Navigation
To Think About . . .
My Latest Book
Also available on Amazon.com, Amazon.fr, and other Amazons and bookshops worldwide!
Search This Site
Log-in
Latest Comments
Most Popular Content
My Other Books
This thread has been locked.
Do it in several passes, each one deeper. Mark described this in his blog, using writing as an example (recreated from faulty memory here). First pass: get out the folder. 2nd pass: consider topics. 3rd pass: 1st level outline. 4th pass: flesh out the outline. 5th pass add a few sentences. Each pass is a bit longer, but only a small step from the previous.
If your brain grabs a juicy bit and wants to do more, let it.
Little and often. Small, not-scary chunks, with enough time between for your lizard brain to settle down and realize it wasn't so bad, but often enough to keep up momentum (and not long enough for your lizard brain to forget it wasn't so bad).
By lizard brain, I mean the primitive, fearful part of your brain. It's very good for keeping you out of dark, scary caves that might hold a sabre tooth tiger, but right now it's just getting in the way.
I have a particular task in mind that is on my list and I would classify it as urgent -- yet it's a high-resistance task. Following the FV rules, a full week has gone by without this task getting preselected, because it's never been the answer to The Question, even though I know it SHOULD be done soon. I've worked on many other tasks on my list, but this one won't be one that I actually WANT to do before something else -- at least not until the benchmark is a task with even higher resistance.
Cricket's advice is good, but irrelevant here. Until the task ends up on the preselected list, you won't even "get out the folder" because you're NOT supposed to be working on the task yet. And the longer the list is, the longer it will take to reach the magic slot where it becomes the first unactioned item and FV rules say that you MUST preselect it at that point.
Starting today, I am experimenting with a FV tweak to try to counter this. For urgent tasks, I am adding a star (*) in front of the task to mark it as urgent. For really urgent tasks (like the one I have in mind), I'm using two stars (**). The only difference from normal FV rules is that I am keeping all starred tasks before main list of unstarred ones, and all double-starred tasks before the starred ones -- unless they're being immediately added to the preselected list when entered, in which case they are entered at the bottom of the main list and immediately preselected with a dot. Preselection always starts with the first unactioned task in the highest-level group (double-starred, starred, unstarred) and continues through all the groups to the end of the list as in standard FV rules.
Since I am implementing FV on 3x5 index cards, I am simply keeping the starred and double-starred tasks on separate cards and keeping those cards earlier in the sequence. When rewriting an urgent task, I write it on the last card of the group it belongs in. At the moment, I have 1 card with double-starred tasks, 3 cards with starred tasks and 6 cards with unstarred tasks.
My thinking is that this tweak will force urgent tasks to flow into the magic first slot sooner and more frequently to ensure high-resistance urgent tasks benefit from the little-and-often principle and don't languish. All I'm really doing is changing the rewriting rule slightly to insert urgent tasks after other similarly-urgent tasks at the top of the full list instead of rewriting everything at the end of the list as in standard FV.
Mark, what are your thoughts about this tweak? Do you see a better way to handle high-resistance urgent tasks within the standard FV rules?
So I'm working a work-based FV list and hitting it on every single ladder. I've done three ladders since lunch, of about three or four tasks each. The dreaded task, a more neutral work task, working my personal FV list, and/or goofing off online. I'm not making quick progress on the dreaded task, but it is vanishing and every pass through the chain I work on it a bit longer before turning aside from it.
For me, a strong enough "I should work on that" can turn a dreaded task into a want to do, if only so I can eat the spinach and move on to dessert.
Perhaps rephrasing the Question to "What do I want to get done, before I get X done?" will help. While almost the same as the original, the emphasis is on having it done rather than on the doing. You can still just do just a little bit of it and reenter it, and then it may still need to be preselected on the next chain if the urgency remains.
Consider that the 'want' in the original question should not be construed so as to get you to select only easy or fun tasks. You 'want' to be professional, responsible, accountable, and have peace of mind that you are taking action on everything that is important and urgent in your life.
I wonder if, once my backlog of low-priority but important to my Future Reality tasks clears out, the problem will still exist.
R.M. So the dreaded task is permanently dotted? That makes sense. Does it still get rewritten to the bottom, with the permanent dot attached, each time you do it?
Of course, inserting into the middle of a list is tricky in a paper notebook, though a loose-leaf notebook could be managed the way I'm using index cards. I just happen to like index cards. My tweaked rewriting rule would be quite simple to implement electronically, of course.
