaluation as I need.
I am writing from the position of a born again OAF- that's Original AF - I have used AF1, then RAF, on and off, for several months. Watching as the system evolved from AF to AF2 and RAF, not to mention all the tweaks people have written about along the way, I am even more impressed at how well OAF deals with everything very effectively by itself.
"This whole concept works somewhat against the AF system in that you do not just put a mixture of everything in one big list and let circumstance sort it out. I think it pays to face that fact up front. You will be applying AF to a subset of things you want to do rather than letting AF make the choices for you."
AFAIK it isn't 'circumstance' which sorts out the list, but our intuition. Leaving it to circumstance would be tantamount to using GTD style contexts, which probably wouldn't work well at all with AF (although I am sure somebody, somewhere is doing just that!)
Grading items ABC according to one's rational assessment of their importance certainly does work against AF, both in spirit and in practice. I think there are several reasons why AF doesn't grade items in this way:
- it prevents your intuition from telling you what is truly important. Presumably the ABC people actually want to do this. But for anyone who has benefitted from the way that AF allows intuition to play its part, the ABC system would be a mistake.
- it creates resistance (though admittedly some people thrive on knowing that they are tackling the big ticket tasks - but they probably don't really need AF to start with!) I think one of the major aims of AF is to dissolve our resistance to doing things that seem intimidating - labelling tasks ABC makes them more intimidating, not less.
- it complicates things by having more than one list (as Chris and Mike have already said). Everyone who comments on it seems to like the simplicity of AF, so I think we should be very very careful only to add complications when truly necessary. Perhaps I just don't like tweaking systems - I have only made one change, quite recently, which is to have separate lists for different locations. This is something Mark actually recommended to other people right from the start (okay, I was a little slow there!)
What I find interesting is why the ABC system should even be necessary, when AF already gives us permission to deem any item on the list a 'priority' simply by virtue of it standing out or not, and then to work on it for as long as we want.
If something we regard as important never actually stands out, that tells us that something is out of kilter. Either we are fooling ourselves about its importance, relative to everything else in our lives, or we are not letting our intuition select it when we read through the list. On seeing that, I would probably cross it through and add an item to re-evaluate my goals - and then see if that stands out! Admittedly, I don't do a lot of thinking about goals - but that maybe because I 'kind of' know what they are without thinking too much about it - the occasional chat with friends over a glass of wine is usually as much of a re-evaluation as I need.
I am writing from the position of a born again OAF- that's Original AF - I have used AF1, then RAF, on and off, for several months. Watching as the system evolved from AF to AF2 and RAF, not to mention all the tweaks people have written about along the way, I am even more impressed at how well OAF deals with everything very effectively by itself.
August 14, 2009 at 12:51 |
acedia
acedia
Hi acedia,
Your intuition's ability to choose what will move your life forward and being able to define what's important must be much better developed than mine. The essential problem - which I mentioned in the first posting - is that relatively unimportant "C's" tend to dominate my list. Put something on a list in front of me, and I will do it without really thinking about it much.
The A-book hasn't created resistance, it's removed it. It's precisely *because* A tasks are, by their very nature, more difficult to do than C's that they are resisted - so your intuition will often "pick" an easy C (that may have no real impact on your life) to do over the worthwhile A. At least mine does.
It uncomplicates things *for me* because I'm not even looking at what's not particularly value added when I look at that A-book. When I work off of the C-book, it's because I've said to myself 'you've done enough of the hard, fulfilling work today, let's do some maintenance stuff'. Or because nothing's really standing out in the A book right then.
You've said before that you don't really have written or conscious goals that you are working towards. I've been like that in the past too, and drifted along just reacting to whatever comes up. It doesn't work well - *for me*. I have big dreams and hopes - and they don't include seeing on my tombstone one day "her house was really clean."
Yes, eventually those high value tasks were getting done using regular AF. Probably about 4 times longer than they would using an A-book. Personally, I was spending 80% of my time doing things that had the least value. I want to flip that around and spend 80% of my time on the 20% that have the most value. Why anyone wouldn't want to do that is beyond my understanding.
In the discussion on goals eons ago between Mark and Mike, Mark indicated that consciously working on his goals never really worked for him. Well, it HAS worked for me, and extremely well too. Scheduling just stopped working for me in the way that it did years ago when I had less responsibilities. It's just so much easier doing it with AF and the A-book than with scheduling, which makes it feel more like you're pushing yourself.
