FV and FVP Forum > What is the First Unactioned Item?
Number 3 is correct, but it shouldn't be deemed to demote the item. three scenarios apply:
A) you did plenty and don't need to do more soon
B) you did little and will do more soon as a want-to-continue type task after making a new selection
C) you hate this task, did as much as you can bear, it it will languish back on the list for a few days until it reaches the front again or guilt presses you to resume early.
C is maybe bad, but your rule 1 would have a worse effect: mental anguish and abandonment of the system!
A) you did plenty and don't need to do more soon
B) you did little and will do more soon as a want-to-continue type task after making a new selection
C) you hate this task, did as much as you can bear, it it will languish back on the list for a few days until it reaches the front again or guilt presses you to resume early.
C is maybe bad, but your rule 1 would have a worse effect: mental anguish and abandonment of the system!
March 20, 2012 at 1:38 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
> C is maybe bad, but your rule 1 would have a worse effect: mental anguish and abandonment of the system!
I said #1 was clearly wrong. And, they aren't MY rules. I was just looking for clarification.
I suggested that #2 seemed to be the best solution. It seems to me that with a long list of things to do one could do a little (open folder) on a hard top project and move it to the back and not have to think about it for a long time. It seems the same game-playing that people always engage in would still be there. One could pull out the folder over and over on hard stuff just to get to the easy fun stuff.
However, one would be motivated both to get past that hard #1 on each day (so you could go on to other things) AND motivated to complete it to get it completely out of the way, thus accomplishing a core goal: do important work. It seems like little and often would effortlessly and naturally come into play and actually work to your advantage.
So, #2 still seems better to me.
Matt
I said #1 was clearly wrong. And, they aren't MY rules. I was just looking for clarification.
I suggested that #2 seemed to be the best solution. It seems to me that with a long list of things to do one could do a little (open folder) on a hard top project and move it to the back and not have to think about it for a long time. It seems the same game-playing that people always engage in would still be there. One could pull out the folder over and over on hard stuff just to get to the easy fun stuff.
However, one would be motivated both to get past that hard #1 on each day (so you could go on to other things) AND motivated to complete it to get it completely out of the way, thus accomplishing a core goal: do important work. It seems like little and often would effortlessly and naturally come into play and actually work to your advantage.
So, #2 still seems better to me.
Matt
March 20, 2012 at 4:18 |
Matt
Matt
Matt:
<< I don't think it is clear in the instructions which possibility is the correct one:>>
The instructions say:
"Do these [the preselected tasks] in reverse order, i.e. Tidy desk, Check email, Write report. Note that as in all my systems, you don't have to finish the task - only do some work on it. Of course if you do finish the task that's great, but if you don't then all you have to do is re-enter the task at the end of the list."
How would you wish me to rephrase it so that it is clearer?
<< I don't think it is clear in the instructions which possibility is the correct one:>>
The instructions say:
"Do these [the preselected tasks] in reverse order, i.e. Tidy desk, Check email, Write report. Note that as in all my systems, you don't have to finish the task - only do some work on it. Of course if you do finish the task that's great, but if you don't then all you have to do is re-enter the task at the end of the list."
How would you wish me to rephrase it so that it is clearer?
March 20, 2012 at 4:47 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Sorry. I went back to the article, because I was sure you were wrong. :-) Somehow, I read right past that. So, to answer your question: There is nothing I could suggest that would make it clearer.
I think I got an impression of the system by reading the posts before I got the instructions. Then, I read the instructions with the filter of my preconceived ideas.
However, it does seem to me that there is still the potential for easily slipping into game-playing. One could "open the folder" to move the item to the end of the list. Much later when getting back to it, say to oneself, "Where was I on this?" and "open the folder" again, sending it back down the list and out of your sight and mind.
Perhaps this game-playing is always present in whatever system one devises. It just seemed that if one kept the item right where it was, then the little and often principle would automatically engage because of your distaste to do this project. You would be motivated to take a small step and do this often, because the more you often you do, the quicker this thing will be gone. And, all the while you are still getting other things done in the ladder.
Master procrastinators are just that - masters.