I realize this change will mean that old unstarred tasks are more likely to be neglected, but I don't see that as a downside. They're old because they've been neglected already, and if I'm going to have a system force one task to be a priority (by being the root of a chain), I'd rather it be an urgent item. When I run out of urgent tasks, this tweaked version of FV will naturally resume paring down the neglected unstarred tasks, without leaving urgent tasks to languish.
I don't think my suggestion above twists the meaning of 'want' in the original question. As Mark says in the FV instructions: <<What exactly is meant by "want" in this context is deliberately left undefined. There may be a whole variety of reasons why you might want to do one thing before another thing and all of them are valid.>>
Since the task is on your list, I assume it's something that is important to you. Further, you've identified the task as both high-resistance (i.e. unpleasant and/or difficult) and urgent. You want it done, or at least gone and off your list, right? What will happen if you just delete it or try to delegate it to someone else or just keep skipping it and letting the deadline pass? Do you 'want' to let any of those things happen? If not, then I submit that you really truly 'want' to get it done.
The "magic slot" is the first item in the list, because the FV rules require the first unactioned item to be the root of the chain in the preselection process. What's magic about this is that you're including it on your list whether you want to do it or not. Everything else is supposed to be selected on the basis of The Question ("What do I want to do before I do x?") to create the chain of tasks to do in sequence, generating a laddering effect to work your way up to the task you perhaps didn't even want to do in the first place.
High-resistance urgent tasks will rarely be selected by The Question, yet are exactly the tasks most in need of this laddering treatment and the little-and-often effect. That's why my tweak is to change the rewriting rule to insert the urgent items near the top of the list where they will flow into that "magic slot" sooner and more often.
Your suggestion *is* a tweak, because you're changing The Question without even realizing it. By rewriting the urgent item at the bottom of the list and dotting it each time you make a chain, you're changing the question to "What do I want to do before I do x, or is urgent?" That's a much more substantial tweak than the one I am proposing, because you're potentially sacrificing the laddering effect and encouraging resistance against the task AND the system. I think the explicit tweak to the rewriting rule is better.
Yes Cricket, that's exactly it - it is permanently dotted. I do recopy it to the end every time. I get a boost of accomplishment from striking it out even if I re-add it at the end. I think I'd get resistance if I tried to create a really regular cycle of three or four tasks or if I tried to remember where in a list the dreaded task fell. "Was it before or after the filing? I'll do it after." I also want to work the FV list by the rules for the practice of working the list by the rules, to reinforce that habit since that's my biggest problem when I'm at home.
The dreaded task is at this point done - it wasn't huge, just an hour or two or work. Now I'm doing other tasks, including an identical task on a project with less resistance. The FV list is less critical now. Before I needed it to force myself to do the work. Now I just need it to keep me from being too generous with my fun breaks.
I realize that Mark left the definition of "want" deliberately vague, but the fact remains that I don't really want to do this task. I need to do it because it's my job and it's not reasonable to delegate it. Yes, I could technically remain within the FV rules by defining "want" as you describe, since Mark left if vague. However, it's more honest to say that you're tweaking the FV rules by doing this, because you're really changing The Question to "What do I want to do before I do x, or feel like I have to do even though I don't want to?" Again, I think this has the same problem as Lillian's approach.
So we agree that you want to get it done, though you don't want to do it. If this situation arises frequently, perhaps a career change is in order? ;-]
<< Yes Cricket, that's exactly it - it is permanently dotted. >>
That really the same thing that Lillian proposed, and I think it effectively amounts to tweaking The Question, even if you don't think that's what you're doing. Mark stressed that the exact formulation of The Question was critical and that tweaking it is likely to break the system. I'm trying to avoid that, which is why I'm only tweaking the rewriting rule.
<< So we agree that you want to get it done, though you don't want to do it. If this situation arises frequently, perhaps a career change is in order? ;-] >>
I'm going to assume that was tongue-in-cheek. I love my job and it's a great fit for me. That doesn't mean that every task that comes my way is one that I want to do.
Yes, the rules do say that. However, doing so implies that you WANT to do it before whatever you're currently working on, because that's the criteria embedded in The Question. I'm trying to address the handling of urgent items that you DON'T want to do before the other tasks that are available.
