FV and FVP Forum > Get ________
Hey ubi, I'm glad you opened this thread. The last one by Miracle "task phraseology" was becoming hard to follow. I had a task on my list - new thread opened. But you did that for me.
careful with actually writing get though ( I know you're training yourself, but try to not make it a habit to write it) because soon all your task will look too similar and in my experience it looks too structured to the point you can't really see what's popping put at you. it's good to use the get____ as a guide to just finish the sentence with as few words as possible.
careful with actually writing get though ( I know you're training yourself, but try to not make it a habit to write it) because soon all your task will look too similar and in my experience it looks too structured to the point you can't really see what's popping put at you. it's good to use the get____ as a guide to just finish the sentence with as few words as possible.
April 5, 2012 at 21:06 |
GMBW
GMBW
Don't worry. I'm using pencil and just writing "get" lightly above the title line (on my index cards), so when I scan the deck by fanning it out a bit, I still see the nouns first. When it's time to take the training wheels off, I have an eraser.
April 5, 2012 at 21:53 |
ubi
ubi
How about instead of "get" this or that, we use "don't", and "lose", as in "don't" get too serious with all the details of what we write down, or we will "lose" all the meaning of what we are trying to accomplish.
April 5, 2012 at 22:55 |
BKK
BKK
For those interested or uncertain what this is all about. Or asking What's this get business?
My explanation is found on this thread:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1777070
Specifically, it is time stamped:
April 4, 2012 at 19:41
Interesting comments follow from it. I did not include it here as it would just stretch out the post too much. If you're interested you can check it out. But, It is basically summarized as this structure for all task phrasing:
(get) __________
The (get) is said in the head and the _____is written on paper/recorded on the list with as few words as possible and result oriented. Anything that needs doing can fall in this structure very well.
It is a guide to write task that I found works really well and speeds up my flow when doing things. It works for some, but may not work for everyone. I thought I would share it as I have noticed a lot of others having difficulty with the wording of tasks and incorporating projects into a list etc. The benefits (from my usage ) are numerous but can be read in more detail on the post above along with examples.
Admiteddly, it seems very basic/simplistic or even grammatically incorrect at times . Instead of testing it theoretically I suggest actually trying it out. if it works fr you, and helps with your phrasing of tasks or breaking down projects than great! If it doesn't work for you, that's fine too. some are experimenting with it and it seems as if it has positive results so far. I'm curious to see if others find any difficulty with it.
All the best.
My explanation is found on this thread:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1777070
Specifically, it is time stamped:
April 4, 2012 at 19:41
Interesting comments follow from it. I did not include it here as it would just stretch out the post too much. If you're interested you can check it out. But, It is basically summarized as this structure for all task phrasing:
(get) __________
The (get) is said in the head and the _____is written on paper/recorded on the list with as few words as possible and result oriented. Anything that needs doing can fall in this structure very well.
It is a guide to write task that I found works really well and speeds up my flow when doing things. It works for some, but may not work for everyone. I thought I would share it as I have noticed a lot of others having difficulty with the wording of tasks and incorporating projects into a list etc. The benefits (from my usage ) are numerous but can be read in more detail on the post above along with examples.
Admiteddly, it seems very basic/simplistic or even grammatically incorrect at times . Instead of testing it theoretically I suggest actually trying it out. if it works fr you, and helps with your phrasing of tasks or breaking down projects than great! If it doesn't work for you, that's fine too. some are experimenting with it and it seems as if it has positive results so far. I'm curious to see if others find any difficulty with it.
All the best.
April 5, 2012 at 23:14 |
GMBW
GMBW
@BKK
you're right don't get caught with all the details. Ironically, the structure actually defines what you are trying to accomplish. Nice comment. Again, if you have no problem with task phrasing, maybe this all seems like hogwash to you. That's fine.
you're right don't get caught with all the details. Ironically, the structure actually defines what you are trying to accomplish. Nice comment. Again, if you have no problem with task phrasing, maybe this all seems like hogwash to you. That's fine.
April 5, 2012 at 23:29 |
GMBW
GMBW
Training wheels is right. Back when I read about Next Actions and Contexts and Defining Done, I forced myself to use them all the time. It only lasted a few weeks, but now when a task won't get started, I ask whether those are missing. I got good enough at using those tools that I know when they'll help can use them quickly.
"Get" seems similar. I'm thinking about "get ahead on", since my current focus is little bites. I used to think there had to be a definable chunk. Do all the weekly cleaning in the bathroom; rewrite on next week's list. Read a chapter. Read the next. I'm trying to allow even less now (or more, like 1.5 chapters). I'm more comfortable starting tasks that I won't be able to finish.
A really strange result is I do some bits more often. If it wasn't time for the big weekly bathroom clean, I'd ignore the gradual accumulation of spots on the mirror. Now I "work on bathroom" and do what's needed. I might scrub the tub after 6 days, not 7. I might look at it and think "can wait another 2 days" rather than "can't wait another 7". We'll see where that takes me.
"Get" seems similar. I'm thinking about "get ahead on", since my current focus is little bites. I used to think there had to be a definable chunk. Do all the weekly cleaning in the bathroom; rewrite on next week's list. Read a chapter. Read the next. I'm trying to allow even less now (or more, like 1.5 chapters). I'm more comfortable starting tasks that I won't be able to finish.
A really strange result is I do some bits more often. If it wasn't time for the big weekly bathroom clean, I'd ignore the gradual accumulation of spots on the mirror. Now I "work on bathroom" and do what's needed. I might scrub the tub after 6 days, not 7. I might look at it and think "can wait another 2 days" rather than "can't wait another 7". We'll see where that takes me.
April 5, 2012 at 23:48 |
Cricket
Cricket
GMBW:
<< discuss what with wife? What do I need to get out of this discussion? I don't know so we may end up discussing unnecessarily stuff about shed for a long time. This is why meetings usually have a purpose at work. >>
Actually, when I'm setting up a meeting, I always do include the purpose and the agenda. That's because I'm communicating with other people, and they might not know what it's about. And if they are going to spend 30 or 60 minutes (or longer) in a meeting I want them to know exactly what the purpose is, and what we are trying to accomplish in the meeting.
But with my FV list I am communicating only with myself, and sometimes it is counterproductive to try to get too specific.
<< discuss what with wife? What do I need to get out of this discussion? I don't know so we may end up discussing unnecessarily stuff about shed for a long time. This is why meetings usually have a purpose at work. >>
Actually, when I'm setting up a meeting, I always do include the purpose and the agenda. That's because I'm communicating with other people, and they might not know what it's about. And if they are going to spend 30 or 60 minutes (or longer) in a meeting I want them to know exactly what the purpose is, and what we are trying to accomplish in the meeting.
But with my FV list I am communicating only with myself, and sometimes it is counterproductive to try to get too specific.
April 6, 2012 at 1:53 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Cricket,
<<I used to think there had to be a definable chunk. Do all the weekly cleaning in the bathroom; rewrite on next week's list. Read a chapter. Read the next. I'm trying to allow even less now (or more, like 1.5 chapters). I'm more comfortable starting tasks that I won't be able to finish.
A really strange result is I do some bits more often. If it wasn't time for the big weekly bathroom clean, I'd ignore the gradual accumulation of spots on the mirror.
>>
I have been going through the same thing ever since discovering Mark's systems over a year ago. I was convinced that I had to do a "whole chunk" at a time and would grow very, *very* irritated if anything interrupted me mid-chunk. I had all sorts of rationalizations as to why I could not come back later, mid-chunk. There would be so much overhead trying to remember where I had stopped, etc.