:-)
Matt
I think I got an impression of the system by reading the posts before I got the instructions. Then, I read the instructions with the filter of my preconceived ideas.
However, it does seem to me that there is still the potential for easily slipping into game-playing. One could "open the folder" to move the item to the end of the list. Much later when getting back to it, say to oneself, "Where was I on this?" and "open the folder" again, sending it back down the list and out of your sight and mind.
Perhaps this game-playing is always present in whatever system one devises. It just seemed that if one kept the item right where it was, then the little and often principle would automatically engage because of your distaste to do this project. You would be motivated to take a small step and do this often, because the more you often you do, the quicker this thing will be gone. And, all the while you are still getting other things done in the ladder.
Master procrastinators are just that - masters.
:-)
Matt
March 20, 2012 at 5:02 |
Matt
Matt
"How...clearer?"
I believe adding an extended illustration of the entire process usually helps.
I believe adding an extended illustration of the entire process usually helps.
March 20, 2012 at 11:58 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
If you open the same folder enough times, you'll want to do something more (maybe even burn it ;-) )
Looking at the dynamics, let's say you have
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 1 has resistance.
Your first chain is 1 5 9. Assume 5 gets finished, 1 and 9 need more attention. The new list is
-1 2 3 4 -5 6 7 8 -9 9 1 (- means crossed off)
Chain: 2 6 8 9 1
New list: -1 -2 3 4 -5 -6 7 -8 -9 -9 -1 1 9 10 6 (10 arrived while working the chain)
Chain: 3 4 1
New list: -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 7 -8 -9 -9 -1 -1 9 10 6 11 1
Chain: 7 10 1
New list: -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -9 -1 -1 9 -10 6 11 -1 1
Chain: 9 6 1
See how 9 and 1 keep getting attention? Some passes don't include them, but they get attention often enough. In this case, 1 is more urgent, so it's chosen more often.
Looking at the dynamics, let's say you have
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 1 has resistance.
Your first chain is 1 5 9. Assume 5 gets finished, 1 and 9 need more attention. The new list is
-1 2 3 4 -5 6 7 8 -9 9 1 (- means crossed off)
Chain: 2 6 8 9 1
New list: -1 -2 3 4 -5 -6 7 -8 -9 -9 -1 1 9 10 6 (10 arrived while working the chain)
Chain: 3 4 1
New list: -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 7 -8 -9 -9 -1 -1 9 10 6 11 1
Chain: 7 10 1
New list: -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -9 -1 -1 9 -10 6 11 -1 1
Chain: 9 6 1
See how 9 and 1 keep getting attention? Some passes don't include them, but they get attention often enough. In this case, 1 is more urgent, so it's chosen more often.
March 20, 2012 at 14:52 |
Cricket
Cricket
Hi Cricket,
But, in your scenario I selected the hard one I don't want to do the very next iteration. The point is that master procrastinators wouldn't pick it.
In the scenario I envisioned (possibility #2 in my original post), when I was under the mistaken impression of how it worked, the hard project would be automatically picked again, because it is still in the list right where it was.
So, what you have said is that I would have to choose #1 immediately again, but under the rules "I don't want to do 1 before" 2 6 8 9 (looking only at your second iteration), because I just don't want to do #1, even though I know I need to do it.
So, in reality it wouldn't keep getting attention as you presumed.
Matt
But, in your scenario I selected the hard one I don't want to do the very next iteration. The point is that master procrastinators wouldn't pick it.
In the scenario I envisioned (possibility #2 in my original post), when I was under the mistaken impression of how it worked, the hard project would be automatically picked again, because it is still in the list right where it was.
So, what you have said is that I would have to choose #1 immediately again, but under the rules "I don't want to do 1 before" 2 6 8 9 (looking only at your second iteration), because I just don't want to do #1, even though I know I need to do it.
So, in reality it wouldn't keep getting attention as you presumed.
Matt
March 20, 2012 at 17:01 |
Matt
Matt
That's right, if you don't want to do 1 more than 9, then the chain is 2 6 8 9.