What's funny to me is that permanently dotting the item and leaving it at the top gives me the hives just to think about it. Instant stuck. Permanently dotting it and re-adding it to the bottom of every chain makes me feel like I'm accomplishing something and I fly through the rotations. It makes no sense, but there it is. I'll stick to the one that doesn't make me flee the list in terror. :)
I might skip that high-resistance item for a few cycles, but the resistance slowly breaks down as my subconscious mind ponders the implications of my procrastination. Finally I cry out, "enough already!" and "pull out the file". That's usually enough to get me started on serious work, and sometimes just to get the thing done in one go.
If that DOESN'T happen, I have found that the task really wasn't that important anyway (almost always). It just goes stale and loses its urgency.
Actually, it's not "almost always". It's just "always". At least, so far. :-)
And that's exactly what is SUPPOSED to happen. FV is designed to sort out the REALLY urgent from the FAUX urgent. :-)
I'm not talking about permanently dotting anything, that's your approach. I'm talking about rewriting urgent tasks NEAR the top to give them extra priority to match the urgency without changing The Question or how to work the chains.
Perhaps an example would help illustrate what I mean. Suppose you have the following list:
Task A
Task B
Task C
Task D
Task E
Task F
Task G
Suppose you preselect the following chain: A-C-F, and decide during the preselection process that Task C is urgent, so you mark it with a star. (I'll use hyphens below to represent dotted tasks that have been preselected.) You now have the following list:
-Task A
Task B
-*Task C
Task D
Task E
-Task F
Task G
You action Task F and rewrite it:
-Task A
Task B
-*Task C
Task D
Task E
Task G
Task F
Following your preselection, you action Task C next, and rewrite it at the top because you don't have any starred tasks yet:
*Task C
-Task A
Task B
Task D
Task E
Task G
Task F
Finally, you action Task A, finishing your initial chain. Suppose you're finished with this one, so you delete it:
*Task C
Task B
Task D
Task E
Task G
Task F
You start preselecting a new chain. The urgent task (Task C) is now automatically included as the root of the new chain. Suppose you select C-E-G as the new chain:
-*Task C
Task B
Task D
-Task E
-Task G
Task F
While working on Task G, a new Task H comes in. It's urgent and you want to work on it right away, so (following the FV rules), you add it to the end of the list, preselect it immediately and start working on it:
-*Task C
Task B
Task D
-Task E
-Task G
Task F
-*Task H
After actioning Task H, it's not done, so you rewrite it at the end of the list of starred tasks:
-*Task C
*Task H
Task B
Task D
-Task E
-Task G
Task F
Following your preselection, you resume working on Task G after the interruption of Task H. You finish this task and delete it from the list:
-*Task C
*Task H
Task B
Task D
-Task E
Task F
Following your preselection, you action Task E and rewrite it:
-*Task C
*Task H
Task B
Task D
Task F
Task E
Following your preselection, you action Task C and rewrite it at the end of the list of starred tasks:
*Task H
*Task C
Task B
Task D
Task F
Task E
You then start a new chain, this time with Task H as the root of the chain. Notice that Task C is NOT "permanently dotted", because this chain won't include Task C unless it's something you WANT to do before Task H. (Remember, I am not changing The Question.) However, once you finish the chain with Task H, the next chain will start with Task C again.
The idea of this tweak is to make urgent items appear in the "magic slot" in preference to low-priority neglected items. While those neglected items may be deserving of attention, it's probably more important to work on the urgent items first. This tweak is designed to give urgent items the maximum benefit of the laddering effect from The Question without needing to bend the definition of "want" or "permanently dot" anything.
<< um, I'm confused, but if the urgent task can sit on the list without any work on it for a week(?!), how urgent is it really? (For me, urgent is 'drop everything and do only this NOW until it's done' ) >>
It's all relative. Truly urgent "drop everything" tasks can and do get done right away, and even Mark states that such immediate tasks are outside the scope of time management systems and fall under the "common sense" rule.
If you'd prefer, you could view it as a priority system -- unstarred tasks are "normal priority", starred tasks are "high priority" and double-starred tasks are "top priority". Same effect, different terminology.
It occurs to me that these priority names have mnemonic value -- "high priority" tasks would be high on the list and "top priority" tasks would be at the top of the list. Interesting...
<< The constant cycling through the list (every time you do a preselection round) tends to break down resistance. At least, that's my experience. >>
Since most people seem to do 1-4 chains per day (according to the poll thread), this cycling isn't really all that constant. Doesn't working on a task "little and often" break down resistance faster than simply scanning past the entry on the list? My tweak to the rewriting rule is designed to utilize that "little and often" effect by ensuring that chains always start with an urgent task if there is one.
