FV and FVP Forum > Trusting Mark & The Paradox of Choice (Ted Talk)
I agree! Ditch the Pomodoro Technique! It's had a good life, but it's time to let your mind focus on a particular task for as long as you want to. Sometimes that means 15 minutes. Sometimes it means 3 hours. I've used PT off and on for the past several years. It has been helpful in getting me to focus (at least initially). However, after the first several pomodoros it becomes a nuisance.
I think using the FV according to the rules has made me extremely efficient without the need to rely on a tomato for help.
BTW, I don't think I agree with Barry Schwartz's concept. He makes a lot of valid points like paralysis. I've heard it called analysis paralysis. That makes sense, but the solution isn't to remove choices. Choice leads to competition which leads to better quality.
He also suggests that the secret to happiness is having low expectations. Regardless of the validity of his argument, it's actually impossible to lower our expectations. Maybe that's true on a micro level, but not at the macro level. Honestly, people just need to be willing to live with less than the best. Learning to be content when you know you could own something better is not achieved by eliminating options; it's achieved by increasing the value of things in life that aren't optional (things you cannot buy).
I think using the FV according to the rules has made me extremely efficient without the need to rely on a tomato for help.
BTW, I don't think I agree with Barry Schwartz's concept. He makes a lot of valid points like paralysis. I've heard it called analysis paralysis. That makes sense, but the solution isn't to remove choices. Choice leads to competition which leads to better quality.
He also suggests that the secret to happiness is having low expectations. Regardless of the validity of his argument, it's actually impossible to lower our expectations. Maybe that's true on a micro level, but not at the macro level. Honestly, people just need to be willing to live with less than the best. Learning to be content when you know you could own something better is not achieved by eliminating options; it's achieved by increasing the value of things in life that aren't optional (things you cannot buy).
March 19, 2012 at 18:51 |
Brad
Brad
<<I don't think I agree with Barry Schwartz's concept. >>
As an ex-commitment-phobe, and as a therapist who works with young people enslaved by the options presented to them via online dating, Barry is bang-on about the downsides of unlimited choice.
As an ex-commitment-phobe, and as a therapist who works with young people enslaved by the options presented to them via online dating, Barry is bang-on about the downsides of unlimited choice.
March 19, 2012 at 20:50 |
avrum
avrum
I know the temptation to hack! I've been hacking since 2010. I'm committed not to hack the Final Version for at least 30 days.
Brad: Choice leads to competition, but there are places where choice has value, and places where choice has negative value. In the latter case, each option is about equal, and having to make a decision just saps your time away from making more useful decisions.
Also, while I don't agree with the Buddhists, their entire belief system is founded on the reduction of expectations, so it can hardly be deemed "impossible".
Brad: Choice leads to competition, but there are places where choice has value, and places where choice has negative value. In the latter case, each option is about equal, and having to make a decision just saps your time away from making more useful decisions.
Also, while I don't agree with the Buddhists, their entire belief system is founded on the reduction of expectations, so it can hardly be deemed "impossible".
March 19, 2012 at 21:11 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Creating ways to feel happy independently of the need for ownership and acquisition seems a good option. Appreciation of what's good and working seems one good way; It's also one of the exercises in Mark's "Dreams" book.
March 19, 2012 at 23:12 |
michael
michael
I got really excited when I read the Pomodoro Technique, but for me it immediately and dramatically bombed in practice. The 25 minutes just wasn't anywhere near long enough. I had much better success with a similar method in which you work for 48 minutes and break for 12. General time-boxing works even better, in which I pick any length of time that seems suitable for the project and day, although I go through stages where I refuse to run my life with a timer.