There might be a reason it shouldn't be in the chain. Maybe if 1's in the chain, you'll procrastinate and do nothing. Maybe you need a break from it. Maybe you really want to get 9 out of the way, or there's a deadline, or you have a hot idea for it and want to get it down.
If you (or your subconscious) have a reason to skip it, then the system will let you, at least until everything in front of it has had a turn.
I see your reasoning, though, and thought of trying it myself. Task 1 stays there, first dot in every chain. I could even add the dates or times I worked on it, right on that line, and see how many sessions I work on it.
After a while, though, another task will join it at the front, and another. Do you dot 2 and 3 as well? 1 will always get attention. You'll always evaluate the tasks in the same order.
Mark's other systems often end up with all the unwanted tasks stuck together and growing old. Some found that a problem. One of the goals with this system was to avoid that.
It boils down to whether that chunk at the front works for you, or messes things up.
There might be a reason it shouldn't be in the chain. Maybe if 1's in the chain, you'll procrastinate and do nothing. Maybe you need a break from it. Maybe you really want to get 9 out of the way, or there's a deadline, or you have a hot idea for it and want to get it down.
If you (or your subconscious) have a reason to skip it, then the system will let you, at least until everything in front of it has had a turn.
I see your reasoning, though, and thought of trying it myself. Task 1 stays there, first dot in every chain. I could even add the dates or times I worked on it, right on that line, and see how many sessions I work on it.
After a while, though, another task will join it at the front, and another. Do you dot 2 and 3 as well? 1 will always get attention. You'll always evaluate the tasks in the same order.
Mark's other systems often end up with all the unwanted tasks stuck together and growing old. Some found that a problem. One of the goals with this system was to avoid that.
It boils down to whether that chunk at the front works for you, or messes things up.
March 20, 2012 at 20:11 |
Cricket
Cricket
Matt:
Have you actually tried the system and found this to be a problem, or is this just a theoretical objection?
Have you actually tried the system and found this to be a problem, or is this just a theoretical objection?
March 20, 2012 at 23:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Cricket,
>After a while, though, another task will join it at the front, and another. Do you dot 2 and 3 as well?
No, because you only start with the first unactioned item. So, there would not be the bunching up you described.
Matt
>After a while, though, another task will join it at the front, and another. Do you dot 2 and 3 as well?
No, because you only start with the first unactioned item. So, there would not be the bunching up you described.
Matt
March 21, 2012 at 0:09 |
Matt
Matt
Mark,
No, I haven't tried the system. It's an entirely theoretical exercise. But, I like to do that before I jump into anything.
But, even though I don't have experience with FV, I have loads of experience with me. And, I have experience with various flavors of Autofocus. I had run into this problem before. I know my sneaky mind.
I purposely haven't been posting here for quite awhile. I have a system in place that has been working well. I wanted to see how it would work past the initial effectiveness of the enthusiasm-of-a-new-system stage. For quite awhile it has been handling my sneakiness.
Anyway, I came back by to see what was up and saw your Final Version and thought I'd take a look. After misreading your instructions, I proposed three possible answers to my question. The second variant was close to what I do to cure my sneakiness problem.
So, my question is theoretical as far as FV goes, but not entirely theoretical as I have shown.
Your system looks very clever. I wish you the best with it.
Thanks, Mark, for sharing your wisdom.
Matt
No, I haven't tried the system. It's an entirely theoretical exercise. But, I like to do that before I jump into anything.
But, even though I don't have experience with FV, I have loads of experience with me. And, I have experience with various flavors of Autofocus. I had run into this problem before. I know my sneaky mind.
I purposely haven't been posting here for quite awhile. I have a system in place that has been working well. I wanted to see how it would work past the initial effectiveness of the enthusiasm-of-a-new-system stage. For quite awhile it has been handling my sneakiness.
Anyway, I came back by to see what was up and saw your Final Version and thought I'd take a look. After misreading your instructions, I proposed three possible answers to my question. The second variant was close to what I do to cure my sneakiness problem.
So, my question is theoretical as far as FV goes, but not entirely theoretical as I have shown.
Your system looks very clever. I wish you the best with it.
Thanks, Mark, for sharing your wisdom.