The reason this "urgent" task remained on my list for a week without action is because I was trying to "trust the system" as Mark urged. I gave it a chance, and it wasn't working, so I'm trying this tweak to see if it makes a difference..
I'm not trying to argue you out of your plan - it sounds quite sensible to me. The more detailed explanation makes it less hive-inducing, though if you only have one urgent item (as I do) it seems effectively permanently dotted to me, at which point I'm all hives again.
Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not clever enough with ASCII smileys to generate a tongue-in-cheek one, so I used a winky (;-]).
Thanks for the detailed example. Your clever tweak is interesting, but wouldn't work for folks using bound paper notebooks, unfortunately.
I see no problem in defining "want" as "want to be done with..." and following the standard FV. If every instinct tells you that you should be getting on with a particular task before the current last selection, I'd select it. Works for me.
Why not try it for a week and see what happens?
<< I have a particular task in mind that is on my list and I would classify it as urgent -- yet it's a high-resistance task. Following the FV rules, a full week has gone by without this task getting preselected, because it's never been the answer to The Question, even though I know it SHOULD be done soon. I've worked on many other tasks on my list, but this one won't be one that I actually WANT to do before something else -- at least not until the benchmark is a task with even higher resistance. >>
The very fact that you are asking for advice on how to do this task shows that you want to do it. If you didn't want to do it you wouldn't care less when it got done.
In other words you want to get it done because of the unacceptable consequences of not getting it done. You definitely don't want those!
To quote the FV rules:
'What exactly is meant by "want" in this context is deliberately left undefined. There may be a whole variety of reasons why you might want to do one thing before another thing and all of them are valid.'
At some some level, I'm weighing factors like: fun, deadline, goals, commitments, and who knows how many others.
The fact that none of that is spelled out, and yet is so built-in, is very, very slick.
I really like your idea. So far FV didn't do anything for me (sorry Mark) and I worked my list mostly AF1 style. But for me one list is usually too general. I always longed for more context.
I don't like index cards but there are so many other ways to implement your idea. I'm starting right away. Thank you for sharing.
<< The reason this "urgent" task remained on my list for a week without action is because I was trying to "trust the system" as Mark urged. >>
If an urgent task remained on the list for a week without action then either it wasn't urgent at all, or you were ignoring the inner voice that told you that you needed to get it done.
FV is not Autofocus. You are not waiting for something to "stand out". It's intended that you should make conscious choices about what you want to get done. If you want to get something done in order to avoid negative consequences then you should select it.
In your example I would just have selected Task C without all the bother of rewriting it or marking it with a star. I don't see that the extra complication adds anything. If you are capable of putting a star against it, then you are capable of deciding to select it.
<< So far FV didn't do anything for me (sorry Mark) and I worked my list mostly AF1 style. >>
Could you say a bit more about your experiences with FV?
?? I didn't intend to say anything that was a tweak to FV. Dotting the same urgent/high priority item each time (or most times) a chain is created, no matter where it is on the list, isn't a tweak. If it's urgent/high priority it should come up as a 'want to do before' something else on the list ~because~ it's urgent/high priority. It's in the FV rules that urgent tasks that come up during the day are added to the end of the list with a dot.
The problem is not with FV or any of your ideas. The problem is with me. I just can't follow any algorithms consistently. I keep forgetting I even have a list sitting in front of my nose. When I remember to look at the list, I have a very high resistance of even reading it, except very early in the morning. The list is really a place to keep reminders of things that need to be done since my memory is not that great.
When I say that I follow mostly AF1, it's because it was the first of your systems that I tried really hard to implement, even if in my own way. Then I also liked DWM but probably because it divided the long list into several chunks, which were easier to read for me. The one thing that took from FV is the permission to either work on the first task on the list or rewrite it at the end of the list if the task is not ready, which gives me the feeling that I'm moving down the list. And it is a nice feeling.
But I don't want to search on many pages for tasks that need to be done before the others. I like the idea of having the urgent list (two stars) less urgent (one star) and not urgent and work them all at their right pace but knowing were to check first for what is more important.
I finally shifted it by writing it at the end of the list with a dot, and with the wording 'Finish project marking' and didn't allow myself to move onto anything else until it was done. Not ideal, but the looming deadline trumped everything.