I am definitely *not* hacking FV. NOT!! ;)
I am definitely *not* hacking FV. NOT!! ;)
March 20, 2012 at 6:12 |
Bernie
Bernie
<< Also, while I don't agree with the Buddhists, their entire belief system is founded on the reduction of expectations, so it can hardly be deemed "impossible". >>
Overstatements ALWAYS get me in trouble...Let's just say, I find it highly unreasonable to think that a life of lower expectations will lead to happiness (on a macro level). I think, eventually, your innate desire for something more will creep in. Maybe that is why Buddhists also consider the task of abandoning our expectations to be a lifelong process (right?). I just took them one step further to say it's not only a lifelong process, but it's also a hopeless one.
I'll just lay my cards on the table. This quote from C.S. Lewis gets at the angle I'm coming from:
"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." --Mere Christianity
So, my point is that the "secret to happiness" isn't lowering our expectations, but redirecting them.
And, I may be mistaken, but I never heard the speaker use the caveat that all the available choices were equal. I agree with that completely, but I think that is an unrealistic world as well. Most of the options available to us provide certain objective advantages. We can assume we have a choice between equally good options, but in reality we're only fooling ourselves.
Overstatements ALWAYS get me in trouble...Let's just say, I find it highly unreasonable to think that a life of lower expectations will lead to happiness (on a macro level). I think, eventually, your innate desire for something more will creep in. Maybe that is why Buddhists also consider the task of abandoning our expectations to be a lifelong process (right?). I just took them one step further to say it's not only a lifelong process, but it's also a hopeless one.
I'll just lay my cards on the table. This quote from C.S. Lewis gets at the angle I'm coming from:
"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." --Mere Christianity
So, my point is that the "secret to happiness" isn't lowering our expectations, but redirecting them.
And, I may be mistaken, but I never heard the speaker use the caveat that all the available choices were equal. I agree with that completely, but I think that is an unrealistic world as well. Most of the options available to us provide certain objective advantages. We can assume we have a choice between equally good options, but in reality we're only fooling ourselves.
March 20, 2012 at 7:50 |
Brad
Brad
I believe Buddhism is a little misunderstood here. Their point is that endlessly wanting reduces happiness. My own interpretation of their point is that desiring up to the point where it hurts is ok, and leads to more of life.
I'd regard it as the tipping point between desiring and craving.
I'd regard it as the tipping point between desiring and craving.
March 20, 2012 at 9:44 |
michael
michael
+JMJ+
<<He also suggests that the secret to happiness is having low expectations. Regardless of the validity of his argument, it's actually impossible to lower our expectations. >>
Very true. Anyone who says that he has low expectations for something has very high expectations for something else, like for example having high expectations on mediocrity.
<<So, my point is that the "secret to happiness" isn't lowering our expectations, but redirecting them.>>
Indeed. And in fact, I am of the opinion that (bastardizing G.K. Chesterton here) once you find to what (or to Whom) one should redirect your expectations, you should crank that expectation to the elevens.
Although there is something I have to agree on at the very least the summary of the talk: free choice can make one more paralyzed. One great freedom is not to have freedom of choice, but it is in having the supreme freedom of choosing.
However, I would also have to say there is a greater freedom than the freedom of choosing. The ultimate freedom, the greatest freedom, is that of being chosen.
<<He also suggests that the secret to happiness is having low expectations. Regardless of the validity of his argument, it's actually impossible to lower our expectations. >>
Very true. Anyone who says that he has low expectations for something has very high expectations for something else, like for example having high expectations on mediocrity.
<<So, my point is that the "secret to happiness" isn't lowering our expectations, but redirecting them.>>
Indeed. And in fact, I am of the opinion that (bastardizing G.K. Chesterton here) once you find to what (or to Whom) one should redirect your expectations, you should crank that expectation to the elevens.
Although there is something I have to agree on at the very least the summary of the talk: free choice can make one more paralyzed. One great freedom is not to have freedom of choice, but it is in having the supreme freedom of choosing.
However, I would also have to say there is a greater freedom than the freedom of choosing. The ultimate freedom, the greatest freedom, is that of being chosen.
March 20, 2012 at 14:19 |
nuntym
nuntym
We bought a new clothes dryer last month. Usually for this amount of money, I go through all the available dryers (20 or more) and make a chart of store, price and features. Then, as I learn about every feature, I go back to see if earlier models had it. Long, focused, frustrating -- and by the end I still wasn't convinced I'd made the perfect choice.