But then I read Mark's exhortations and tried little-and-often for real. For the most part, I've found the feared "overhead" isn't bad at all, it frequently leads to novel solutions that occur to me in between sessions, and it has greater overall efficiency (actual work done per running, real-life time) even with these interruptions. In other words, waiting until I feel confident getting an entire chunk finished without interruption is less efficient than doing whatever odd unit of work I can do.
Usually. There's always the paint-the-kitchen task which you would not want to leave 13.7% finished and just wander away, but it's just not that common. Unless you are a professional kitchen painter. And then you're probably doing it on blocked time anyway, not on an FV list.
<<Now I "work on bathroom" and do what's needed. I might scrub the tub after 6 days, not 7.>>
You rebel! ;)
<<I used to think there had to be a definable chunk. Do all the weekly cleaning in the bathroom; rewrite on next week's list. Read a chapter. Read the next. I'm trying to allow even less now (or more, like 1.5 chapters). I'm more comfortable starting tasks that I won't be able to finish.
A really strange result is I do some bits more often. If it wasn't time for the big weekly bathroom clean, I'd ignore the gradual accumulation of spots on the mirror.
>>
I have been going through the same thing ever since discovering Mark's systems over a year ago. I was convinced that I had to do a "whole chunk" at a time and would grow very, *very* irritated if anything interrupted me mid-chunk. I had all sorts of rationalizations as to why I could not come back later, mid-chunk. There would be so much overhead trying to remember where I had stopped, etc.
But then I read Mark's exhortations and tried little-and-often for real. For the most part, I've found the feared "overhead" isn't bad at all, it frequently leads to novel solutions that occur to me in between sessions, and it has greater overall efficiency (actual work done per running, real-life time) even with these interruptions. In other words, waiting until I feel confident getting an entire chunk finished without interruption is less efficient than doing whatever odd unit of work I can do.
Usually. There's always the paint-the-kitchen task which you would not want to leave 13.7% finished and just wander away, but it's just not that common. Unless you are a professional kitchen painter. And then you're probably doing it on blocked time anyway, not on an FV list.
<<Now I "work on bathroom" and do what's needed. I might scrub the tub after 6 days, not 7.>>
You rebel! ;)
April 6, 2012 at 3:05 |
Bernie
Bernie
ubi:
<< It's harder with things like exercise. For example, this morning I wanted to do a P90X Shoulders & Arms (S&A) workout. I thought about "(Get) S&A worked out" but didn't like the sound of that. So I asked myself "Why do I want to get/do this?" Then it became obvious – to maintain or improve strength, posture, etc. So I wrote "(Get) S&A stronger" and, as I was doing the workout, I considered increasing the reps and weight on some of the routines. >>
I thought the whole point of this (Get) business was to remind those who have difficulty remembering why they wanted to do an S&A workout.
Yet "S&A stronger" doesn't do that for me. The question now isn't why I want to do the S&A workout, but how I get my S&A stronger. If I couldn't remember why I wanted to do an S&A workout, then I'm not likely to be able to remember that the way to get my S&A stronger is to do a workout. What type of workout? And indeed "S&A stronger" doesn't specify whose S&A is meant, mine, my wife's, my son's, the workers in my factory?
So to achieve the desired effect it would be necessary to write:
"My S&A by means of a P90X workout stronger".
It may not be very snappy, but it sure gets the meaning across.
<< It's harder with things like exercise. For example, this morning I wanted to do a P90X Shoulders & Arms (S&A) workout. I thought about "(Get) S&A worked out" but didn't like the sound of that. So I asked myself "Why do I want to get/do this?" Then it became obvious – to maintain or improve strength, posture, etc. So I wrote "(Get) S&A stronger" and, as I was doing the workout, I considered increasing the reps and weight on some of the routines. >>
I thought the whole point of this (Get) business was to remind those who have difficulty remembering why they wanted to do an S&A workout.
Yet "S&A stronger" doesn't do that for me. The question now isn't why I want to do the S&A workout, but how I get my S&A stronger. If I couldn't remember why I wanted to do an S&A workout, then I'm not likely to be able to remember that the way to get my S&A stronger is to do a workout. What type of workout? And indeed "S&A stronger" doesn't specify whose S&A is meant, mine, my wife's, my son's, the workers in my factory?
So to achieve the desired effect it would be necessary to write:
"My S&A by means of a P90X workout stronger".
It may not be very snappy, but it sure gets the meaning across.
April 6, 2012 at 3:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
This topic is making me think about feedback loops, one of the most powerful design patterns ever discovered by humanity.
The thermostat in your home furnace or air conditioner is a feedback loop: it can maintain your house at a (quite) constant temperature, overcoming unexpected outdoor weather, irregular architecture, even a window left half-open. Today's engineer, spoiled by digital gigahertz processors and gaggles of wireless sensors, might imagine an "expert system" built around complex thermodynamic equations and multivariable input, but fortunately our predecessors had much less to work with.
And so, their design was:
GET _____ degrees
*How* does the machine GET that? By turning on the heat if it's too cold, turning it off if it's too warm. For machines, there is an entire field of whiz-bang theorizing on the details (PID control, nonlinear programming, statistical signal processing ...). Even systems made up of people benefit from these theories.
But for individual work, our brains quite naturally perceive the difference between the desired outcome and the current situation, and then it is nearly impossible to stop our brains from cooking up possible ways to GET there from here (Mark's "Dreams" system was based on this). Our brains are (at least!) like creative thermostats, capable of formulating their own goal-seeking strategies far beyond "turn the heat off" and "turn the heat on." Most of the time, all we really need is a reliable means of serving up these desired outcomes.
It's like setting your GPS to your destination coordinates, and letting it recompute a course based on wherever you happen to be; versus writing out turn-by-turn directions in advance, only to find that you are no longer starting from the place you expected.
None of this tells you how to word your tasks, though. What you need is a "reliable means of serving up desired outcomes." Whether that comes to you via "shed" or "shed painted with outdoor 7-year natural reddish tone before fall," only you can settle it for yourself.
I am finding it helpful to see how others write these things, because my approach is still hit-or-miss for me. I can speak from experience that "shed" leads me on a wild goose chase. Yet, "shed built" leads me to ignore other options ("shed purchased" ... "shed dropped in favor of underground shelter" ...). My best happy medium so far has been the AF style of listing alternatives and waiting for one to surface first. "Shed" can go on the same list as "shed built by me of lumber" and "shed built by contractor" and "neighbor's shed purchased and moved to my yard."
The best value I am taking from this discussion right now is to write desired outcomes when I am clear about them. I have recently handled a couple of decision-heavy projects in which I actually regressed once or twice, forgetting what I'd decided earlier, because I wrote the followup task too vaguely. So, I will try "shed built" when I've made a firm decision about that outcome, or when I'm taking the AF-style technique of listing alternate options.
The thermostat in your home furnace or air conditioner is a feedback loop: it can maintain your house at a (quite) constant temperature, overcoming unexpected outdoor weather, irregular architecture, even a window left half-open. Today's engineer, spoiled by digital gigahertz processors and gaggles of wireless sensors, might imagine an "expert system" built around complex thermodynamic equations and multivariable input, but fortunately our predecessors had much less to work with.
