FV and FVP Forum > High Resistance Urgent Tasks
Deven -
(1) Everyone is different, and everyone should absolutely feel free to do whatever works for them.
(2) But I'm guessing that the "star" and "double-star" approach is adding needless complexity and will be abandoned after a short time.
(3) SF and AF both had "compulsory" actions built into them which caused both of them to sputter and stall in different ways (SF: must work 2nd column; AF: must do 1 action per page or face dismissal of whole page). FV has only one small-impact compulsory action (you must act on Item #1 on the list). I'm guessing the stars will cause FV to sputter and stall and generate resistance to the list overall.
(4) If I am wrong, I will happily admit it. See (1). :-)
(5) Yes, 1-4 cycles per day really is enough to generate enough exposure to the tasks to break down resistance and sort out what is really urgent and important and what is FAUX urgent and important.
(6) The task that you keep mentioning sounds like a FAUX urgent task. The fact that you keep avoiding it after repeated exposure is enough to show this. The descriptions that you've added really do confirm this.
(7) Yes, you can dot those same items every time you do a chain. I have about 20 top projects right now (mostly work, many personal) and probably 80% of them get some action with each chain. However, FV allows me the freedom to choose which ones actually need action with each chain. I *see* all of them, and am reminded of all of them. But I am still in control of which ones I want to do with each chain.
(8) On the other hand, the stars approach forces you to act on each one every chain, rather than letting "the question" guide you. This reminds me of SF's second column, which for me created resistance to the overall list.
I hope these answers help, or at least provide food for thought. Again, do what works for you! And if that means stars, then stick with your stars! :-)
(1) Everyone is different, and everyone should absolutely feel free to do whatever works for them.
(2) But I'm guessing that the "star" and "double-star" approach is adding needless complexity and will be abandoned after a short time.
(3) SF and AF both had "compulsory" actions built into them which caused both of them to sputter and stall in different ways (SF: must work 2nd column; AF: must do 1 action per page or face dismissal of whole page). FV has only one small-impact compulsory action (you must act on Item #1 on the list). I'm guessing the stars will cause FV to sputter and stall and generate resistance to the list overall.
(4) If I am wrong, I will happily admit it. See (1). :-)
(5) Yes, 1-4 cycles per day really is enough to generate enough exposure to the tasks to break down resistance and sort out what is really urgent and important and what is FAUX urgent and important.
(6) The task that you keep mentioning sounds like a FAUX urgent task. The fact that you keep avoiding it after repeated exposure is enough to show this. The descriptions that you've added really do confirm this.
(7) Yes, you can dot those same items every time you do a chain. I have about 20 top projects right now (mostly work, many personal) and probably 80% of them get some action with each chain. However, FV allows me the freedom to choose which ones actually need action with each chain. I *see* all of them, and am reminded of all of them. But I am still in control of which ones I want to do with each chain.
(8) On the other hand, the stars approach forces you to act on each one every chain, rather than letting "the question" guide you. This reminds me of SF's second column, which for me created resistance to the overall list.
I hope these answers help, or at least provide food for thought. Again, do what works for you! And if that means stars, then stick with your stars! :-)
April 23, 2012 at 17:42 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Deven, sorry, I wrote my 17.07 post at the same time you were writing yours. You said " 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"
When I come to my high-resistance-but-must-do-ASAP tasks, they get dotted (and usually they're the last item on the list to be dotted no matter where they are on the list) because 'yes I want to do this before anything else on the list *because* it's due and I can't let it sit it any longer even though I hate doing this task" not "yes I want to do this because I like doing it more than anything else on the list"
(and no, I don't mean to say that "I want to do x because I like it" is how you're defining 'want'.)
It doesn't feel to me that "I want to do this because it's due & I'm sick&tired of it hanging over my head" is a change to the FV 'want' question.
Although I don't usually try to figure out what why I want to do something enough that it gets a dot.
When I come to my high-resistance-but-must-do-ASAP tasks, they get dotted (and usually they're the last item on the list to be dotted no matter where they are on the list) because 'yes I want to do this before anything else on the list *because* it's due and I can't let it sit it any longer even though I hate doing this task" not "yes I want to do this because I like doing it more than anything else on the list"
(and no, I don't mean to say that "I want to do x because I like it" is how you're defining 'want'.)
It doesn't feel to me that "I want to do this because it's due & I'm sick&tired of it hanging over my head" is a change to the FV 'want' question.