This time my husband did the early research in an entirely different way. First he scanned the catalogs to identify features, which we discussed (and had a good laugh at the expensive features we'd pay money to avoid). Then we saw several brands in the store (good thing, since some were seriously awkward to use). Double-check the cheapest two models with all the features we wanted in Consumer Reports, and bought it.
I'm very happy with the dryer and satisfied we made a good choice -- for a fraction of the work.
So, yes, too much choice, and the feeling you have to make the best choice, is bad. It can be avoided by going for a good choice, rather than the best.
This time my husband did the early research in an entirely different way. First he scanned the catalogs to identify features, which we discussed (and had a good laugh at the expensive features we'd pay money to avoid). Then we saw several brands in the store (good thing, since some were seriously awkward to use). Double-check the cheapest two models with all the features we wanted in Consumer Reports, and bought it.
I'm very happy with the dryer and satisfied we made a good choice -- for a fraction of the work.
So, yes, too much choice, and the feeling you have to make the best choice, is bad. It can be avoided by going for a good choice, rather than the best.
March 20, 2012 at 14:32 |
Cricket
Cricket
<<too much choice, and the feeling you have to make the best choice, is bad.>>
Many of my young adult clients - particularly those who struggle with anxiety and commitment-phobia - drive themselves mad trying to avoid a poor choice (often a choice they saw their parents struggle with). Unfortunately inertia is seen as a quick-fix option to soothe anxiety. Depending on one's age, this can lead to tragic consequences.
Many of my young adult clients - particularly those who struggle with anxiety and commitment-phobia - drive themselves mad trying to avoid a poor choice (often a choice they saw their parents struggle with). Unfortunately inertia is seen as a quick-fix option to soothe anxiety. Depending on one's age, this can lead to tragic consequences.
March 20, 2012 at 15:38 |
avrum
avrum
<<Anyone who says that he has low expectations for something has very high expectations >>
I think the point Dr Schwartz was trying to make is that it is counter-intuitive that more choice = more anxiety. We tend to think more options = better results = increases sales, better partner selection, etc. ,etc.
I've observed the same phenomenon (more choice --> increased anxiety --> lower productivity) the more I tweak & craft productivity systems.
I think the point Dr Schwartz was trying to make is that it is counter-intuitive that more choice = more anxiety. We tend to think more options = better results = increases sales, better partner selection, etc. ,etc.
I've observed the same phenomenon (more choice --> increased anxiety --> lower productivity) the more I tweak & craft productivity systems.
March 20, 2012 at 18:24 |
avrum
avrum
This is exactly my experience with SuperFocus variants. Too many choices, too much anxiety, not enough flow.
March 20, 2012 at 19:12 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Re: Buddhism etc
I wonder if Buddhism can have the negative effect of inhibiting "progress" in, for example, sciences. "We resist our desire to understand the world or improve circumstances". I heard an argument against Confucianism that because it valued harmony and stability that innovation or even socio-political evolution was held back. Present day China still seems to be caught in this conundrum - millionaire communists and peasant communists in one harmonious society?
I wonder if Buddhism can have the negative effect of inhibiting "progress" in, for example, sciences. "We resist our desire to understand the world or improve circumstances". I heard an argument against Confucianism that because it valued harmony and stability that innovation or even socio-political evolution was held back. Present day China still seems to be caught in this conundrum - millionaire communists and peasant communists in one harmonious society?
March 20, 2012 at 19:19 |
michael
michael
<< I've observed the same phenomenon (more choice --> increased anxiety --> lower productivity) the more I tweak & craft productivity systems. >>
Point taken. And it does make sense. I've experienced the same thing as my 2 folders of unused "Productivity Apps" can testify.
My only qualm was with the suggestion that the principle of lowering expectations - applied to all spheres of life - was the "secret of happiness." That seems to be a much bolder (and false) statement.