Time will tell if I can maintain this enthusiasm and this pace. I certainly hope so. As Shaw said "I want to be all used up when I die." And he also said "life isn't about finding yourself, it's about creating yourself."
Your intuition's ability to choose what will move your life forward and being able to define what's important must be much better developed than mine. The essential problem - which I mentioned in the first posting - is that relatively unimportant "C's" tend to dominate my list. Put something on a list in front of me, and I will do it without really thinking about it much.
The A-book hasn't created resistance, it's removed it. It's precisely *because* A tasks are, by their very nature, more difficult to do than C's that they are resisted - so your intuition will often "pick" an easy C (that may have no real impact on your life) to do over the worthwhile A. At least mine does.
It uncomplicates things *for me* because I'm not even looking at what's not particularly value added when I look at that A-book. When I work off of the C-book, it's because I've said to myself 'you've done enough of the hard, fulfilling work today, let's do some maintenance stuff'. Or because nothing's really standing out in the A book right then.
You've said before that you don't really have written or conscious goals that you are working towards. I've been like that in the past too, and drifted along just reacting to whatever comes up. It doesn't work well - *for me*. I have big dreams and hopes - and they don't include seeing on my tombstone one day "her house was really clean."
Yes, eventually those high value tasks were getting done using regular AF. Probably about 4 times longer than they would using an A-book. Personally, I was spending 80% of my time doing things that had the least value. I want to flip that around and spend 80% of my time on the 20% that have the most value. Why anyone wouldn't want to do that is beyond my understanding.
In the discussion on goals eons ago between Mark and Mike, Mark indicated that consciously working on his goals never really worked for him. Well, it HAS worked for me, and extremely well too. Scheduling just stopped working for me in the way that it did years ago when I had less responsibilities. It's just so much easier doing it with AF and the A-book than with scheduling, which makes it feel more like you're pushing yourself.
Time will tell if I can maintain this enthusiasm and this pace. I certainly hope so. As Shaw said "I want to be all used up when I die." And he also said "life isn't about finding yourself, it's about creating yourself."
August 14, 2009 at 14:03 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
Acedia,
>>> "This whole concept works somewhat against the AF system in that you do not just put a mixture of everything in one big list and let circumstance sort it out. I think it pays to face that fact up front. You will be applying AF to a subset of things you want to do rather than letting AF make the choices for you."
AFAIK it isn't 'circumstance' which sorts out the list, but our intuition. Leaving it to circumstance would be tantamount to using GTD style contexts, which probably wouldn't work well at all with AF (although I am sure somebody, somewhere is doing just that!) <<<
Actually, I chose that word carefully. I wanted to avoid the use of the word "intuition" because I think it has begun to have the status of a "buzz word" ... one where people start using it because it gets nods of appreciation from the clergy ... though no one knows what it really means. For me, "intuition" has much to do with rational thought and choce and planning. But then you can search the archives for more on that ;-)
As to GtD, yes, people have tweaked AF to use contexts.
>>> Grading items ABC according to one's rational assessment of their importance certainly does work against AF, both in spirit and in practice. I think there are several reasons why AF doesn't grade items in this way:
- it prevents your intuition from telling you what is truly important. Presumably the ABC people actually want to do this. But for anyone who has benefitted from the way that AF allows intuition to play its part, the ABC system would be a mistake. <<<
I don't think that is entirely true. One's intuition is involved in grading the tasks in the first place. What it does do is nail down what is important so importance does not seem to change based on how we feel from moment to moment. If we don't decide what is important, then surfing the web can seem more important than putting out the house fire ... because we don't want to deal with the stress of firemen and insurance companies.
>>> - it creates resistance (though admittedly some people thrive on knowing that they are tackling the big ticket tasks - but they probably don't really need AF to start with!) I think one of the major aims of AF is to dissolve our resistance to doing things that seem intimidating - labelling tasks ABC makes them more intimidating, not less. <<<
I do not find that to be true ... for me. I have just as much resistance to something unprioritized as one prioritized. After all, I know what is entaileld ... I don't need that letter in front to tell me that. The letter only tells me that it is important and I should focus on it.
>>> - it complicates things by having more than one list (as Chris and Mike have already said).