And so, their design was:
GET _____ degrees
*How* does the machine GET that? By turning on the heat if it's too cold, turning it off if it's too warm. For machines, there is an entire field of whiz-bang theorizing on the details (PID control, nonlinear programming, statistical signal processing ...). Even systems made up of people benefit from these theories.
But for individual work, our brains quite naturally perceive the difference between the desired outcome and the current situation, and then it is nearly impossible to stop our brains from cooking up possible ways to GET there from here (Mark's "Dreams" system was based on this). Our brains are (at least!) like creative thermostats, capable of formulating their own goal-seeking strategies far beyond "turn the heat off" and "turn the heat on." Most of the time, all we really need is a reliable means of serving up these desired outcomes.
It's like setting your GPS to your destination coordinates, and letting it recompute a course based on wherever you happen to be; versus writing out turn-by-turn directions in advance, only to find that you are no longer starting from the place you expected.
None of this tells you how to word your tasks, though. What you need is a "reliable means of serving up desired outcomes." Whether that comes to you via "shed" or "shed painted with outdoor 7-year natural reddish tone before fall," only you can settle it for yourself.
I am finding it helpful to see how others write these things, because my approach is still hit-or-miss for me. I can speak from experience that "shed" leads me on a wild goose chase. Yet, "shed built" leads me to ignore other options ("shed purchased" ... "shed dropped in favor of underground shelter" ...). My best happy medium so far has been the AF style of listing alternatives and waiting for one to surface first. "Shed" can go on the same list as "shed built by me of lumber" and "shed built by contractor" and "neighbor's shed purchased and moved to my yard."
The best value I am taking from this discussion right now is to write desired outcomes when I am clear about them. I have recently handled a couple of decision-heavy projects in which I actually regressed once or twice, forgetting what I'd decided earlier, because I wrote the followup task too vaguely. So, I will try "shed built" when I've made a firm decision about that outcome, or when I'm taking the AF-style technique of listing alternate options.
April 6, 2012 at 3:59 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie:
What's wrong with "Think about shed", or "Decide re shed" or "Investigate sheds"?
Personally I'd probably just write "Shed?" on the theory that if my wife said "What have you done about the SHED?" I'd know exactly what she meant so I'd probably know what I meant if I said it to myself.
And if I were a thermostat I'd probably just write "Temp > 22 degrees?" on the theory that being a thermostat I'd know what to do next.
What's wrong with "Think about shed", or "Decide re shed" or "Investigate sheds"?
Personally I'd probably just write "Shed?" on the theory that if my wife said "What have you done about the SHED?" I'd know exactly what she meant so I'd probably know what I meant if I said it to myself.
And if I were a thermostat I'd probably just write "Temp > 22 degrees?" on the theory that being a thermostat I'd know what to do next.
April 6, 2012 at 4:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
GMBW:
I realize that I've slightly misunderstood your instructions about GET. I thought the structure you are advocating is / [Get]/ Something / Actioned /, e.g. [Get] Shed built.
But on re-reading your original post I see that the final / Actioned / part is optional if / [Get] / Something / makes sense on its own.
So in the much argued about "Shed" example, "Shed" (i.e. Get Shed) would be a perfectly acceptable usage.
It strikes me that a large number of the short tasks which I write would qualify under this:
[Get] Email
[Get] S&A Workout
[Get] Aspirin
I can't really see that you would have grounds for objecting to putting a question mark if you were uncertain about whether a task should be done, e.g. [Get] Shed?
I often add an action word if the task needs it, e.g. Find Spare Camera Battery. You'd presumably phrase this something like [Get) Spare Camera Battery Found.
So here's the list how I'd write it:
Email
S&A Workout
Aspirin
Shed?
Find Spare Camera Battery
And here's the list how you'd write it:
Email
S&A Workout
Aspirin
Shed?
Spare Camera Battery Found
I'm now not sure what we were arguing about.
I realize that I've slightly misunderstood your instructions about GET. I thought the structure you are advocating is / [Get]/ Something / Actioned /, e.g. [Get] Shed built.
But on re-reading your original post I see that the final / Actioned / part is optional if / [Get] / Something / makes sense on its own.
So in the much argued about "Shed" example, "Shed" (i.e. Get Shed) would be a perfectly acceptable usage.
It strikes me that a large number of the short tasks which I write would qualify under this:
[Get] Email
[Get] S&A Workout
[Get] Aspirin
I can't really see that you would have grounds for objecting to putting a question mark if you were uncertain about whether a task should be done, e.g. [Get] Shed?
I often add an action word if the task needs it, e.g. Find Spare Camera Battery. You'd presumably phrase this something like [Get) Spare Camera Battery Found.
So here's the list how I'd write it:
S&A Workout
Aspirin
Shed?
Find Spare Camera Battery
And here's the list how you'd write it:
S&A Workout
Aspirin
Shed?
Spare Camera Battery Found
I'm now not sure what we were arguing about.
April 6, 2012 at 5:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
@Mark Forster
I didn't think we were arguing at all. :) but yes, the list does seem right. But I wouldn't put the question mark at all. To me it doesn't seem intuitive. I see a question above all. (for whatever reason, i cant quite explain, I don't want that on my list....personal pref. I guess). If its a question I want to consider later on, suppose I'm having doubts about building a shed, instead of shed? I would put something like: decision about shed.
I think confusion is coming from my examples or the way I'm describing the structure. Not sure. Again, I don't feel/notice any mental overhead, but I actually feel a lot less than I had before using a structure/template.
I didn't think we were arguing at all. :) but yes, the list does seem right. But I wouldn't put the question mark at all. To me it doesn't seem intuitive. I see a question above all. (for whatever reason, i cant quite explain, I don't want that on my list....personal pref. I guess). If its a question I want to consider later on, suppose I'm having doubts about building a shed, instead of shed? I would put something like: decision about shed.
I think confusion is coming from my examples or the way I'm describing the structure. Not sure. Again, I don't feel/notice any mental overhead, but I actually feel a lot less than I had before using a structure/template.
April 6, 2012 at 6:56 |
GMBW
GMBW
@Mark Forster
I just re-read your previous post. And understand what you were saying even more.
>>I realize that I've slightly misunderstood your instructions about GET. I thought the structure you are advocating is / [Get]/ Something / Actioned /, e.g. [Get] Shed built.
But on re-reading your original post I see that the final / Actioned / part is optional if / [Get] / Something / makes sense on its own.<<
Exactly. In fact, a previous post from a poster had examples: 'aspirin for headache purchased from store', 'aspirin for headache taken' whether it was sarcastic or not, it is an excellent example of what I'm not saying to do. I would just put 'aspirin' ! There's no action word necessarily. In other instances there may have been. But in this case, the result would be to just get the aspirin. Not necessarily 'purchase it' since maybe my coworker has one on his desk or maybe theres some in my pantry. Etc.
I just re-read your previous post. And understand what you were saying even more.
>>I realize that I've slightly misunderstood your instructions about GET. I thought the structure you are advocating is / [Get]/ Something / Actioned /, e.g. [Get] Shed built.
But on re-reading your original post I see that the final / Actioned / part is optional if / [Get] / Something / makes sense on its own.<<
Exactly. In fact, a previous post from a poster had examples: 'aspirin for headache purchased from store', 'aspirin for headache taken' whether it was sarcastic or not, it is an excellent example of what I'm not saying to do. I would just put 'aspirin' ! There's no action word necessarily. In other instances there may have been. But in this case, the result would be to just get the aspirin. Not necessarily 'purchase it' since maybe my coworker has one on his desk or maybe theres some in my pantry. Etc.
