FV and FVP Forum > 'wrong' order on the list
+JMJ+
Delete 3 and re-enter it at the end with a dot ^___^
Delete 3 and re-enter it at the end with a dot ^___^
March 15, 2012 at 16:34 |
nuntym
nuntym
I think FV is a little more sophisticated than "do what you want". It specifically asks, "What do you want to do before you do X?". So in your example, you only put a dot next to 4 if you want to do it before 3. And you only put a dot next to 5 if you want to do it before 4. If you want to do 5 after 3, presumably you also want to do it after 4. Therefore, 5 doesn't get a dot on this pass, and it will be done after 1. If 1 is impossible until 5 is done, then it should be moved to the bottom of the list and another benchmark should be selected.
March 15, 2012 at 17:29 |
FSE
FSE
In my first few cycles of my FV list, I've run across this kind of thing pretty often. It's funny how in math, (A < B < C) implies (A < C), but with "what do I want to do before X?", I often find that (A < B < C) does NOT always imply (A < C).
In other words, after pre-selection, I do NOT end up with a list of N tasks all cleanly sorted in ascending order of urgency. This is because the wording of the question creates a nuanced comparison every time I actually perform the comparison. When I compare A and B, I am using slightly different nuanced criteria than when I compare B and C. But then if I went back and compared A and C, I might find that I'd actually want to do A first, and then C.
So this was a little puzzling, at an intellectual level. On a practical level, however, it's very simple: just follow the rules. If you're working "little and often" you'll be doing a new preselection pretty soon anyway and it all gets sorted out pretty quickly in the end.
In other words, after pre-selection, I do NOT end up with a list of N tasks all cleanly sorted in ascending order of urgency. This is because the wording of the question creates a nuanced comparison every time I actually perform the comparison. When I compare A and B, I am using slightly different nuanced criteria than when I compare B and C. But then if I went back and compared A and C, I might find that I'd actually want to do A first, and then C.
So this was a little puzzling, at an intellectual level. On a practical level, however, it's very simple: just follow the rules. If you're working "little and often" you'll be doing a new preselection pretty soon anyway and it all gets sorted out pretty quickly in the end.
March 15, 2012 at 18:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Thanks, everyone. I think nuntym's answer does it for me. And thanks, Mark, for FV.
March 15, 2012 at 20:24 |
Lesley
Lesley
Seraphim,
I entirely agree regarding "just follow the rules."
I think one of the features of FV is that it is not designed to come up with the "perfect" ordering of tasks. It is designed to come up with a rational ordering - one of many possible - and do so quickly.
The reason I think this is a feature is that it helps to break the habit of endless optimization without actual progress. FV gives you a decent plan that you can start right away - so stop tweaking the list and just get it started.
I entirely agree regarding "just follow the rules."
I think one of the features of FV is that it is not designed to come up with the "perfect" ordering of tasks. It is designed to come up with a rational ordering - one of many possible - and do so quickly.
The reason I think this is a feature is that it helps to break the habit of endless optimization without actual progress. FV gives you a decent plan that you can start right away - so stop tweaking the list and just get it started.
March 15, 2012 at 20:31 |
FSE
FSE
Even though numtym's answer will work, I strongly suggest not to follow that route.
There is a specific reason why you did preselect the tasks in that specific order. It would be too "easy" to just kick out a task only because you don't feel like doing it anymore or maybe only later. To take it to the extreme we could go back to a normal simple to-do list without any choosing algorithm to guide us and just pick out the task we want to do without any bad feelings …
Once I have preselected my list, I follow it to the dot, assuming nothing urgent or more important comes up. In that case I always return to the original working list and tackle the tasks one after the other. Up to now I only had positive results. I even enjoyed doing the "difficult" ones because the list gets shorter and shorter and I can already see me rewarding myself with nice and interesting tasks in the new preselected list to come ;)
There is a specific reason why you did preselect the tasks in that specific order. It would be too "easy" to just kick out a task only because you don't feel like doing it anymore or maybe only later. To take it to the extreme we could go back to a normal simple to-do list without any choosing algorithm to guide us and just pick out the task we want to do without any bad feelings …
Once I have preselected my list, I follow it to the dot, assuming nothing urgent or more important comes up. In that case I always return to the original working list and tackle the tasks one after the other. Up to now I only had positive results. I even enjoyed doing the "difficult" ones because the list gets shorter and shorter and I can already see me rewarding myself with nice and interesting tasks in the new preselected list to come ;)
March 15, 2012 at 20:35 |
Stefano F. Rausch
Stefano F. Rausch
Stefano writes: "To take it to the extreme we could go back to a normal simple to-do list without any choosing algorithm to guide us and just pick out the task we want to do without any bad feelings." Exactly – imagine that: making a list of tasks and doing them! If someone just stumbled onto this forum and read about how we need an 'algorithm' for 'preselecting' a chain of tasks in strict order, remembering the essential difference in nuance between 'before' and 'more' and then had to follow the chain backwards and not break it, or, if it has to be broken, use a pencil or post-it tabs to facilitate rerunning the algorithm without losing the order of things as originally listed, he would probably think we're all crazy!
March 15, 2012 at 22:58 |
ubi
ubi
Mark's designs are a kind of magic trick. It may seem ridiculous, but in fact it's a carefully balanced system achieving multiple qualities of goodness that you wouldn't think possible in so few rules. In packing it all in there, he makes it easy to use, efficient, but also very sensitive to changes. You can't randomly tweak a Forster system, because most changes make it worse. Very much unlike GTD which pretty much needs to be adapted just to get off the ground.