Matt
March 21, 2012 at 0:22 |
Matt
Matt
Matt,
If the same task stays in place at the top of the list, you are likely to go numb to it, to keep rebuilding the chain in front of it until you don't even bother turning to that early page. Then the task effectively disappears. But if you move it to the front as Cricket illustrates, it will keep winking at you when you've just forgotten it, and eventually you will soften up.
Well, *I* would, and do, but maybe your experience would be different.
I did leave a resistive task at the top of the chain for too long (a day and a half? Two days?), and I was already beginning to ignore that top item, so I know this would be a really bad idea for me.
If the same task stays in place at the top of the list, you are likely to go numb to it, to keep rebuilding the chain in front of it until you don't even bother turning to that early page. Then the task effectively disappears. But if you move it to the front as Cricket illustrates, it will keep winking at you when you've just forgotten it, and eventually you will soften up.
Well, *I* would, and do, but maybe your experience would be different.
I did leave a resistive task at the top of the chain for too long (a day and a half? Two days?), and I was already beginning to ignore that top item, so I know this would be a really bad idea for me.
March 21, 2012 at 2:26 |
Bernie
Bernie
How can you ignore it?
March 21, 2012 at 2:50 |
Matt
Matt
Matt,
<<How can you ignore it?>>
It's easy for us "Master procrastinators"!
Keep in mind, my list is an old DWM2 which was formerly an AF1, so it stretched back quite a few pages when FV came along, and the older pages are *very* sparse, with just one to three items each. What I'm about to describe wouldn't tend to happen on a new, compact list.
Well, I'm working on a chain that mostly occupies a half-dozen recent pages, but the earliest dotted benchmark is straggling along another ten pages back or so. I action every dotted thing in the first three pages, then I add and dot a few urgent items at the end of the list, work my way back up, etc.
As I make it up toward the top, I remember how much I really don't want to do that top task, and so before I reach its page, I find some more reasons to extend the chain by dotting some more things. This can continue as long as I am remotely busy, as long as there is a shred of an excuse to imagine that something else is urgent. Also, it's great when I get to the end of the day without completing that chain, because then I can rationalize a whole new extension of the chain to properly handle the new day. A few iterations later, there is little reason to look back at that oldest page at all. It is now ignored, effectively "dismissed," AF1 style.
However, none of this is to be taken as a complaint about FV. I made the above mistake once or twice, and now I know better. If I find myself re-extending a chain repeatedly, I finish it off ASAP with "just five minutes" on every task all way to the top. Then a fresh chain feels great!
<<How can you ignore it?>>
It's easy for us "Master procrastinators"!
Keep in mind, my list is an old DWM2 which was formerly an AF1, so it stretched back quite a few pages when FV came along, and the older pages are *very* sparse, with just one to three items each. What I'm about to describe wouldn't tend to happen on a new, compact list.
Well, I'm working on a chain that mostly occupies a half-dozen recent pages, but the earliest dotted benchmark is straggling along another ten pages back or so. I action every dotted thing in the first three pages, then I add and dot a few urgent items at the end of the list, work my way back up, etc.
As I make it up toward the top, I remember how much I really don't want to do that top task, and so before I reach its page, I find some more reasons to extend the chain by dotting some more things. This can continue as long as I am remotely busy, as long as there is a shred of an excuse to imagine that something else is urgent. Also, it's great when I get to the end of the day without completing that chain, because then I can rationalize a whole new extension of the chain to properly handle the new day. A few iterations later, there is little reason to look back at that oldest page at all. It is now ignored, effectively "dismissed," AF1 style.
However, none of this is to be taken as a complaint about FV. I made the above mistake once or twice, and now I know better. If I find myself re-extending a chain repeatedly, I finish it off ASAP with "just five minutes" on every task all way to the top. Then a fresh chain feels great!
March 21, 2012 at 5:51 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie:
Yes, little and often is the answer.
Yes, little and often is the answer.
March 21, 2012 at 7:09 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Matt:
<<Master Procrastinators>> - what a brilliant expression.