April 6, 2012 at 7:12 |
GMBW
GMBW
Mark,
I can see we're having a lot of fun here, and I think you're teasing a bit when you write <<I thought the whole point of this (Get) business was to remind those who have difficulty remembering why they wanted to do an S&A workout. [. . .] "My S&A by means of a P90X workout stronger". It may not be very snappy, but it sure gets the meaning across.>> (Of course it's hard to guess one's level of humor/sarcasm/emotions/exasperation through mere text.)
This probably wasn't the best example, but if you followed my preamble, you would note that I was engaging in a bit of a thought experiment: How can I use the Get ____ structure effectively without resorting to passive verb constructs. The need to do this for the example above was beside the point. In fact, my morning exercise choice is already well defined in my checklist. I copy it to the FV list merely to take official credit for it as the first of my Big 3 tasks for the day. (By my own rules, if all three are actioned, I can quit the list for the rest of the day).
So the whole thing is a bit silly, but still fun to think about.
Cheers,
I can see we're having a lot of fun here, and I think you're teasing a bit when you write <<I thought the whole point of this (Get) business was to remind those who have difficulty remembering why they wanted to do an S&A workout. [. . .] "My S&A by means of a P90X workout stronger". It may not be very snappy, but it sure gets the meaning across.>> (Of course it's hard to guess one's level of humor/sarcasm/emotions/exasperation through mere text.)
This probably wasn't the best example, but if you followed my preamble, you would note that I was engaging in a bit of a thought experiment: How can I use the Get ____ structure effectively without resorting to passive verb constructs. The need to do this for the example above was beside the point. In fact, my morning exercise choice is already well defined in my checklist. I copy it to the FV list merely to take official credit for it as the first of my Big 3 tasks for the day. (By my own rules, if all three are actioned, I can quit the list for the rest of the day).
So the whole thing is a bit silly, but still fun to think about.
Cheers,
April 6, 2012 at 8:08 |
ubi
ubi
I think many of us are being a bit pedantic with the phrasing.
What works for one might work for others, so sharing individual tweaks is ok and interesting, even fun as ubi mentioned.
I find short task descriptions the best for me, but I usually include one or two words to remind me what it is I want to do.
For example, "credit card statement" does not tell me enough, unless the various steps are in the notes body (a HUGE advantage of using Evernote).
So I type, "Upload credit card statement" or another time, "Allocate credit card statement".
What I do try to do is to focus on the basic rules and principles which FV embodies more clearly than anything before it.
However, I enjoy the 'fun' and even the realisation that many (most?) of us suffer from the same foibles, such as procrastination, and for which I usually punish myself.
What works for one might work for others, so sharing individual tweaks is ok and interesting, even fun as ubi mentioned.
I find short task descriptions the best for me, but I usually include one or two words to remind me what it is I want to do.
For example, "credit card statement" does not tell me enough, unless the various steps are in the notes body (a HUGE advantage of using Evernote).
So I type, "Upload credit card statement" or another time, "Allocate credit card statement".
What I do try to do is to focus on the basic rules and principles which FV embodies more clearly than anything before it.
However, I enjoy the 'fun' and even the realisation that many (most?) of us suffer from the same foibles, such as procrastination, and for which I usually punish myself.
April 6, 2012 at 9:52 |
Roger J
Roger J
One question occurred to me as I read through this... it seems like tasks written this way are in the past tense in the task list -
Spare Battery ~found~
Shed ~built~
Aspirin ~taken~
Bathroom ~cleaned~
maybe it's part of the learning curve to automatically hear/read "GET" before each item, but it feels odd to me to do something that's written in the past. If the spare battery's FOUND, why am I looking for it?
and, um, may I point out that a discussion with your wife about sheds (hopefully) doesn't need the purpose-driven formality of a business meeting? :) :)
Spare Battery ~found~
Shed ~built~
Aspirin ~taken~
Bathroom ~cleaned~
maybe it's part of the learning curve to automatically hear/read "GET" before each item, but it feels odd to me to do something that's written in the past. If the spare battery's FOUND, why am I looking for it?
and, um, may I point out that a discussion with your wife about sheds (hopefully) doesn't need the purpose-driven formality of a business meeting? :) :)
April 6, 2012 at 13:37 |
Lillian
Lillian
@ Lillian
The purpose of the past tense is to describe a static end state. To describe the task as if it were already finished, so that you know what "finished" looks like. If you know what "finished" looks like, then you can take whatever action you want given your current circumstance, to move yourself toward it.
As an analogy, think of it as a horse race. You can describe your task as the race itself (action verbs), or as the finish line (static, unchanging end point). Describing the task in terms of the actions to take is like describing the race itself. Picture the running stream of commentary, "Out of the gate it's Lucky-Large-Task in the lead followed closely by One-and-Done. But wait, catching up on the inside track it's Little-and-Often as the pack barrels through the first turn..." Writing your tasks as actions (with present tense action verbs in the form of a command) is like trying to keep a written record of this running commentary on the actioning of your overall task. IMHO, this expands your list uncontrollably and forces you to pay undue attention to the upkeep of your list/system rather than the actual completion of your task. Additionally, focusing on the actions can cause you to lose sight of the goal (in our race analogy, think of a race without the track or finish line - the horses would run everywhere and no one would know when they've finished the race).
By using the GET "something done" construction you state something in the past tense, as though it were already finished. This is a static description of a static event - that event being the finishing of your task. It's like describing the finish line in the race. If you describe that alone on your list, then you can keep the running commentary of actions as an entirely mental exercise - off the list. The description of the finished task will trigger in your mind, the running commentary of actions - what you've already actioned, what you've left to action, what you can action next in your current context, within your current time constraints, and on and on, but all in your MIND rather than on your list. This has the effect of keeping your list simple and succinct, and so allowing you to put less of your mental energy into maintaining your LIST, and more mental energy into WORKING YOUR TASK. (specifically the mental running commentary of actions to take). Additionally, by listing only the finish line, even without a track all the horses will know where to go and you'll know when the race is over.
Again, people have become touchy on this subject because it appears that we suggest they care about the way they word their tasks, and so change the way they word their tasks. Not so. I’m simply stating that I care about the way that I word my tasks and this is why. Take it or leave it, for what it’s worth to you.
The purpose of the past tense is to describe a static end state. To describe the task as if it were already finished, so that you know what "finished" looks like. If you know what "finished" looks like, then you can take whatever action you want given your current circumstance, to move yourself toward it.
As an analogy, think of it as a horse race. You can describe your task as the race itself (action verbs), or as the finish line (static, unchanging end point). Describing the task in terms of the actions to take is like describing the race itself. Picture the running stream of commentary, "Out of the gate it's Lucky-Large-Task in the lead followed closely by One-and-Done. But wait, catching up on the inside track it's Little-and-Often as the pack barrels through the first turn..." Writing your tasks as actions (with present tense action verbs in the form of a command) is like trying to keep a written record of this running commentary on the actioning of your overall task. IMHO, this expands your list uncontrollably and forces you to pay undue attention to the upkeep of your list/system rather than the actual completion of your task. Additionally, focusing on the actions can cause you to lose sight of the goal (in our race analogy, think of a race without the track or finish line - the horses would run everywhere and no one would know when they've finished the race).