March 16, 2012 at 0:00 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Ubi/Seraphim:
<< imagine that: making a list of tasks and doing them! >>
Well, that's probably where most of us started off from, including me. And as we very quickly discovered it doesn't work. You usually end up churning the easy stuff and avoiding the difficult stuff or get such a long list you can hardly bear to look at it.
I am sure there are some people for whom it does work - but I am not one of them!
<< imagine that: making a list of tasks and doing them! >>
Well, that's probably where most of us started off from, including me. And as we very quickly discovered it doesn't work. You usually end up churning the easy stuff and avoiding the difficult stuff or get such a long list you can hardly bear to look at it.
I am sure there are some people for whom it does work - but I am not one of them!
March 16, 2012 at 0:39 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark,
No offense – I was trying to be funny. The volume of new threads and comments in the FV forum has been amazing. I only stayed with the new process for two days, but I do admit it motivated me to work several tasks that had been 'stuck' previously – mainly the non-optional first-item benchmarks. Today, I'm back to my 4D+CL system. May give FV another go in the future.
Cheers,
No offense – I was trying to be funny. The volume of new threads and comments in the FV forum has been amazing. I only stayed with the new process for two days, but I do admit it motivated me to work several tasks that had been 'stuck' previously – mainly the non-optional first-item benchmarks. Today, I'm back to my 4D+CL system. May give FV another go in the future.
Cheers,
March 16, 2012 at 0:50 |
ubi
ubi
FSE,
<<The reason I think this is a feature is that it helps to break the habit of endless optimization without actual progress. FV gives you a decent plan that you can start right away - so stop tweaking the list and just get it started.>>
Amen! FV has been incredibly liberating for this reason! I'm surprised that I'm vastly preferring the preselection to the old "standing out" method.
On the ordering problem, I often come to a task that "belongs" between two prior ones, but unless it *has* to be done in this ladder (so far it never has), I just tell it to wait until next time.
Stefano,
<<I even enjoyed doing the "difficult" ones because the list gets shorter and shorter and I can already see me rewarding myself with nice and interesting tasks in the new preselected list to come ;)>>
Me too. I can't believe some of the lingering tasks I've managed to cross off! FV has been resounding success so far.
<<The reason I think this is a feature is that it helps to break the habit of endless optimization without actual progress. FV gives you a decent plan that you can start right away - so stop tweaking the list and just get it started.>>
Amen! FV has been incredibly liberating for this reason! I'm surprised that I'm vastly preferring the preselection to the old "standing out" method.
On the ordering problem, I often come to a task that "belongs" between two prior ones, but unless it *has* to be done in this ladder (so far it never has), I just tell it to wait until next time.
Stefano,
<<I even enjoyed doing the "difficult" ones because the list gets shorter and shorter and I can already see me rewarding myself with nice and interesting tasks in the new preselected list to come ;)>>
Me too. I can't believe some of the lingering tasks I've managed to cross off! FV has been resounding success so far.
March 16, 2012 at 6:05 |
Bernie
Bernie
The principle "make a list and do it" does not work well for those of us who benefit from Mark's systems. That is the principle behind GTD, which puts all the focus on "make a list."
Mark restricts our freedom to "do it." Those of us who follow Mark do not do well if we are totally free to "do it" in any order we choose. He limits our freedom by compelling us to do tasks in a constrained order.
Ultimately, we overcome more obstacles and gain more personal freedom for our future selves by restricting the freedom of our present selves.
Mark restricts our freedom to "do it." Those of us who follow Mark do not do well if we are totally free to "do it" in any order we choose. He limits our freedom by compelling us to do tasks in a constrained order.
Ultimately, we overcome more obstacles and gain more personal freedom for our future selves by restricting the freedom of our present selves.
March 16, 2012 at 11:49 |
moises
moises
[moises]
<<Those of us who follow Mark do not do well if we are totally free to "do it" in any order we choose. He limits our freedom by compelling us to do tasks in a constrained order.>>
It's like the yellow line down the middle of the road: by giving up the other lane, we can go anywhere we want.
<<Those of us who follow Mark do not do well if we are totally free to "do it" in any order we choose. He limits our freedom by compelling us to do tasks in a constrained order.>>
It's like the yellow line down the middle of the road: by giving up the other lane, we can go anywhere we want.
March 16, 2012 at 13:19 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie,
I've been obsessed with this future self / present self dichotomy while doing FV because Mark seemed to have been developing FV at the same time that he was vigorously promoting Beeminder (of yellow line fame).
Beeminder's key conceit was the Greek concept of akrasia, which could be translated as "weakness of will."
Beeminder is a commitment device, like Odysseus' bonds.
FV is a commitment device whereby the moises who creates the preselected list binds the future moises. (Did Odysseus refer to himself in the third person too?)
I've been obsessed with this future self / present self dichotomy while doing FV because Mark seemed to have been developing FV at the same time that he was vigorously promoting Beeminder (of yellow line fame).
Beeminder's key conceit was the Greek concept of akrasia, which could be translated as "weakness of will."
Beeminder is a commitment device, like Odysseus' bonds.
FV is a commitment device whereby the moises who creates the preselected list binds the future moises. (Did Odysseus refer to himself in the third person too?)
March 16, 2012 at 16:45 |
moises
moises
However can anyone help me with one puzzle. The order in which jobs are done is dependent on where they are on the list. So if I have tasks 1,2,3,4,5, I select 1 automatically, then select 3 but when I get to 5 I realise that I'd like to do it between 1 and 3. There doesn't seem to be any way round this. Any suggestions?