I have since my childhood (mis)invested countless hours in mastering the art of procrastination. Seeing my 8-year-old son take 2 hours to do a 5-minute job recently was very painful and sobering..
<<Master Procrastinators>> - what a brilliant expression.
I have since my childhood (mis)invested countless hours in mastering the art of procrastination. Seeing my 8-year-old son take 2 hours to do a 5-minute job recently was very painful and sobering..
March 21, 2012 at 10:00 |
Daydreamer
Daydreamer
Mark,
If 'little and often' is the answer – to which I wholeheartedly agree – then my erroneous #2 suggestion would be more effective than moving a partially worked item to the end of the list. Why? Because at the end of the list, the once-actioned item can always be ignored, because it doesn't fit the "do I want to do X before Y" paradigm. I'll never "want" to do it, even though I need to do it, because it is distasteful. I can always play games in my mind with the "want" feature.
But, with my erroneous #2 suggestion the item can't be ignored, because there it is on the list. My solution is to do a little on it, so I can get past it for the day. Thus, day after day I'm doing a little to get rid of it. After a little success, I may be motivated to get it completely off my list, so I may ramp up my effort.
If I follow the paradigm and put it at the end, then I can continue to play games with impunity.
Matt
If 'little and often' is the answer – to which I wholeheartedly agree – then my erroneous #2 suggestion would be more effective than moving a partially worked item to the end of the list. Why? Because at the end of the list, the once-actioned item can always be ignored, because it doesn't fit the "do I want to do X before Y" paradigm. I'll never "want" to do it, even though I need to do it, because it is distasteful. I can always play games in my mind with the "want" feature.
But, with my erroneous #2 suggestion the item can't be ignored, because there it is on the list. My solution is to do a little on it, so I can get past it for the day. Thus, day after day I'm doing a little to get rid of it. After a little success, I may be motivated to get it completely off my list, so I may ramp up my effort.
If I follow the paradigm and put it at the end, then I can continue to play games with impunity.
Matt
March 21, 2012 at 13:22 |
Matt
Matt
Bernie,
If you'll look at my answer to Mark, you'll see that I can play games with the item when moving it to the bottom of the list. You show that you can play games if the item remains at the top according to my erroneous #2 suggestion – though not nearly as easily in my estimation.
What to conclude, then? It seems that there might still be a hole in the paradigm for Master Procrastinators to game the system.
Matt
If you'll look at my answer to Mark, you'll see that I can play games with the item when moving it to the bottom of the list. You show that you can play games if the item remains at the top according to my erroneous #2 suggestion – though not nearly as easily in my estimation.
What to conclude, then? It seems that there might still be a hole in the paradigm for Master Procrastinators to game the system.
Matt
March 21, 2012 at 13:27 |
Matt
Matt
Matt:
<<the once-actioned item can always be ignored>>
Like life. Or becoming a better parent or pianist. For some, the passing of time, a friend or family member dying, can wake people up.
Personally, "little and often" and FV rules helped me take action on the following project: "Apply for 3 new passports - the one's you lost". The only thing worse would be 3 root canals. And yet progress was made. Can I ignore doing any more work on this? Sure, until the task has aged into the oldest once again, or my wife and kid leave me.
<<the once-actioned item can always be ignored>>
Like life. Or becoming a better parent or pianist. For some, the passing of time, a friend or family member dying, can wake people up.
Personally, "little and often" and FV rules helped me take action on the following project: "Apply for 3 new passports - the one's you lost". The only thing worse would be 3 root canals. And yet progress was made. Can I ignore doing any more work on this? Sure, until the task has aged into the oldest once again, or my wife and kid leave me.
March 21, 2012 at 13:41 |
avrum
avrum
Matt:
<< If 'little and often' is the answer – to which I wholeheartedly agree – then my erroneous #2 suggestion would be more effective than moving a partially worked item to the end of the list. Why? Because at the end of the list, the once-actioned item can always be ignored, because it doesn't fit the "do I want to do X before Y" paradigm. I'll never "want" to do it, even though I need to do it, because it is distasteful. I can always play games in my mind with the "want" feature. >>
You're rather missing the point about "little and often" because the purpose of doing a little bit is that it reduces resistance so that you won't be avoiding doing the task in future.