By using the GET "something done" construction you state something in the past tense, as though it were already finished. This is a static description of a static event - that event being the finishing of your task. It's like describing the finish line in the race. If you describe that alone on your list, then you can keep the running commentary of actions as an entirely mental exercise - off the list. The description of the finished task will trigger in your mind, the running commentary of actions - what you've already actioned, what you've left to action, what you can action next in your current context, within your current time constraints, and on and on, but all in your MIND rather than on your list. This has the effect of keeping your list simple and succinct, and so allowing you to put less of your mental energy into maintaining your LIST, and more mental energy into WORKING YOUR TASK. (specifically the mental running commentary of actions to take). Additionally, by listing only the finish line, even without a track all the horses will know where to go and you'll know when the race is over.
Again, people have become touchy on this subject because it appears that we suggest they care about the way they word their tasks, and so change the way they word their tasks. Not so. I’m simply stating that I care about the way that I word my tasks and this is why. Take it or leave it, for what it’s worth to you.
April 6, 2012 at 15:46 |
Miracle
Miracle
Follow up to my previous comment.
Using this methodology, your list changes from a list of "things to do" to a list of "things you want." Your "to do list" it becomes your "goal list." From "races to run" to "trophies you want." The focus of your whole list changes from what you need to do, to what you want to achieve. I've found it interesting that the FV question actually promts me to mentally convert each of my "goals" on my list into an action on the spot, in the context of the moment. The question asks what I want to DO before x, ie: what action do I want to take before taking this action. Thus, the question promts me to mentally check in on the state of each race as I read through the list of trophies I want to "get." Thus the question serves two purposes for me - it serves its intended purpose in FV of buliding my task ladder, but it also helps me mentally keep tabs on the individual races at a glance, through every scan.
Using this methodology, your list changes from a list of "things to do" to a list of "things you want." Your "to do list" it becomes your "goal list." From "races to run" to "trophies you want." The focus of your whole list changes from what you need to do, to what you want to achieve. I've found it interesting that the FV question actually promts me to mentally convert each of my "goals" on my list into an action on the spot, in the context of the moment. The question asks what I want to DO before x, ie: what action do I want to take before taking this action. Thus, the question promts me to mentally check in on the state of each race as I read through the list of trophies I want to "get." Thus the question serves two purposes for me - it serves its intended purpose in FV of buliding my task ladder, but it also helps me mentally keep tabs on the individual races at a glance, through every scan.
April 6, 2012 at 16:00 |
Miracle
Miracle
Man. I can't leave it alone can I?
My final comment. I find that a list of "races to run" produces much more psychological resistence in me than a list of "trophies I want." In fact, the latter tends to motivate me to action, while the former tends fill me with apprehension and overwhelm.
I have used both methods, each for a period of years.
Lists of races to run (and all the things to do in order to run them) result in my experience, in uncontrollably growing and directionless lists full of things I must bring myself to do.
Lists of trophies I want (and no additional record of the things to do in order to win them) result in my experience, in succint and pointed lists full of things I can't wait to achieve.
Having used both, I have settled on the latter of the two, and that sums up why.
My final comment. I find that a list of "races to run" produces much more psychological resistence in me than a list of "trophies I want." In fact, the latter tends to motivate me to action, while the former tends fill me with apprehension and overwhelm.
I have used both methods, each for a period of years.
Lists of races to run (and all the things to do in order to run them) result in my experience, in uncontrollably growing and directionless lists full of things I must bring myself to do.
Lists of trophies I want (and no additional record of the things to do in order to win them) result in my experience, in succint and pointed lists full of things I can't wait to achieve.
Having used both, I have settled on the latter of the two, and that sums up why.
April 6, 2012 at 16:29 |
Miracle
Miracle
@Miracle
I took the time to read your posts. I agree with you and like your analogies. However, its best to try to keep your points as short and sweet as possible, because i) most people may just not take the time to read it or ii) someone would get a general sense of what you're saying without fully reading the main points. I think that is what happened with my original post (it was too long) to the point that a very simple concept is causing confusion. Again, you said it very well, but someone is sure to interpret your analogy incorrectly or just use it to confuse themselves.
I took the time to read your posts. I agree with you and like your analogies. However, its best to try to keep your points as short and sweet as possible, because i) most people may just not take the time to read it or ii) someone would get a general sense of what you're saying without fully reading the main points. I think that is what happened with my original post (it was too long) to the point that a very simple concept is causing confusion. Again, you said it very well, but someone is sure to interpret your analogy incorrectly or just use it to confuse themselves.
April 6, 2012 at 18:10 |
GMBW
GMBW
@lillian
>>maybe it's part of the learning curve to automatically hear/read "GET" before each item, but it feels odd to me to do something that's written in the past. If the spare battery's FOUND, why am I looking for it?<<
You aren't doing something written in the past. Your problem comes from not applying what you are saying to do. You said: 'automatically hear/read GET before each item'. I dont think you are doing this. If this were done, you would not think you're doing something that's written in the past. The (get) is used both ways, when writing and reading tasks! Its to structure your tasks and instruct you later.
Take a random example and try it. I will take your example... suppose you write 'spare battery found'.
If when you're ready to do it and you're reading :
'spare battery found'
You're doing it wrong. Yes it seems as if this is in the past tense and messed up.
If you read:
(Get) spare battery found
Then you are doing it right. You are instructed to do something. That is, to find the spare battery. Its a subtle thought that makes a huge difference.
Again, try it with any random example.
The name of this site is 'Get everything done'. Just because I write '-everything done; on my list, does not mean to do everything that's already done! (lol) Agreed, this makes 0%sense at all. But, when I'm ready to do things and I read -'(get) every thing done', I am instructed
to get working.
When writing:say/remember (get) and just finish the sentence off in any way so it is outcome oriented and When doing: say/remember (get) and just read the remainder of the task. You will 100% of the time (too much confidence? lol) naturally and always, structure your tasks so that there is minimal confusion as to what to do.
>>maybe it's part of the learning curve to automatically hear/read "GET" before each item, but it feels odd to me to do something that's written in the past. If the spare battery's FOUND, why am I looking for it?<<
You aren't doing something written in the past. Your problem comes from not applying what you are saying to do. You said: 'automatically hear/read GET before each item'. I dont think you are doing this. If this were done, you would not think you're doing something that's written in the past. The (get) is used both ways, when writing and reading tasks! Its to structure your tasks and instruct you later.
Take a random example and try it. I will take your example... suppose you write 'spare battery found'.
If when you're ready to do it and you're reading :
'spare battery found'
You're doing it wrong. Yes it seems as if this is in the past tense and messed up.
If you read:
(Get) spare battery found
Then you are doing it right. You are instructed to do something. That is, to find the spare battery. Its a subtle thought that makes a huge difference.
Again, try it with any random example.
The name of this site is 'Get everything done'. Just because I write '-everything done; on my list, does not mean to do everything that's already done! (lol) Agreed, this makes 0%sense at all. But, when I'm ready to do things and I read -'(get) every thing done', I am instructed
to get working.
When writing:say/remember (get) and just finish the sentence off in any way so it is outcome oriented and When doing: say/remember (get) and just read the remainder of the task. You will 100% of the time (too much confidence? lol) naturally and always, structure your tasks so that there is minimal confusion as to what to do.
April 6, 2012 at 18:28 |
GMBW
GMBW
Miracle,
Brilliant explanation. Simply brilliant. Aligns perfectly with my experience, even though I have strayed from it. Now I see why I need to start incorporating past-tense outcomes again.