Although I don't usually try to figure out what why I want to do something enough that it gets a dot.
April 23, 2012 at 17:43 |
Lillian
Lillian
Bottom line: YOU still have to do the work, and NOTHING can force you to do it.
April 23, 2012 at 17:47 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Deven >> I currently have 7 double-starred tasks, 14 starred tasks and 27 unstarred tasks. <<
If I had a list with close to 50% (21/48) of urgent/high/top priority (if I remember your star and double-star definitions correctly), I'd start a separate list with just the 21 items and work on only those items until it's down to just a handful. Any new tasks get added to the 27 unstarred task list. If you can't let those 27 sit undone while you focus on the 21, then leave 2-3 hours a day - or whatever makes sense - to deal with the unstarred list, but most of the time is on the starred items.
Whether all 21 items were totally done, or just done enough to lower the urgency (I've done everything I can do, but now I'm waiting for someone else to do their part), then I'd add the no-longer urgent/high priority tasks to the 27 task list and just have one list.
The only exception would be a new task that is a 'drop everything and do this now' task that is higher priority than EVERYTHING else (and in that case, it probably wouldn't go on a list)
If I had a list with close to 50% (21/48) of urgent/high/top priority (if I remember your star and double-star definitions correctly), I'd start a separate list with just the 21 items and work on only those items until it's down to just a handful. Any new tasks get added to the 27 unstarred task list. If you can't let those 27 sit undone while you focus on the 21, then leave 2-3 hours a day - or whatever makes sense - to deal with the unstarred list, but most of the time is on the starred items.
Whether all 21 items were totally done, or just done enough to lower the urgency (I've done everything I can do, but now I'm waiting for someone else to do their part), then I'd add the no-longer urgent/high priority tasks to the 27 task list and just have one list.
The only exception would be a new task that is a 'drop everything and do this now' task that is higher priority than EVERYTHING else (and in that case, it probably wouldn't go on a list)
April 23, 2012 at 18:48 |
Lillian
Lillian
As I understand Deven's star system, a star is not a dot. A star moves a task to the top of the list so it's compared to other urgent tasks rather than mid-list tasks. When building a chain, you don't have to dot it.
I've used the star method for three chains now, over 2 days, and like it. I've been putting off the start letter for some summer projects I need to co-ordinate. They were mid-list, so they were compared to mid-want lines, and put off yet again. Ultimately, I think I would have gotten to them -- deadlines are coming up -- but now they're getting regular attention. It's the same with things I want to do daily. I didn't seem to do them when they were mid-list or end-list. Now I am.
I redo the stars daily. If there are too many, I know I won't be able to keep the pressure on all of them. If there are too few, great!
I've used the star method for three chains now, over 2 days, and like it. I've been putting off the start letter for some summer projects I need to co-ordinate. They were mid-list, so they were compared to mid-want lines, and put off yet again. Ultimately, I think I would have gotten to them -- deadlines are coming up -- but now they're getting regular attention. It's the same with things I want to do daily. I didn't seem to do them when they were mid-list or end-list. Now I am.
I redo the stars daily. If there are too many, I know I won't be able to keep the pressure on all of them. If there are too few, great!
April 23, 2012 at 18:51 |
Cricket
Cricket
Wouldn't it be the bottom of the list that's urgent? Those are the items that get worked on first in the chain. At least for me, I get the lower-list tasks done sooner than the top-list tasks. (I select tasks reading down the list, but work up the list)
April 23, 2012 at 18:55 |
Lillian
Lillian
Aha! Thanks, Lillian. In trying to answer your question, I realized that much of the end (recently-written) of my list is high-resistance.
I'm excited about finally making progress on several big, low-urgency things again. Currently, they're mostly at the top of my list, since I kept the date when importing them. (As I said elsewhere, maybe I should spread them out.) That excitement makes them high-want.
The things on the new end are often high-frequency, low want, such as maintenance (toilets, again) or new tasks that I don't really enjoy, or projects I'm not sure how to start on, maybe not sure if I even want to do before finishing something else. There are a few recurrences of the old projects I'm excited about, but the excitement is less because I've made good progress and want to work on something else.
That seems to be the opposite of what others are finding. Tomorrow I'm going to examine the list more closely.
Question:
Does one end of your list have more resistance than the other? Is it a fairly smooth progression, or very bumpy?