Well, prioritizing does not imply multiple lists. I prioritize and I have only one list.
>>> Everyone who comments on it seems to like the simplicity of AF, so I think we should be very very careful only to add complications when truly necessary. <<<
Yes, and some have decided that tweaking is necessary ... and others have decided that priority is an important tweak for them.
>>> Perhaps I just don't like tweaking systems -
That could be. I'm the opposite. I see no system as perfect for my needs. I take what I can use and merge it into other things I've found elsewhere.
>>> I have only made one change, quite recently, which is to have separate lists for different locations.
Which are those multiple lists you don't like. ;-)
>>> This is something Mark actually recommended to other people right from the start (okay, I was a little slow there!) <<<
LOL ;-)
>>> What I find interesting is why the ABC system should even be necessary, when AF already gives us permission to deem any item on the list a 'priority' simply by virtue of it standing out or not, and then to work on it for as long as we want. <<<
The point is that "standing out" and "being worked on" are two different things. Moreover, it is often the case that what stands out are the unimportant things.
>>> If something we regard as important never actually stands out, that tells us that something is out of kilter. <<<
Exactly why the tweak was made. In addition, as I mentioned, Jacqueline's tweak had more to do with unimportant things "standing out". Removing them from the list stops that.
>>> Either we are fooling ourselves about its importance, relative to everything else in our lives, or we are not letting our intuition select it when we read through the list. <<<
See that is where I see the confusion. My intuition can tell me it is important before I prioritize it. My intuition can tell me it is important if it is not prioritized. What my intuition can't do is make me work on it.
>>> On seeing that, I would probably cross it through and add an item to re-evaluate my goals - and then see if that stands out! Admittedly, I don't do a lot of thinking about goals - but that maybe because I 'kind of' know what they are without thinking too much about it - the occasional chat with friends over a glass of wine is usually as much of a re-evaluation as I need. <<<
See, but "reevaluating goals" is a type of prioritization.
>>> I am writing from the position of a born again OAF- that's Original AF - I have used AF1, then RAF, on and off, for several months. Watching as the system evolved from AF to AF2 and RAF, not to mention all the tweaks people have written about along the way, I am even more impressed at how well OAF deals with everything very effectively by itself. <<<
I think that you really ought to have said: "... how well it deals with everything by itself ... FOR ME." What you have is a number of people describing what has not worked and what they have done about it. I'm not sure what the point is to arguing with them about what works for them and what does not. Trust me, it's frustrating. I recently went thorugh a long thread where people were telling me that AF2 really worked for me ... I just needed to get over myself ;-) No biggie, I just ignored them and went ahead to find something that worked.
>>> "This whole concept works somewhat against the AF system in that you do not just put a mixture of everything in one big list and let circumstance sort it out. I think it pays to face that fact up front. You will be applying AF to a subset of things you want to do rather than letting AF make the choices for you."
AFAIK it isn't 'circumstance' which sorts out the list, but our intuition. Leaving it to circumstance would be tantamount to using GTD style contexts, which probably wouldn't work well at all with AF (although I am sure somebody, somewhere is doing just that!) <<<
Actually, I chose that word carefully. I wanted to avoid the use of the word "intuition" because I think it has begun to have the status of a "buzz word" ... one where people start using it because it gets nods of appreciation from the clergy ... though no one knows what it really means. For me, "intuition" has much to do with rational thought and choce and planning. But then you can search the archives for more on that ;-)
As to GtD, yes, people have tweaked AF to use contexts.
>>> Grading items ABC according to one's rational assessment of their importance certainly does work against AF, both in spirit and in practice. I think there are several reasons why AF doesn't grade items in this way:
- it prevents your intuition from telling you what is truly important. Presumably the ABC people actually want to do this. But for anyone who has benefitted from the way that AF allows intuition to play its part, the ABC system would be a mistake. <<<
I don't think that is entirely true. One's intuition is involved in grading the tasks in the first place. What it does do is nail down what is important so importance does not seem to change based on how we feel from moment to moment. If we don't decide what is important, then surfing the web can seem more important than putting out the house fire ... because we don't want to deal with the stress of firemen and insurance companies.