I would add that this is most critical and effective for me when I have one of those unclear and dreaded items. If I can just get myself to realize when I'm resisting a task for those reasons, and spend 30 seconds defining the goal/end state/finish line before I rewrite it, the angst goes away and the next action becomes clear. Instantly.
My favorite analogy is that of the guided missile. It's off-course most of its flight, course-correcting constantly, but the target never changes. If I have my target clearly defined, then the next steps are not only easier to determine, but also more flexible. The path can change (and likely will) from what I envisioned, based on new information, and how much time and willpower I have at 1:34 in the afternoon, but as long as I am moving towards the goal in some way, I'm succeeding.
This technique also reduces the problem of busy vs. effective. It's easier for me to be BUSY with a list of actions. It's easier for me to be EFFECTIVE with a list of goals. I can fill up a to-do list to overflowing off the top of my head. When I list goals, it's much more focused, meaningful, and motivating.
Is this something that belongs in the FV rules? Of course not. Is it something that is easy to integrate and would potentially help many like-minded people? Absolutely.
Brilliant explanation. Simply brilliant. Aligns perfectly with my experience, even though I have strayed from it. Now I see why I need to start incorporating past-tense outcomes again.
I would add that this is most critical and effective for me when I have one of those unclear and dreaded items. If I can just get myself to realize when I'm resisting a task for those reasons, and spend 30 seconds defining the goal/end state/finish line before I rewrite it, the angst goes away and the next action becomes clear. Instantly.
My favorite analogy is that of the guided missile. It's off-course most of its flight, course-correcting constantly, but the target never changes. If I have my target clearly defined, then the next steps are not only easier to determine, but also more flexible. The path can change (and likely will) from what I envisioned, based on new information, and how much time and willpower I have at 1:34 in the afternoon, but as long as I am moving towards the goal in some way, I'm succeeding.
This technique also reduces the problem of busy vs. effective. It's easier for me to be BUSY with a list of actions. It's easier for me to be EFFECTIVE with a list of goals. I can fill up a to-do list to overflowing off the top of my head. When I list goals, it's much more focused, meaningful, and motivating.
Is this something that belongs in the FV rules? Of course not. Is it something that is easy to integrate and would potentially help many like-minded people? Absolutely.
April 6, 2012 at 18:39 |
scottmoehring
scottmoehring
@ lillian
>> One question occurred to me as I read through this... it seems like tasks written this way are in the past tense in the task list -
Spare Battery ~found~
Shed ~built~
Aspirin ~taken~
Bathroom ~cleaned~ <<
All the verbs written between the tildas do not necessarily need to be there by default. It all depends on what your outcome is. You are assuming a verb must be there when in fact it doesn't per se.
In my shed examples (see post) I said "if I want to BUILD a shed" then -shed built suffices.
Understand that if I just wanted to get a shed (not necessarily build
one) then -shed suffices.
If I wanted to get aspirin , then -aspirin suffices. On the other hand, if I wanted to get aspirin taken (a bit silly to put on a task list, but fine..) then -aspirin taken suffices.
One more example, the bathroom cleaned does require the past tense action. Other wise it doesn't make sense This is just one of many possible cases. Think about it. Are you trying to (get) a bathroom?! Or (get) a bathroom cleaned? What's the outcome?
If you put '-bathroom' then that sounds like you're getting a bathroom in your house installed or something, if you put -bathroom cleaned then it's clear the outcome is to get it cleaned.
Two very different things. Then again, common sense would probably kick in and you'd know what you meant. But for other examples it isn't clear cut like that.
As you can see, here's the general / hand wavy process: Something pops
in my head that I know must be done, I say 'get' in my head, then fill
in the remainder in list with (any) and enough words to make sense
....time passes and I stumble across this task. ....in doing mode, I
read task without ambiguity because I simply say 'get', then read
task. The result is that it makes sense both ways. This is the very
general sense of one of the benefits. Mark's comparison in our lists
sums it up pretty accurately.
>> One question occurred to me as I read through this... it seems like tasks written this way are in the past tense in the task list -
Spare Battery ~found~
Shed ~built~
Aspirin ~taken~
Bathroom ~cleaned~ <<
All the verbs written between the tildas do not necessarily need to be there by default. It all depends on what your outcome is. You are assuming a verb must be there when in fact it doesn't per se.
In my shed examples (see post) I said "if I want to BUILD a shed" then -shed built suffices.
Understand that if I just wanted to get a shed (not necessarily build
one) then -shed suffices.
If I wanted to get aspirin , then -aspirin suffices. On the other hand, if I wanted to get aspirin taken (a bit silly to put on a task list, but fine..) then -aspirin taken suffices.
One more example, the bathroom cleaned does require the past tense action. Other wise it doesn't make sense This is just one of many possible cases. Think about it. Are you trying to (get) a bathroom?! Or (get) a bathroom cleaned? What's the outcome?
If you put '-bathroom' then that sounds like you're getting a bathroom in your house installed or something, if you put -bathroom cleaned then it's clear the outcome is to get it cleaned.
Two very different things. Then again, common sense would probably kick in and you'd know what you meant. But for other examples it isn't clear cut like that.
As you can see, here's the general / hand wavy process: Something pops
in my head that I know must be done, I say 'get' in my head, then fill
in the remainder in list with (any) and enough words to make sense
....time passes and I stumble across this task. ....in doing mode, I
read task without ambiguity because I simply say 'get', then read
task. The result is that it makes sense both ways. This is the very
general sense of one of the benefits. Mark's comparison in our lists
sums it up pretty accurately.
April 6, 2012 at 18:40 |
GMBW
GMBW
@ scottmoehring
>>This technique also reduces the problem of busy vs. effective. It's easier for me to be BUSY with a list of actions. It's easier for me to be EFFECTIVE with a list of goals. I can fill up a to-do list to overflowing off the top of my head. When I list goals, it's much more focused, meaningful, and motivating. <<
Brilliant! and the guided missle analogy well put.
>>This technique also reduces the problem of busy vs. effective. It's easier for me to be BUSY with a list of actions. It's easier for me to be EFFECTIVE with a list of goals. I can fill up a to-do list to overflowing off the top of my head. When I list goals, it's much more focused, meaningful, and motivating. <<
Brilliant! and the guided missle analogy well put.
April 6, 2012 at 18:45 |
GMBW
GMBW
Touching on some interesting analogies, the horse race, the thermostat/feedback loop, the guided missle. It shows that the little and often technique meshes really well with phrasing your tasks get____. Why?
By writing get______ where the blank is some outcome, its as if you have a goal/outcome/destination/result . The little and often approach encourages creatively thinking up ways to approach that outcome. The path is dynamic but the destination is static. What you don’t want is the destination to be dynamic (changing outcomes on your list). This is how you wont get things done.
The outcome is like a finish line or a flag that says “achieve me. You want this? come and get it!” and FV helps you do just that. Bare with me, but some flags just ‘call out’ louder than others. (i.e. (get) tv watched shouts softer than (get) a meaningful workout).
Another analogy (jeez another one?...yes), Your GPS system. You input the destination (static) but there are multiple paths. If you lose focus and miss a turn it says “Recalibrating”. So the paths becomes dynamic but puts you back on track to get there. Think of the______ as your static destination you are trying to ‘get’ to and the little and often appraoach and FV as your dynamic reclibrating tools to get there.
Also, this path from ‘here to there’ can be broken down into necessary components (i.e 500 miles west, 200 miles north etc.) And with that said, you could input those as destinations and breakdown further and further but the end destination is the same.