I'm excited about finally making progress on several big, low-urgency things again. Currently, they're mostly at the top of my list, since I kept the date when importing them. (As I said elsewhere, maybe I should spread them out.) That excitement makes them high-want.
The things on the new end are often high-frequency, low want, such as maintenance (toilets, again) or new tasks that I don't really enjoy, or projects I'm not sure how to start on, maybe not sure if I even want to do before finishing something else. There are a few recurrences of the old projects I'm excited about, but the excitement is less because I've made good progress and want to work on something else.
That seems to be the opposite of what others are finding. Tomorrow I'm going to examine the list more closely.
Question:
Does one end of your list have more resistance than the other? Is it a fairly smooth progression, or very bumpy?
April 23, 2012 at 21:47 |
Cricket
Cricket
I haven't noticed that one section is more or less resistant. On the other hand, I have noticed that certain *types* of tasks have more or less resistance, no matter where they are on the list. After a while, those are the majority of the tasks on the list!
April 23, 2012 at 21:53 |
Lillian
Lillian
Deven:
<< Honestly, the consequences of not getting this task done yet aren't yet unacceptable enough to override the resistance associated with the task >>
So how does adding a star or stars make it easier to do the task?
<< Honestly, the consequences of not getting this task done yet aren't yet unacceptable enough to override the resistance associated with the task >>
So how does adding a star or stars make it easier to do the task?
April 23, 2012 at 23:43 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven:
<<
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? >>
The whole point of the question is that there may be many reasons why one would want to do one task before another. Urgency may be one of those.
"I want to do this before I do that" is the not the same as saying "I want to do this more than I want to do that".
<<
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? >>
The whole point of the question is that there may be many reasons why one would want to do one task before another. Urgency may be one of those.
"I want to do this before I do that" is the not the same as saying "I want to do this more than I want to do that".
April 23, 2012 at 23:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I have used the star system for a couple of days and loved it from the first moment. In effect I have three lists assembled by priority really:
(1) Priority 1 or two stars: everything to do with important external issues usually with a deadline. Work tasks, appointments, projects with deadlines. like tax and bill payments, waiting for items.
(2) Priority 2 or one star: routine tasks, both maintenance and projects without deadlines that I'm committed to either do daily or finish as soon as possible.
(3) Priority 3 or no star: everything else that would be nice to do sooner or later.
The amazing effect is that:
(1) I have no problem deciding which task goes on which list unlike assigning priorities to tasks on already existing random list, which created extreme resistance.
(2) I remember each list including order of tasks on each list so I don't need to read the lists through the day, Morning review is enough to create a mental plan for the day and then I consult the list when I feel like my brain needs a momentary crutch or I have time or need to write or rewrite something. Usually only few times a day.
It have always known that I can easily memorize categorized information and that I am completely hopeless in face of random facts. Somehow, I could never apply this in practice to organize my tasks into meaningful categories. I think the problem was with having too many or too narrow categories. That's why GTD wasn't very effective but any system with one long list was even more frustrating. There is a power in number three after all and thanks to the global suggestions on this forum I may have my own final version after all.
(1) Priority 1 or two stars: everything to do with important external issues usually with a deadline. Work tasks, appointments, projects with deadlines. like tax and bill payments, waiting for items.
(2) Priority 2 or one star: routine tasks, both maintenance and projects without deadlines that I'm committed to either do daily or finish as soon as possible.
(3) Priority 3 or no star: everything else that would be nice to do sooner or later.
The amazing effect is that:
(1) I have no problem deciding which task goes on which list unlike assigning priorities to tasks on already existing random list, which created extreme resistance.
(2) I remember each list including order of tasks on each list so I don't need to read the lists through the day, Morning review is enough to create a mental plan for the day and then I consult the list when I feel like my brain needs a momentary crutch or I have time or need to write or rewrite something. Usually only few times a day.
It have always known that I can easily memorize categorized information and that I am completely hopeless in face of random facts. Somehow, I could never apply this in practice to organize my tasks into meaningful categories. I think the problem was with having too many or too narrow categories. That's why GTD wasn't very effective but any system with one long list was even more frustrating. There is a power in number three after all and thanks to the global suggestions on this forum I may have my own final version after all.
April 24, 2012 at 0:02 |
Ilse
Ilse
Deven:
<< 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? >>
Starring a task is just a way of saying "I want to get this task done before the tasks that don't have stars".