On other occasions I've dealt with this kind of high resistance task by breaking it down into discrete parts (e.g. mark 2 projects) and doing one part every day until completed. Non-negotiable, I have to do it, even if if means starting at 11pm. Better to do it first thing in the day if I can, like Mark's Current Initiative.
That said, I find FV is encouraging in its innate 'little and often' characteristic across the many tasks have to do. However, I also need to define how 'little or much' to do along the path of a bigger task, like the report I am trying to finish this weekend!
When an urgent/important task is being added to the end of the list, perhaps the dot needs to be enhanced to make it stand out even more, due to its relative urgency/importancy. It's another reason why I like using Evernote, I can tag the task with the FV Chain tag and it will immediately show up on my current chain.
There's merit in having a one-task chain when the situation demands it
<< There's merit in having a one-task chain when the situation demands it >>
That's right. There is no reason why you *have* to select any more tasks. If the answer to the question of what you want to do before the first task on the list is "Nothing" that's perfectly acceptable.
<< Thanks for the detailed example. Your clever tweak is interesting, but wouldn't work for folks using bound paper notebooks, unfortunately. >>
Yes, inserting into the middle of the list is clearly difficult with a bound notebook. This approach is easy to implement on 3x5 index cards (which is what I'm doing), and reasonable with loose-leaf notebooks. For a bound notebook, I guess I'd resign myself to numbering pages in such a way that I could follow them in the correct logical sequence even if they're not physically in order in the notebook. Personally, I like the index cards.
<< I'm not trying to argue you out of your plan - it sounds quite sensible to me. The more detailed explanation makes it less hive-inducing, though if you only have one urgent item (as I do) it seems effectively permanently dotted to me, at which point I'm all hives again. >>
You're right, as long as there's exactly one starred task, it would be the root of every chain, making it effectively permanently dotted until another starred task shows up or that one is gone (or no longer starred). But given that your suggestion was to leave it permanently dotted at the end of the list, why is it any more hive-inducing?
<< s/constant/frequent/ >>
Thanks for the edit, but 1-4 times per day doesn't feel frequent to me either. Regardless, since we're supposed to scan the list for an answer to The Question rather than stopping to consider each task one-by-one, it seems to me that any given task that isn't selected for a chain will be lucky to get a few seconds of attention on a given day. Is that really enough exposure to the idea to break down resistance very much? Maybe so, but somehow it feels like wishful thinking to me. Still, if that's been your experience, it's something to keep in mind.
<< The very fact that you are asking for advice on how to do this task shows that you want to do it. If you didn't want to do it you wouldn't care less when it got done.
In other words you want to get it done because of the unacceptable consequences of not getting it done. You definitely don't want those! >>
I realize that you deliberately left "want" undefined in the FV rules, but the fact remains that I don't really want to be doing this task now, nor before X. Sure, I can twist the definition of "want" like this and pretend that I "want" to do it before X to ensure it ends up preselected, but that's just Orwellian doublespeak and my brain knows it. How does this address the psychological readiness issue any more than the advice to "just suck it up and do it!" does?
Honestly, the consequences of not getting this task done yet aren't yet unacceptable enough to override the resistance associated with the task. There's just no legitimate way I can answer The Question with this task without lying to myself. How can it make sense to subvert the system solely for the sake of staying technically within the rules? My brain knows I don't want to do this task before others; wouldn't this approach be likely to lead to a complete failure of the system in the end?
<<You're right, as long as there's exactly one starred task, it would be the root of every chain, making it effectively permanently dotted until another starred task shows up or that one is gone (or no longer starred). But given that your suggestion was to leave it permanently dotted at the end of the list, why is it any more hive-inducing? >>
I have absolutely no idea. The only thing I can think of is that although I'm using "permanently" to describe the situation, I haven't made re-dotting a firm rule. I'm choosing to re-dot it every time if it is at the end and I can skip dotting at any time without breaking Mark's rules. Even though I never use it, perhaps having an escape hatch makes a difference. But that's only a guess. It makes no sense to me but seems to be true without regard for logic.
<< If an urgent task remained on the list for a week without action then either it wasn't urgent at all, or you were ignoring the inner voice that told you that you needed to get it done. >>
Well, urgency is all relative. This task has been an outstanding request for months without complaints, but now I'm being pressured to finish it. Of course, that just adds to the resistance, even though I agree it should be done. Ironically, it's not even particularly difficult. This is just a procrastination issue, and that's exactly what I'm looking for FV to help with.