Summary, don’t concern yourself too much with how to get there, most likely this will change frequently anyways or naturally present itself. Focus on where you want to get to first, let it motivate you and allow FV and little and often approach to assist to along the way.
By writing get______ where the blank is some outcome, its as if you have a goal/outcome/destination/result . The little and often approach encourages creatively thinking up ways to approach that outcome. The path is dynamic but the destination is static. What you don’t want is the destination to be dynamic (changing outcomes on your list). This is how you wont get things done.
The outcome is like a finish line or a flag that says “achieve me. You want this? come and get it!” and FV helps you do just that. Bare with me, but some flags just ‘call out’ louder than others. (i.e. (get) tv watched shouts softer than (get) a meaningful workout).
Another analogy (jeez another one?...yes), Your GPS system. You input the destination (static) but there are multiple paths. If you lose focus and miss a turn it says “Recalibrating”. So the paths becomes dynamic but puts you back on track to get there. Think of the______ as your static destination you are trying to ‘get’ to and the little and often appraoach and FV as your dynamic reclibrating tools to get there.
Also, this path from ‘here to there’ can be broken down into necessary components (i.e 500 miles west, 200 miles north etc.) And with that said, you could input those as destinations and breakdown further and further but the end destination is the same.
Summary, don’t concern yourself too much with how to get there, most likely this will change frequently anyways or naturally present itself. Focus on where you want to get to first, let it motivate you and allow FV and little and often approach to assist to along the way.
April 6, 2012 at 19:19 |
GMBW
GMBW
I think the Get ___ structure is useful in an even more general way than has been discussed so far. There are many possible formulations that lead unambiguously to the desired outcome:
1. Get <noun>; e.g., "a shed"
2. Get <noun> <adjective>; e.g., "bathroom clean"
3. Get <noun> <passive-verb>; e.g., "bathroom cleaned"
4. Get <adjective> <noun>; e.g., "stronger muscles"
etc.
The less words, the more open you are to various solutions when executing the task, which doesn't necessarily mean that there is ambiguity in what you want to Get. In the now-famous "shed" example, if listed simply as "[Get] a shed" the solutions include building, buying, contracting, moving, delegating, and probably other actions I haven't even considered (since I do not at present want to get a shed!).
1. Get <noun>; e.g., "a shed"
2. Get <noun> <adjective>; e.g., "bathroom clean"
3. Get <noun> <passive-verb>; e.g., "bathroom cleaned"
4. Get <adjective> <noun>; e.g., "stronger muscles"
etc.
The less words, the more open you are to various solutions when executing the task, which doesn't necessarily mean that there is ambiguity in what you want to Get. In the now-famous "shed" example, if listed simply as "[Get] a shed" the solutions include building, buying, contracting, moving, delegating, and probably other actions I haven't even considered (since I do not at present want to get a shed!).
April 6, 2012 at 19:19 |
ubi
ubi
GMBW -
>>Your problem comes from not applying what you are saying to do. You said: 'automatically hear/read GET before each item'. I dont think you are doing this.<<
so it's a learning curve issue on my part and it gets better with practice/experience. Fair enough :)
Miracle -
>>The description of the finished task will trigger in your mind, the running commentary of actions - what you've already actioned, what you've left to action, what you can action next in your current context, within your current time constraints, and on and on, but all in your MIND rather than on your list. This has the effect of keeping your list simple and succinct, and so allowing you to put less of your mental energy into maintaining your LIST, and more mental energy into WORKING YOUR TASK. (specifically the mental running commentary of actions to take). <<
I get your point, but for me, keeping what you're calling the 'running commentary of actions' in my head will just make me anxious that something's getting missed or overlooked. Plus for me the mental energy of keeping track of it all is a lot higher than dumping it onto a list.
It depends on the scenario of course - if the task is '{get} bathroom cleaned' it's no overhead/energy to remember that I cleaned the mirror in an earlier chunk of work so I don't repeat that particular task and go right to mopping the floor.
On the other hand, if the task is "{get} project X doc written" having the running commentary of "talk to Joe re item 1" and "check with Jane re status" and "find updated project .docx template" etc in my head will make me feel a lot less "mind like calm water" and more like "mind like level 5 white water rapids" especially if/when I have mutiple projects with similar steps going on.
I'd be more comfortable with a list like "talk to Joe re Project X, item 1" "check with Jane re Project X status" etc. My mental energy is concentrated on working on the tasks too, instead of mentally keeping track of tasks - and isn't that pretty much the point of the FV (or AF, SF, DWM....) list? :) :)
>>Your problem comes from not applying what you are saying to do. You said: 'automatically hear/read GET before each item'. I dont think you are doing this.<<
so it's a learning curve issue on my part and it gets better with practice/experience. Fair enough :)
Miracle -
>>The description of the finished task will trigger in your mind, the running commentary of actions - what you've already actioned, what you've left to action, what you can action next in your current context, within your current time constraints, and on and on, but all in your MIND rather than on your list. This has the effect of keeping your list simple and succinct, and so allowing you to put less of your mental energy into maintaining your LIST, and more mental energy into WORKING YOUR TASK. (specifically the mental running commentary of actions to take). <<
I get your point, but for me, keeping what you're calling the 'running commentary of actions' in my head will just make me anxious that something's getting missed or overlooked. Plus for me the mental energy of keeping track of it all is a lot higher than dumping it onto a list.
It depends on the scenario of course - if the task is '{get} bathroom cleaned' it's no overhead/energy to remember that I cleaned the mirror in an earlier chunk of work so I don't repeat that particular task and go right to mopping the floor.
On the other hand, if the task is "{get} project X doc written" having the running commentary of "talk to Joe re item 1" and "check with Jane re status" and "find updated project .docx template" etc in my head will make me feel a lot less "mind like calm water" and more like "mind like level 5 white water rapids" especially if/when I have mutiple projects with similar steps going on.
I'd be more comfortable with a list like "talk to Joe re Project X, item 1" "check with Jane re Project X status" etc. My mental energy is concentrated on working on the tasks too, instead of mentally keeping track of tasks - and isn't that pretty much the point of the FV (or AF, SF, DWM....) list? :) :)
April 6, 2012 at 19:34 |
Lillian
Lillian
@Miracle.
>>I have used both methods, each for a period of years.
Lists of races to run (and all the things to do in order to run them) result in my experience, in uncontrollably growing and directionless lists full of things I must bring myself to do.
Lists of trophies I want (and no additional record of the things to do in order to win them) result in my experience, in succint and pointed lists full of things I can't wait to achieve.
Having used both, I have settled on the latter of the two, and that sums up why.<<
Agreed. I think those having difficulty with phrasing of tasks is because they have a hybrid of both lists. They have trophies and races jumbled together and get lost and call it resistance. At least, I’m assuming that was my problem in the past. Its better to have one or the other but not both lists. I chose to write the list of trophies and naturally run the races little and often.
>>I have used both methods, each for a period of years.
Lists of races to run (and all the things to do in order to run them) result in my experience, in uncontrollably growing and directionless lists full of things I must bring myself to do.
Lists of trophies I want (and no additional record of the things to do in order to win them) result in my experience, in succint and pointed lists full of things I can't wait to achieve.
Having used both, I have settled on the latter of the two, and that sums up why.<<
Agreed. I think those having difficulty with phrasing of tasks is because they have a hybrid of both lists. They have trophies and races jumbled together and get lost and call it resistance. At least, I’m assuming that was my problem in the past. Its better to have one or the other but not both lists. I chose to write the list of trophies and naturally run the races little and often.