To be absolutely clear: the question "What do I want to do before I do x" does not imply that you have to want to do the task in itself. All it means is that you want the tasks to be in a certain order. There may be any number of reasons why you want that order, which may include urgency, fear of consequences, desire to get something out of the way, feeling that you have to do it, etc. All these are perfectly legitimate reasons.
"What do I want to do before I do x, or feel like I have to do even though I don't want to?" is incorrect. It is properly phrased:
"I want to do y before x because I have to get it done".
To give the question the meaning that you have to want to do the task in itself is not correct and is not following the rules. To define "want" in the way I have outlined is not "technically within the rules" - it is the rules.
<< 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? >>
Starring a task is just a way of saying "I want to get this task done before the tasks that don't have stars".
To be absolutely clear: the question "What do I want to do before I do x" does not imply that you have to want to do the task in itself. All it means is that you want the tasks to be in a certain order. There may be any number of reasons why you want that order, which may include urgency, fear of consequences, desire to get something out of the way, feeling that you have to do it, etc. All these are perfectly legitimate reasons.
"What do I want to do before I do x, or feel like I have to do even though I don't want to?" is incorrect. It is properly phrased:
"I want to do y before x because I have to get it done".
To give the question the meaning that you have to want to do the task in itself is not correct and is not following the rules. To define "want" in the way I have outlined is not "technically within the rules" - it is the rules.
April 24, 2012 at 0:17 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Ilse:
<< I have used the star system for a couple of days and loved it from the first moment. In effect I have three lists assembled by priority >>
What you appear to have ended up with is a basic A, B, C prioritizing system. They can be very effective over a short period but tend to break down because one tends only ever to get half way down priority B.
<< I have used the star system for a couple of days and loved it from the first moment. In effect I have three lists assembled by priority >>
What you appear to have ended up with is a basic A, B, C prioritizing system. They can be very effective over a short period but tend to break down because one tends only ever to get half way down priority B.
April 24, 2012 at 0:41 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Devon:
<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?>
If half your list is urgent then there is a problem with your definition of urgency. If everything (or too much) is urgent, then nothing is urgent. My suggestion would be that unless it's an emergency (drop everything and put out the fire), just drop the tweaks and work the list per the rules. Answer the right question (what do I want to do before 'X'?) and then work the resulting chain. Creating the chain is all about sequencing; don't think too hard about it. When you get on a roll, just keep going. Focus on little and often: when you're ready to move on, cross off the item and reenter it at the end even if all you did was get out the folder. Next task.
You have a relatively short list. You almost can't help but make progress and eventually some of that progress will be those "urgent" items. Maybe even before they become the first item on the ladder.
<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?>
If half your list is urgent then there is a problem with your definition of urgency. If everything (or too much) is urgent, then nothing is urgent. My suggestion would be that unless it's an emergency (drop everything and put out the fire), just drop the tweaks and work the list per the rules. Answer the right question (what do I want to do before 'X'?) and then work the resulting chain. Creating the chain is all about sequencing; don't think too hard about it. When you get on a roll, just keep going. Focus on little and often: when you're ready to move on, cross off the item and reenter it at the end even if all you did was get out the folder. Next task.
You have a relatively short list. You almost can't help but make progress and eventually some of that progress will be those "urgent" items. Maybe even before they become the first item on the ladder.
April 24, 2012 at 2:21 |
MartyH
MartyH
<< 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. >>
Sure, I could do that, but isn't that just playing brinksmanship with it? Isn't it better to get it done before it becomes a real problem?
<< 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. >>
Yes -- here's the quote you're remembering: "If the first task on the list can't be done now for some valid reason (e.g. wrong time of day, precondition not met, bad weather), then cross it out and re-enter it at the end of the list. Use the next task as your starting benchmark." (The word "can't" was in italics in the original.)
Sure, I could do these things, but it would amount to procrastinating MORE on this task, for the sake of following a system that's supposed to help me procrastinate LESS on things. Isn't that throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
<< Figure out the high-resistance task's equivalent of 'get out the folder' and put that task on the list. >>
Ah, but that's entirely the idea behind my priority tweak. If I keep it near the top of the list so it has to get preselected as the root of a chain, that will require me to "get out the folder" if I'm going to follow the time management system. That should reduce the procrastination on this task rather than increasing it.
It's too early to judge if this tweak is working -- I'm still on the first chain under the new rules, with the task in question at the root of the chain. I'll be interested to see what happens when I finish this chain, and what happens with the other priority tasks on my list over the next few chains...