<< FV is not Autofocus. You are not waiting for something to "stand out". It's intended that you should make conscious choices about what you want to get done. If you want to get something done in order to avoid negative consequences then you should select it. >>
At this point, the only negative consequence is annoying someone who is perpetually annoyed anyway. So it doesn't matter that much in that regard. The only aspect of "want" that applies is that I want to turn it around in a more timely fashion, but that doesn't make it easier to stop procrastinating about it. It just makes it easier to feel bad about not doing it.
<< In your example I would just have selected Task C without all the bother of rewriting it or marking it with a star. I don't see that the extra complication adds anything. If you are capable of putting a star against it, then you are capable of deciding to select it. >>
That's easy enough when there's one task in question. I currently have 7 double-starred tasks, 14 starred tasks and 27 unstarred tasks. Would you really suggest that I should decide to select all 21 of those starred/double-starred tasks in every chain?
I think it would be better to reframe my tweak as a "priority" tweak rather than an "urgency" tweak. Like your non-definition of "want", the term "priority" can be left undefined -- a task could be considered a high-priority (starred) or top-priority (double-starred) task for any reason, with obvious ones being urgency (your own or someone else's), importance or desire to complete the task sooner.
I would love to be able to agree that FV is perfect as offered, and I greatly appreciate all the work and thought that went into it, but I'm finding that despite the flexibility inherent in leaving "want" undefined, FV is focusing me on old low-priority tasks instead of more current higher-priority tasks, and I believe this tweak will provide better focus on higher-priority tasks. At least, that's what my logic and intuition tells me; time will tell...
<< I have absolutely no idea. The only thing I can think of is that although I'm using "permanently" to describe the situation, I haven't made re-dotting a firm rule. I'm choosing to re-dot it every time if it is at the end and I can skip dotting at any time without breaking Mark's rules. Even though I never use it, perhaps having an escape hatch makes a difference. But that's only a guess. It makes no sense to me but seems to be true without regard for logic. >>
With my tweak, the "escape hatch" is equally simple -- decide that the task is no longer a priority and rewrite it at the end of the list without any stars. If that was the only starred task on the list, that means that everything would now be unstarred, and you would be following the standard FV rules completely until you choose to star something again.
<< ?? I didn't intend to say anything that was a tweak to FV. Dotting the same urgent/high priority item each time (or most times) a chain is created, no matter where it is on the list, isn't a tweak. If it's urgent/high priority it should come up as a 'want to do before' something else on the list ~because~ it's urgent/high priority. It's in the FV rules that urgent tasks that come up during the day are added to the end of the list with a dot. >>
If you are selecting the urgent/high priority task because you feel it's a task you want to do before the last preselected task, that is certainly following the FV rules as written. If you select it even though you DON'T want to do it, that strikes me as implicitly changing The Question, or at least bending "want" so far as to make it become meaningless. Yes, you're arguably still following the rules if you claim that's what you want, but it still doesn't feel right to me.
So why not leave it on the list whereever it is, without extra stars/dots/whatever. Sooner or later, the question of 'do I want to do {high resistance task} before something else' will be "yes, because I'm screwed if it's any later than it already is" ' or, depending how the question is asked, "do I want to do something else before {high resistance task}" the answer is "no, because I'm screwed if it's any later than it already is" Either way, you're not lying to yourself, you're not tweaking the question, etc.
I can't get into the FV rules email from this computer, but I'm pretty sure there's a tip/rule/whatever that if the first item on the list can't be worked on at the time, then cross it off and re-write it at the bottom of the list. Not a tweak, it's part of the rules.
If you don't already have an idea of why it's a high-resistance task, it might be worth taking 5 minutes next time it comes around and figure out why. Boring & monotous? Get a CD/mp3/book-on-tape whatever to listen to just for that project. Don't have all the info and it's like pulling teeth to get it from who has it? Start with an email to him/her asking for the info? etc. Figure out the high-resistance task's equivalent of 'get out the folder' and put that task on the list.
Mark:
<< I too have a hard time imagining your particular difficulty, but at one stage during development I was using the question "What is more urgent than x?". It wasn't anything like as effective for me, but it might suit your particular personality better. >>
I find it confusing that you stated that "What is more urgent than x?" was a much less effective question for you than "What do I want to do before I do x?", yet you recommend treating the latter question as if it were the former when the problem of urgency arises. I realize that leaving "want" undefined technically allows this within the rules, but won't you lose the effectiveness of the refined question by doing so?