Maybe now would be a good time to stop procrastinating and actually try FV out. Your way or my way really doesn't matter - but just do it.
<< If 'little and often' is the answer – to which I wholeheartedly agree – then my erroneous #2 suggestion would be more effective than moving a partially worked item to the end of the list. Why? Because at the end of the list, the once-actioned item can always be ignored, because it doesn't fit the "do I want to do X before Y" paradigm. I'll never "want" to do it, even though I need to do it, because it is distasteful. I can always play games in my mind with the "want" feature. >>
You're rather missing the point about "little and often" because the purpose of doing a little bit is that it reduces resistance so that you won't be avoiding doing the task in future.
Maybe now would be a good time to stop procrastinating and actually try FV out. Your way or my way really doesn't matter - but just do it.
March 21, 2012 at 14:09 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Matt,
<<If 'little and often' is the answer – to which I wholeheartedly agree – then my erroneous #2 suggestion would be more effective than moving a partially worked item to the end of the list. Why? Because at the end of the list, the once-actioned item can always be ignored, because it doesn't fit the "do I want to do X before Y" paradigm. I'll never "want" to do it, even though I need to do it, because it is distasteful. I can always play games in my mind with the "want" feature.>>
I hear you, but you are making quite an assumption here. I might have been persuaded of all this before I tried FV. But not afterward. "Psychologically ready" is more subtle and powerful than all the theorizing any of us might care to do.
To repeat a story of mine from some other thread, I had been resisting a top-of-chain item and was feeling demoralized about having avoided it for two days and extending the chain yet again, when I finally pushed myself to work on it for five minutes. I trudged off, feeling rather pointless, "knowing" for "certain" that I wasn't really going to accomplish anything except introducing procrastination into FV—and then I felt demoralized about that on top of it. Fortunately, all of this occurred in about two seconds as I walked down the stairs, and so I still had 4 minutes and 58 seconds left to do actual work.
The work turned out to be thinking. I recognized four separate decisions that had to be made, all which were annoying yet eminently doable. I wrote all four of them at the end of my FV list, and then I realized one of them was easier than I'd thought, so I went off and handled it. I think I went about three minutes over the allotment—Whoops!!
Since then, I have not touched the remaining three decisions, because they are not at all urgent. However, formulating those decisions was significant progress, and once or twice a day they pop into my head unbidden, and I mull them over a bit. This is leaps and bounds ahead of having done nothing, or having left the original vague item at the top and ignored it. Additionally, since other items have been allowed into the top spot, I've now finished several other things that would otherwise have languished just below the top.
For me, that is superior to your option #2, and I wouldn't have predicted it.
<<If 'little and often' is the answer – to which I wholeheartedly agree – then my erroneous #2 suggestion would be more effective than moving a partially worked item to the end of the list. Why? Because at the end of the list, the once-actioned item can always be ignored, because it doesn't fit the "do I want to do X before Y" paradigm. I'll never "want" to do it, even though I need to do it, because it is distasteful. I can always play games in my mind with the "want" feature.>>
I hear you, but you are making quite an assumption here. I might have been persuaded of all this before I tried FV. But not afterward. "Psychologically ready" is more subtle and powerful than all the theorizing any of us might care to do.
To repeat a story of mine from some other thread, I had been resisting a top-of-chain item and was feeling demoralized about having avoided it for two days and extending the chain yet again, when I finally pushed myself to work on it for five minutes. I trudged off, feeling rather pointless, "knowing" for "certain" that I wasn't really going to accomplish anything except introducing procrastination into FV—and then I felt demoralized about that on top of it. Fortunately, all of this occurred in about two seconds as I walked down the stairs, and so I still had 4 minutes and 58 seconds left to do actual work.
The work turned out to be thinking. I recognized four separate decisions that had to be made, all which were annoying yet eminently doable. I wrote all four of them at the end of my FV list, and then I realized one of them was easier than I'd thought, so I went off and handled it. I think I went about three minutes over the allotment—Whoops!!