>>> - it creates resistance (though admittedly some people thrive on knowing that they are tackling the big ticket tasks - but they probably don't really need AF to start with!) I think one of the major aims of AF is to dissolve our resistance to doing things that seem intimidating - labelling tasks ABC makes them more intimidating, not less. <<<
I do not find that to be true ... for me. I have just as much resistance to something unprioritized as one prioritized. After all, I know what is entaileld ... I don't need that letter in front to tell me that. The letter only tells me that it is important and I should focus on it.
>>> - it complicates things by having more than one list (as Chris and Mike have already said).
Well, prioritizing does not imply multiple lists. I prioritize and I have only one list.
>>> Everyone who comments on it seems to like the simplicity of AF, so I think we should be very very careful only to add complications when truly necessary. <<<
Yes, and some have decided that tweaking is necessary ... and others have decided that priority is an important tweak for them.
>>> Perhaps I just don't like tweaking systems -
That could be. I'm the opposite. I see no system as perfect for my needs. I take what I can use and merge it into other things I've found elsewhere.
>>> I have only made one change, quite recently, which is to have separate lists for different locations.
Which are those multiple lists you don't like. ;-)
>>> This is something Mark actually recommended to other people right from the start (okay, I was a little slow there!) <<<
LOL ;-)
>>> What I find interesting is why the ABC system should even be necessary, when AF already gives us permission to deem any item on the list a 'priority' simply by virtue of it standing out or not, and then to work on it for as long as we want. <<<
The point is that "standing out" and "being worked on" are two different things. Moreover, it is often the case that what stands out are the unimportant things.
>>> If something we regard as important never actually stands out, that tells us that something is out of kilter. <<<
Exactly why the tweak was made. In addition, as I mentioned, Jacqueline's tweak had more to do with unimportant things "standing out". Removing them from the list stops that.
>>> Either we are fooling ourselves about its importance, relative to everything else in our lives, or we are not letting our intuition select it when we read through the list. <<<
See that is where I see the confusion. My intuition can tell me it is important before I prioritize it. My intuition can tell me it is important if it is not prioritized. What my intuition can't do is make me work on it.
>>> On seeing that, I would probably cross it through and add an item to re-evaluate my goals - and then see if that stands out! Admittedly, I don't do a lot of thinking about goals - but that maybe because I 'kind of' know what they are without thinking too much about it - the occasional chat with friends over a glass of wine is usually as much of a re-evaluation as I need. <<<
See, but "reevaluating goals" is a type of prioritization.
>>> I am writing from the position of a born again OAF- that's Original AF - I have used AF1, then RAF, on and off, for several months. Watching as the system evolved from AF to AF2 and RAF, not to mention all the tweaks people have written about along the way, I am even more impressed at how well OAF deals with everything very effectively by itself. <<<
I think that you really ought to have said: "... how well it deals with everything by itself ... FOR ME." What you have is a number of people describing what has not worked and what they have done about it. I'm not sure what the point is to arguing with them about what works for them and what does not. Trust me, it's frustrating. I recently went thorugh a long thread where people were telling me that AF2 really worked for me ... I just needed to get over myself ;-) No biggie, I just ignored them and went ahead to find something that worked.
August 14, 2009 at 14:42 |
Mike
Mike
Acedia, my problem with OAF was adding everything to the list. I have a large home. I can fill up several pages just walking through my house. That closet needs to be organized, I need to wash those walls, that cabinet needs decluttering. Add to that the number of books I want to read, blog posts I want to write and you've got a great big mess! The problem is none of those things was a priority.
I DO believe in letting our intuition choose the right tasks to do, but when your list is cluttered with hundreds of tasks, most of them not priority (what Jacqueline calls Cs), the system breaks down. At least it does for me. I need to be able to get through my whole list every day and I need my list to be free of too many of these "would be nice to do" type tasks and ideas.
My current approach is to have associated lists. In a sense this is a someday/maybe list but broken down by categories such as organizing, blog posts to write, books to read, not urgent errands to run, etc. Anything within those categories that is time-sensitive goes on my main list. So if I have to read a book to get ready for the lit class I'm teaching Thursday, it goes on the main list. Otherwise, I just have READ on my main list.