Sorry if I derailed your intentions with posting the video.
Point taken. And it does make sense. I've experienced the same thing as my 2 folders of unused "Productivity Apps" can testify.
My only qualm was with the suggestion that the principle of lowering expectations - applied to all spheres of life - was the "secret of happiness." That seems to be a much bolder (and false) statement.
Sorry if I derailed your intentions with posting the video.
March 20, 2012 at 20:39 |
Brad
Brad
avrum's original post, if I understand it, makes the following argument:
1. Schwartz shows that too much choice reduces happiness.
2. There are many ways to tweak FV.
3. Tweaking FV will give the tweaker too much (insignificant) choice.
4. Tweaking FV will reduce happiness.
5. It would be better not to tweak FV.
One could apply Schwartz's argument to FV in a different way.
Schwartz says that if "everything is possible, you don't have freedom, you have paralysis." He uses the metaphor of a fishbowl, and states that it is better to live within the glass walls of the fishbowl than to have the absolute freedom to go anywhere.
As I read it, the fish bowl is the preselected list. When I face a huge list, I feel overwhelmed, anxious, and, maybe, depressed. When I limit the list I feel energized and eager to work.
GTD was wonderful for me in so many ways. But it was weak in precisely the way that Mark's systems are strong. GTD gave me a huge list. I kept items on my list for years. I analyzed and was paralyzed.
I am bemused by some of the comments (not in this thread) from people who write, "what if the list says to do item H before item Q, but I'd rather do Q before H?"
The whole reason we look to Mark for help is because, when we had a huge list which we were free to work off as we chose, we floundered and then foundered as we procrastinated and felt anxious.
FV is the fishbowl that limits choice. Too bad Mark didn't call it FB.
1. Schwartz shows that too much choice reduces happiness.
2. There are many ways to tweak FV.
3. Tweaking FV will give the tweaker too much (insignificant) choice.
4. Tweaking FV will reduce happiness.
5. It would be better not to tweak FV.
One could apply Schwartz's argument to FV in a different way.
Schwartz says that if "everything is possible, you don't have freedom, you have paralysis." He uses the metaphor of a fishbowl, and states that it is better to live within the glass walls of the fishbowl than to have the absolute freedom to go anywhere.
As I read it, the fish bowl is the preselected list. When I face a huge list, I feel overwhelmed, anxious, and, maybe, depressed. When I limit the list I feel energized and eager to work.
GTD was wonderful for me in so many ways. But it was weak in precisely the way that Mark's systems are strong. GTD gave me a huge list. I kept items on my list for years. I analyzed and was paralyzed.
I am bemused by some of the comments (not in this thread) from people who write, "what if the list says to do item H before item Q, but I'd rather do Q before H?"
The whole reason we look to Mark for help is because, when we had a huge list which we were free to work off as we chose, we floundered and then foundered as we procrastinated and felt anxious.
FV is the fishbowl that limits choice. Too bad Mark didn't call it FB.
March 20, 2012 at 21:19 |
moises
moises
Moises... enjoyed your comment.
March 20, 2012 at 23:00 |
avrum
avrum
Moises:
<< I am bemused by some of the comments (not in this thread) from people who write, "what if the list says to do item H before item Q, but I'd rather do Q before H?"
<< The whole reason we look to Mark for help is because, when we had a huge list which we were free to work off as we chose, we floundered and then foundered as we procrastinated and felt anxious. >>
Good point!
<< I am bemused by some of the comments (not in this thread) from people who write, "what if the list says to do item H before item Q, but I'd rather do Q before H?"
<< The whole reason we look to Mark for help is because, when we had a huge list which we were free to work off as we chose, we floundered and then foundered as we procrastinated and felt anxious. >>
Good point!
March 20, 2012 at 23:11 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Slowly the system morphed into something I created... the I that I don't really trust in the first place.
So darn it, I'm going to trust Mark and FV. If for no other reason than to reduce options/choice and anxiety:
http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html