Since then, I have not touched the remaining three decisions, because they are not at all urgent. However, formulating those decisions was significant progress, and once or twice a day they pop into my head unbidden, and I mull them over a bit. This is leaps and bounds ahead of having done nothing, or having left the original vague item at the top and ignored it. Additionally, since other items have been allowed into the top spot, I've now finished several other things that would otherwise have languished just below the top.
For me, that is superior to your option #2, and I wouldn't have predicted it.
March 22, 2012 at 4:41 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie,
Do you think that all of what you said WOULD NOT apply to my erroneous #2 possibility? Your preaching to the choir! :-)
Matt
Do you think that all of what you said WOULD NOT apply to my erroneous #2 possibility? Your preaching to the choir! :-)
Matt
March 22, 2012 at 5:11 |
Matt
Matt
Mark,
"Maybe now would be a good time to stop procrastinating and actually try FV out. Your way or my way really doesn't matter - but just do it."
Well, I'm not procrastinating. I already have a very good system that has proven itself over and over in keeping me on the straight and narrow. I learned some of the techniques of my methodology from your various iterations of Autofocus, for which I'm grateful.
If I had not read the posts on the forum first, then I wouldn't have had a preconception that caused me to misread, or 'read past', what was written in your manual. And, if I hadn't misread it, I wouldn't have posted.
I was viewing FV with an eye toward "what innovations has Mark come up with that might be better than some of the implementations I current am using" or "what innovations can I adapt" or "what new techniques can I leverage" etc. I'm completely satisfied with what I have, but if you had some component that made mine more efficient, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it.
I'm glad your FV has finally distilled all of your knowledge and ideas into a workable system. You've done a great service for many.
I think my own personal sneakiness needed a personalized approach. I finally settled on an electronic implementation of a system that incorporates the ideas of little and often, a form of dismissal, and psychological readiness in a way that circumvents my sneakiness.
Good luck with all your ventures spinning off from FV. I wish you the best. You're a good man.
Matt
"Maybe now would be a good time to stop procrastinating and actually try FV out. Your way or my way really doesn't matter - but just do it."
Well, I'm not procrastinating. I already have a very good system that has proven itself over and over in keeping me on the straight and narrow. I learned some of the techniques of my methodology from your various iterations of Autofocus, for which I'm grateful.
If I had not read the posts on the forum first, then I wouldn't have had a preconception that caused me to misread, or 'read past', what was written in your manual. And, if I hadn't misread it, I wouldn't have posted.
I was viewing FV with an eye toward "what innovations has Mark come up with that might be better than some of the implementations I current am using" or "what innovations can I adapt" or "what new techniques can I leverage" etc. I'm completely satisfied with what I have, but if you had some component that made mine more efficient, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it.
I'm glad your FV has finally distilled all of your knowledge and ideas into a workable system. You've done a great service for many.
I think my own personal sneakiness needed a personalized approach. I finally settled on an electronic implementation of a system that incorporates the ideas of little and often, a form of dismissal, and psychological readiness in a way that circumvents my sneakiness.
Good luck with all your ventures spinning off from FV. I wish you the best. You're a good man.
Matt
March 22, 2012 at 5:37 |
Matt
Matt
Matt:
<< Well, I'm not procrastinating. I already have a very good system that has proven itself over and over in keeping me on the straight and narrow. >>
Glad to hear that the "master procrastinator" is in this instance not procrastinating!
<< Well, I'm not procrastinating. I already have a very good system that has proven itself over and over in keeping me on the straight and narrow. >>
Glad to hear that the "master procrastinator" is in this instance not procrastinating!
March 22, 2012 at 7:44 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Matt,
<<Do you think that all of what you said WOULD NOT apply to my erroneous #2 possibility? Your preaching to the choir! :-)>>
Of course not. I'm only encouraging you, in my incorrigibly long-winded manner, to give Mark's greatest creation a try. Worst case, you could always come back to your current system which is working for you.
Either way, I'm glad you (as a fellow member of the choir) are getting your things done. Best wishes.