A new tweak I've added to my approach that I absolutely love is to review my associated lists at the beginning of each week to determine which of these non-urgent tasks I'd like to complete in the coming week. Using READ as an example, I review my associated book list and choose a book or two that I am committed to reading in the coming week. I write it next to READ in my main AF list. I have been testing the FocusPad iphone app this week and this app makes this method ideal. If I want to read two books this week, I can have two titles written next to READ and can keep duplicating that task without re-typing for as long as it takes. If I finish one book and not the other, I can just edit the task and remove the completed book.
This approach gives me the perfect way of determining which of my A's should be done now while continuing to make progress on C's. To me, it really is a GTD/AF combination. What I do NOT do, however, is think, "I'm at the computer. Where's my computer list?" That kind of contextual task management just seems silly to me because I have access to a computer most of the time. Instead, I have "Process starred email tasks" on my main AF list and if there are emails that are time-sensitive and/or very important, I add them directly to the list. It keeps things from falling through the cracks. My list (would it be a paper list) would only be 7-8 pages long. Very manageable! But one thing I have learned is to each one's own. If OAF works beautifully for you, keep at it!
I DO believe in letting our intuition choose the right tasks to do, but when your list is cluttered with hundreds of tasks, most of them not priority (what Jacqueline calls Cs), the system breaks down. At least it does for me. I need to be able to get through my whole list every day and I need my list to be free of too many of these "would be nice to do" type tasks and ideas.
My current approach is to have associated lists. In a sense this is a someday/maybe list but broken down by categories such as organizing, blog posts to write, books to read, not urgent errands to run, etc. Anything within those categories that is time-sensitive goes on my main list. So if I have to read a book to get ready for the lit class I'm teaching Thursday, it goes on the main list. Otherwise, I just have READ on my main list.
A new tweak I've added to my approach that I absolutely love is to review my associated lists at the beginning of each week to determine which of these non-urgent tasks I'd like to complete in the coming week. Using READ as an example, I review my associated book list and choose a book or two that I am committed to reading in the coming week. I write it next to READ in my main AF list. I have been testing the FocusPad iphone app this week and this app makes this method ideal. If I want to read two books this week, I can have two titles written next to READ and can keep duplicating that task without re-typing for as long as it takes. If I finish one book and not the other, I can just edit the task and remove the completed book.
This approach gives me the perfect way of determining which of my A's should be done now while continuing to make progress on C's. To me, it really is a GTD/AF combination. What I do NOT do, however, is think, "I'm at the computer. Where's my computer list?" That kind of contextual task management just seems silly to me because I have access to a computer most of the time. Instead, I have "Process starred email tasks" on my main AF list and if there are emails that are time-sensitive and/or very important, I add them directly to the list. It keeps things from falling through the cracks. My list (would it be a paper list) would only be 7-8 pages long. Very manageable! But one thing I have learned is to each one's own. If OAF works beautifully for you, keep at it!
August 14, 2009 at 14:46 |
Mel
Mel
Jacqueline and Mike:
I am sorry if my post made you feel that I was telling you what 'should' work for you - I have been reading this forum long enough to know that you have both gone through many permutations of the different versions of AF and its tweaks. Clearly you are each the expert on what works for you, and this applies equally to everyone else here, both those who post and those who only read. We are all trying to find the best way of working, that suits our personalities and our circumstances. Again, I apologise if my post didn't sufficiently acknowledge that.
Best wishes,
acedia
I am sorry if my post made you feel that I was telling you what 'should' work for you - I have been reading this forum long enough to know that you have both gone through many permutations of the different versions of AF and its tweaks. Clearly you are each the expert on what works for you, and this applies equally to everyone else here, both those who post and those who only read. We are all trying to find the best way of working, that suits our personalities and our circumstances. Again, I apologise if my post didn't sufficiently acknowledge that.
Best wishes,
acedia
August 14, 2009 at 14:55 |
acedia
acedia
Hi Mel
Although I'm not an AF'er (I'm a weekly hybrid quasi-DITer), I was struck by your culled weekly aims list being 7-8 pages long ! How many items per page? And are the items broken down into single tasks to make it that long? My weekly MIT plug in sheet is RARELY more than one page...at most a couple of lines into page 2) But I realy list each task. I think in categories, therefore, I list in categories as well. Could that be the cause of the discrepancy of the size of our "weekly aims" lists?
learning as I go
Although I'm not an AF'er (I'm a weekly hybrid quasi-DITer), I was struck by your culled weekly aims list being 7-8 pages long ! How many items per page? And are the items broken down into single tasks to make it that long? My weekly MIT plug in sheet is RARELY more than one page...at most a couple of lines into page 2) But I realy list each task. I think in categories, therefore, I list in categories as well. Could that be the cause of the discrepancy of the size of our "weekly aims" lists?
learning as I go
August 14, 2009 at 15:02 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
type....."realy" should read "rarely really" list each task....*blush*
August 14, 2009 at 15:06 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Mel,
Thanks for your reply.
One of Mark's earlier comments that I treasure is the importance of saying NO to things. If I walk through my house, I also see many things that 'could' be done, but I say 'no' to them, just as, in other circumstances, I might have to say 'no' to a work colleague trying to hand off a project to me. So most of those things won't even make it onto the list. In other words, my AF list is not a list of everything I might ever want to do. I don't have such a list. When something matters, then it goes on the list. Currently, my guest bedroom is a dumping ground and will stay that way until either there is nothing else to do (unlikely this century!) or I have a guest coming to stay - then I will add it to the list and deal with it as and when it stands out.
Sadly, after investigating several time-management / productivity systems, it seems to me that none of them enable one to do more than is humanly possible! As I have limited capacity, I am focussing on limiting the amount I attempt to do - simplifying my life, as I think it was fashionably called, a few years ago.
May we all succeed at what we do, by AF or any other means!
Best wishes,
acedia
Thanks for your reply.
One of Mark's earlier comments that I treasure is the importance of saying NO to things. If I walk through my house, I also see many things that 'could' be done, but I say 'no' to them, just as, in other circumstances, I might have to say 'no' to a work colleague trying to hand off a project to me. So most of those things won't even make it onto the list. In other words, my AF list is not a list of everything I might ever want to do. I don't have such a list. When something matters, then it goes on the list. Currently, my guest bedroom is a dumping ground and will stay that way until either there is nothing else to do (unlikely this century!) or I have a guest coming to stay - then I will add it to the list and deal with it as and when it stands out.
Sadly, after investigating several time-management / productivity systems, it seems to me that none of them enable one to do more than is humanly possible! As I have limited capacity, I am focussing on limiting the amount I attempt to do - simplifying my life, as I think it was fashionably called, a few years ago.
May we all succeed at what we do, by AF or any other means!
Best wishes,
acedia
August 14, 2009 at 15:10 |
acedia
acedia
Hi Acedia,
>>> Again, I apologise if my post didn't sufficiently acknowledge that. <<<
Oh, don't feel as if anyone got their nose out of joint. I was just pointing out something that seems to be human nature with this kind of thing. Once something really really works for you, it seems insane that not every one is jumping on the band wagon. And that is just because we are all different.
Again, it's all good. Mel posted in another thread a very succinct way of looking at the differences with the "someday/maybe" items ... which is similar to the C items as well. It might bear reading.
>>> Again, I apologise if my post didn't sufficiently acknowledge that. <<<
Oh, don't feel as if anyone got their nose out of joint. I was just pointing out something that seems to be human nature with this kind of thing. Once something really really works for you, it seems insane that not every one is jumping on the band wagon. And that is just because we are all different.
Again, it's all good. Mel posted in another thread a very succinct way of looking at the differences with the "someday/maybe" items ... which is similar to the C items as well. It might bear reading.
August 14, 2009 at 18:00 |
Mike
Mike
Learning,
>>> I think in categories, therefore, I list in categories as well. <<<
Another way in which our minds run along the same track ;-) When I read that I wondered if that was what attracted me to GtD. Perhaps context lists, to me, seemed to be just categorizing tasks and that was very natural. But when I tried to implement it, I saw that it was categorization based on no reasonable principle -- which is almost a contradiction in terms.
>>> I think in categories, therefore, I list in categories as well. <<<
Another way in which our minds run along the same track ;-) When I read that I wondered if that was what attracted me to GtD. Perhaps context lists, to me, seemed to be just categorizing tasks and that was very natural. But when I tried to implement it, I saw that it was categorization based on no reasonable principle -- which is almost a contradiction in terms.