<<Do you think that all of what you said WOULD NOT apply to my erroneous #2 possibility? Your preaching to the choir! :-)>>
Of course not. I'm only encouraging you, in my incorrigibly long-winded manner, to give Mark's greatest creation a try. Worst case, you could always come back to your current system which is working for you.
Either way, I'm glad you (as a fellow member of the choir) are getting your things done. Best wishes.
March 22, 2012 at 14:13 |
Bernie
Bernie
Matt, could you describe the system you're using?
April 9, 2012 at 21:54 |
Deven
Deven
Deven,
No, I don't want to do that. I don't want to detract from what Mark is doing here. Mark has graciously shared his system with everyone for free here at this forum and I think this forum should remain exclusively about his Final Version.
But, if you are interested, email me and I will discuss with you privately what I have developed.
Matt
No, I don't want to do that. I don't want to detract from what Mark is doing here. Mark has graciously shared his system with everyone for free here at this forum and I think this forum should remain exclusively about his Final Version.
But, if you are interested, email me and I will discuss with you privately what I have developed.
Matt
April 11, 2012 at 19:06 |
Matt
Matt
Matt, we are all curious (OK, I should not speak for others, I am & at least one other). Makes sense not to post in FV Forum, so why not post a description of what you are doing in the other General Forum? You can even link to it from here when you do.
AND, as for trying the FV. Yeah, I'm sort of like you, endless theorizing in my mind as to why will not work. My reason being: how does it deal with the one closed list for the day, scheduled items, projects... Should they really all be tossed together in one soup? I've read here of at least one person whose list reached ~600 items, that seems a mess. And I get what you are saying about keep putting it off, or how handle little and often.
And all I can say is the same as Mark said, you just need to try it. Stop the over thinking part of your mind and just dive in. Curious to read your results if you do, pro or con. And curious about your current method, post in General Forum.
another Matt(hewS)
AND, as for trying the FV. Yeah, I'm sort of like you, endless theorizing in my mind as to why will not work. My reason being: how does it deal with the one closed list for the day, scheduled items, projects... Should they really all be tossed together in one soup? I've read here of at least one person whose list reached ~600 items, that seems a mess. And I get what you are saying about keep putting it off, or how handle little and often.
And all I can say is the same as Mark said, you just need to try it. Stop the over thinking part of your mind and just dive in. Curious to read your results if you do, pro or con. And curious about your current method, post in General Forum.
another Matt(hewS)
April 11, 2012 at 21:36 |
matthewS
matthewS
I thought I was a member of the board, but for some reason I can't log in, so my email didn't show up.
mm***cr**ider*** 56 **(( @ ))*** yah0**0 dot c0m.
I trust that is decipherable by everyone.
Matt
mm***cr**ider*** 56 **(( @ ))*** yah0**0 dot c0m.
I trust that is decipherable by everyone.
Matt
April 11, 2012 at 23:48 |
Matt
Matt
I've read the instructions. And, I've read most of the posts - though I read most of the posts before I had the instructions. I may have missed this, so forgive my question, if it has been covered.
Assume the following on Day 1:
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Assume that I preselect Task 1 (which I must select as the First Unactioned Item) and Task 3.
Task 3 is completely done and scratched through. Task 1 is worked on, but not completed.
The following are possibilities and I don't think it is clear in the instructions which possibility is the correct one:
1. Task 1 remains in the list where it is and it still remains the First Unactioned Item, such that in the next preselection period, Task 1 is the first (or last - working backwards) item on the new preselection list.
2. Task 1 remains in the list where it is, but for the remainder of the day, it is not the First Unactioned Item. Tomorrow it will begin the day as the First Unactioned Item. For the next preselection period, Task 2 is the First Unactioned Item.
3. Task 1 is scratched through and rewritten at the bottom of the list.
Number 1 clearly doesn't seem right. Why put it back on the preselection list? Why not just work on it until the day is finished? But, what if one doesn't want to work on this first item all day long?
Number 3 doesn't seem right, because it demotes the importance of the item.
Number 2 seems to be the correct answer, because it allows a person to do some work on an important item without finishing it, while retaining its importance. But, this doesn't seem to be clearly indicated in the instructions.
What is the proper solution?
Matt