August 14, 2009 at 18:11 |
Mike
Mike
Hi Mike
Agreed!
learning as I go
Agreed!
learning as I go
August 14, 2009 at 18:15 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Mike, your compliment is much appreciated by my Sanguine self today. :-) I definitely think in categories, too. I love to organize. I just don't like running on a wheel to manage my system once it's set up. I have to create an interesting obstacle course instead. That's why AF works so beautifully for me as does my current set up.
Acedia, if you don't put everything on your list, I can see why AF1 works so well for you. Before switching to AF2 and then RAF, I was doing fine with AF1 by using my associated lists. No single list can tolerate everything my ADD brain shells out. lol
I am so thankful to Mark for devising such a simple TM approach that can work for so many different people in so many contexts. And he made it free no less!
Acedia, if you don't put everything on your list, I can see why AF1 works so well for you. Before switching to AF2 and then RAF, I was doing fine with AF1 by using my associated lists. No single list can tolerate everything my ADD brain shells out. lol
I am so thankful to Mark for devising such a simple TM approach that can work for so many different people in so many contexts. And he made it free no less!
August 14, 2009 at 20:07 |
Mel
Mel
Regarding context lists, I expect they're fine if used appropriately.
For me that's where access to something is quite limited in some way, yet there's a number of tasks needing to be done.
OTOH if PC or phone access isn't limited then there's simply no need for @phone or @computer.
For me that's where access to something is quite limited in some way, yet there's a number of tasks needing to be done.
OTOH if PC or phone access isn't limited then there's simply no need for @phone or @computer.
August 15, 2009 at 12:23 |
smileypete
smileypete
Hi acedia,
I see the difference now - you are essentially doing the same thing that I, Mike and Mel are doing - except you're filtering rationally BEFORE putting things on the list, and we're filtering rationally AFTER it's on the list.
You're not letting your intuition filter your list for you according to this statement:
"If I walk through my house, I also see many things that 'could' be done, but I say 'no' to them."
And this:
"When something matters, then it goes on the list.":
And with this point, just substitute the word "pre-filtering" for "ABC":
- it prevents your intuition from telling you what is truly important. Presumably the ABC people actually want to do this. But for anyone who has benefitted from the way that AF allows intuition to play its part, the ABC system would be a mistake.
You put only those things that you want to put focus on (ie. your priorities) on your list - I take off everything on the list that isn't a priority. Personally, I don't see a problem with your pre-filtering, I only wish I could be that disciplined ahead of time but I know I have dumping tendencies. I can't see the difference between how we're operating (except I'm probably wasting time by writing it out in the first place - but those things creep on there and multiply behind my back.) My eyes always were bigger than my stomach. :-)
I think what I failed to explain as well was that I am doing AF in pure form, except that I'm not dismissing in quite the same way on the A-book (just giving myself more time), only because sometimes I can't do some of the big jobs that I have on the list on a weeknight. Where I can, I work on those items little and often, but things like tiling or a 5 hour hike aren't little and often tasks and aren't things I really want to dismiss on a Wednesday night at 9 p.m. just because I can't do them right then.
I hope that "Focus" doesn't turn out to be the new F-word - something that needs to be avoided.
I see the difference now - you are essentially doing the same thing that I, Mike and Mel are doing - except you're filtering rationally BEFORE putting things on the list, and we're filtering rationally AFTER it's on the list.
You're not letting your intuition filter your list for you according to this statement:
"If I walk through my house, I also see many things that 'could' be done, but I say 'no' to them."
And this:
"When something matters, then it goes on the list.":
And with this point, just substitute the word "pre-filtering" for "ABC":
- it prevents your intuition from telling you what is truly important. Presumably the ABC people actually want to do this. But for anyone who has benefitted from the way that AF allows intuition to play its part, the ABC system would be a mistake.
You put only those things that you want to put focus on (ie. your priorities) on your list - I take off everything on the list that isn't a priority. Personally, I don't see a problem with your pre-filtering, I only wish I could be that disciplined ahead of time but I know I have dumping tendencies. I can't see the difference between how we're operating (except I'm probably wasting time by writing it out in the first place - but those things creep on there and multiply behind my back.) My eyes always were bigger than my stomach. :-)
I think what I failed to explain as well was that I am doing AF in pure form, except that I'm not dismissing in quite the same way on the A-book (just giving myself more time), only because sometimes I can't do some of the big jobs that I have on the list on a weeknight. Where I can, I work on those items little and often, but things like tiling or a 5 hour hike aren't little and often tasks and aren't things I really want to dismiss on a Wednesday night at 9 p.m. just because I can't do them right then.
I hope that "Focus" doesn't turn out to be the new F-word - something that needs to be avoided.
August 15, 2009 at 15:19 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
Interesting thread after being away from the forum for a couple of days!
I do agree with acedia regarding intuition but think we all have different ways in which our intuition guides us with AF. I know with AF1 I put anything and everything onto the list - let my intuition get to work - and found it really revolutionary, in that it didn't just go for the simple or "C" type tasks, or go for tasks that I would have graded as "A"s. It was that very anomaly (as it seemed) that really enabled me to look at WHY tasks were standing out or not and that was what enabled me to see why I was behaving in a certain way with regard to certain tasks or groups of tasks. I know that my AF1 list did get unmanageable eventually - but in retrospect that was because I started grading and doing what I felt I ought to, rather than really letting my intuition have total free reign as I did in the beginning.
With AF2 and RAF I now do similarly to Mel, in that I have separate project type lists, but that was already evolving under AF1 for me. I am more likely to put "project x" than the individual tasks but am progressing those projects more easily and in what feels like a more orderly fashion.
I do agree with acedia regarding intuition but think we all have different ways in which our intuition guides us with AF. I know with AF1 I put anything and everything onto the list - let my intuition get to work - and found it really revolutionary, in that it didn't just go for the simple or "C" type tasks, or go for tasks that I would have graded as "A"s. It was that very anomaly (as it seemed) that really enabled me to look at WHY tasks were standing out or not and that was what enabled me to see why I was behaving in a certain way with regard to certain tasks or groups of tasks. I know that my AF1 list did get unmanageable eventually - but in retrospect that was because I started grading and doing what I felt I ought to, rather than really letting my intuition have total free reign as I did in the beginning.
With AF2 and RAF I now do similarly to Mel, in that I have separate project type lists, but that was already evolving under AF1 for me. I am more likely to put "project x" than the individual tasks but am progressing those projects more easily and in what feels like a more orderly fashion.
August 22, 2009 at 18:59 |
Christine B
Christine B
Hey Christine,
Trimming down the list is working so well for me because I seem to need to really focus and block out distractions to be able to finish things in a timely way once the first blush of enthusiasm wears off. I think I'm more easily overwhelmed than you are. :-) Down to a whopping 37 tasks in my A-book to do and it feels great!
Trimming down the list is working so well for me because I seem to need to really focus and block out distractions to be able to finish things in a timely way once the first blush of enthusiasm wears off. I think I'm more easily overwhelmed than you are. :-) Down to a whopping 37 tasks in my A-book to do and it feels great!
August 22, 2009 at 22:08 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
Hi Jacqueline
<<I think I'm more easily overwhelmed than you are. :-) >>
I don't know about that - I'm struggling not to be overwhelmed with my measly 40 tasks at present :-( I do so admire learning's ability to work through - at present my energy levels would make a sloth look hyperactive and even keeping up with the forum is defeating me .......... I really do need to give myself a good kick up the backside!! Maybe I will - if I have the energy :-)
<<I think I'm more easily overwhelmed than you are. :-) >>
I don't know about that - I'm struggling not to be overwhelmed with my measly 40 tasks at present :-( I do so admire learning's ability to work through - at present my energy levels would make a sloth look hyperactive and even keeping up with the forum is defeating me .......... I really do need to give myself a good kick up the backside!! Maybe I will - if I have the energy :-)
August 25, 2009 at 15:23 |
Christine B
Christine B
acedia, I just wanted to thank you - I've been practicing pre-filtering what goes on my lists based on priority as you do and it's working wonderfully. Much better than dumping and then filtering because that would leave me with only a few tasks on a page at times. I've been staying steady at about 4 pages in my A-book and 5 pages in the C-book. Doing this for the last few weeks since you mentioned it has completely stopped the tendency for the number of pages to creep upwards constantly.
I'm also finishing more projects rather than using my time to start new ones at the expense of finishing of what I already had going on.
I'm also finishing more projects rather than using my time to start new ones at the expense of finishing of what I already had going on.
September 1, 2009 at 14:24 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
Interesting article in Time last week on the Laziness gene. I knew I could blame my genetics!
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1827106,00.html