April 6, 2012 at 19:37 |
GMBW
GMBW
GMBW
>>I think those having difficulty with phrasing of tasks is because they have a hybrid of both lists. They have trophies and races jumbled together and get lost and call it resistance. <<
Or they're writing trophies but prefer to run races. Or vice versa.
>>I think those having difficulty with phrasing of tasks is because they have a hybrid of both lists. They have trophies and races jumbled together and get lost and call it resistance. <<
Or they're writing trophies but prefer to run races. Or vice versa.
April 6, 2012 at 19:45 |
Lillian
Lillian
I use a hybrid with no problem. I use the words that are right for that task and project and mood.
I know the end goal for each task, but I rarely write it.
Some tasks get lines of their own, even if they're an obvious part of the project. I need to call A about a knitting class I'm teaching next fall before I make the sample. I also need to get the right yarn. Those are obvious, but get separate lines because I need to remember them when I'm ready to make calls and run errands. All the other steps are lumped together for now. I'll probably expand them again when I'm done making the sample.
Things in the future are vague. "Son's bday pty, gift" means think about them and ask subtle questions. Eventually I'll split it out to "pick date", "write calendars" and "ask grandparents if they want to split the cost of this expensive gift." For now, though, it can stay one line.
Forcing myself to use completion statements and next action are good exercises, but
I know the end goal for each task, but I rarely write it.
Some tasks get lines of their own, even if they're an obvious part of the project. I need to call A about a knitting class I'm teaching next fall before I make the sample. I also need to get the right yarn. Those are obvious, but get separate lines because I need to remember them when I'm ready to make calls and run errands. All the other steps are lumped together for now. I'll probably expand them again when I'm done making the sample.
Things in the future are vague. "Son's bday pty, gift" means think about them and ask subtle questions. Eventually I'll split it out to "pick date", "write calendars" and "ask grandparents if they want to split the cost of this expensive gift." For now, though, it can stay one line.
Forcing myself to use completion statements and next action are good exercises, but
April 6, 2012 at 20:05 |
Cricket
Cricket
@lillian
lol at level 5 water rapids.
>>I get your point, but for me, keeping what you're calling the 'running commentary of actions' in my head will just make me anxious that something's getting missed or overlooked. Plus for me the mental energy of keeping track of it all is a lot higher than dumping it onto a list.
<<
In my usage, I’m not mentally keeping track of anything. What I want to get done is put on my list. The running commentary of actions really don’t need to be written because the trigger Miracle is referring to will prompt them to come naturally at the time they matter (when ready to be done). I really do not just want to dump everything onto a list. Simply because my mind is a rapid thought generating machine. I simply can’t keep up with writing every possible action it generates simply because I dont want to forget it. If I were to dump every possible action I think of then my list will grow extremely long and become difficult to manage/understand/scan. Writing outcomes (instead of dumping actions) keeps your list shorter, because there will always be less outcomes than the possible paths to achieve it. That is, a goal can have many alternative ways of reaching it. But I dont have to put each path on my list.
It should be something like
iteration 1: read prompt for outcome, assess some possible routes/ways, accomplish as much as you want. stop
iteration 2: read prompt for outcome, re-assess some possible routes, accomplish as much as you can. stop
...repeat until outcome achieved.
lol at level 5 water rapids.
>>I get your point, but for me, keeping what you're calling the 'running commentary of actions' in my head will just make me anxious that something's getting missed or overlooked. Plus for me the mental energy of keeping track of it all is a lot higher than dumping it onto a list.
<<
In my usage, I’m not mentally keeping track of anything. What I want to get done is put on my list. The running commentary of actions really don’t need to be written because the trigger Miracle is referring to will prompt them to come naturally at the time they matter (when ready to be done). I really do not just want to dump everything onto a list. Simply because my mind is a rapid thought generating machine. I simply can’t keep up with writing every possible action it generates simply because I dont want to forget it. If I were to dump every possible action I think of then my list will grow extremely long and become difficult to manage/understand/scan. Writing outcomes (instead of dumping actions) keeps your list shorter, because there will always be less outcomes than the possible paths to achieve it. That is, a goal can have many alternative ways of reaching it. But I dont have to put each path on my list.
It should be something like
iteration 1: read prompt for outcome, assess some possible routes/ways, accomplish as much as you want. stop
iteration 2: read prompt for outcome, re-assess some possible routes, accomplish as much as you can. stop
...repeat until outcome achieved.
April 6, 2012 at 21:23 |
GMBW
GMBW
Sometimes I think in terms of final outcomes, sometimes process or method. I don't find that it really matters.
GMBW wrote:
<< The little and often approach encourages creatively thinking up ways to approach that outcome. The path is dynamic but the destination is static. What you don’t want is the destination to be dynamic (changing outcomes on your list). This is how you wont get things done. >>
This assumes that everything you put on your list is a clearly defined objective. That's not the way everyone works. My "destinations" are very dynamic, and often are not clearly defined till after an iteration or two. I like to let the tasks percolate in my subconscious mind for awhile, rather than force the issue. Eventually the target becomes clear.
This method works great for me -- in fact, this is one of the reasons I have found Mark Forster's systems so helpful for me. I get far more done this way than I would by forcing myself to completely define the objective ahead of time, before I have really processed them fully. I found GTD's insistence on "next action" to be an intolerable amount of overhead.
If forcing yourself to always write the objective clearly is helpful for you, then great, do it! But that's not the only way to use FV successfully.
GMBW wrote:
<< The little and often approach encourages creatively thinking up ways to approach that outcome. The path is dynamic but the destination is static. What you don’t want is the destination to be dynamic (changing outcomes on your list). This is how you wont get things done. >>
This assumes that everything you put on your list is a clearly defined objective. That's not the way everyone works. My "destinations" are very dynamic, and often are not clearly defined till after an iteration or two. I like to let the tasks percolate in my subconscious mind for awhile, rather than force the issue. Eventually the target becomes clear.
This method works great for me -- in fact, this is one of the reasons I have found Mark Forster's systems so helpful for me. I get far more done this way than I would by forcing myself to completely define the objective ahead of time, before I have really processed them fully. I found GTD's insistence on "next action" to be an intolerable amount of overhead.
If forcing yourself to always write the objective clearly is helpful for you, then great, do it! But that's not the only way to use FV successfully.
April 6, 2012 at 21:28 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
@ Seraphim
>>If forcing yourself to always write the objective clearly is helpful for you, then great, do it! But that's not the only way to use FV successfully.<<
Absolutely. I’m aware of that. And I think its great that everyone has a different way. In a sense, my ‘destinations’ are only dynamic to the point I choose to do it or choose not to. example: tv watched...Ill just delete (and forget ) it if I believe its wasteful effort and time. Which in many cases I do.
When you say “ My "destinations" are very dynamic, and often are not clearly defined till after an iteration or two.” I don’t understand the need to clearly define the task later on. Personally, I feel mental overhead defining it later. I just write what I’m telling myself to do when it pops up. In other words, when something to do pops into my head, it is already defined. The problem is recording that definition in a way that asks you to redefine it later on. I understand I may be the rare 1% that sees this. But its all good. :)
Again, I respect the fact you do things differently, and I’m not trying to say ‘this is the way to FV succesully’ . Its more like ‘‘if you are experiecing resistance/task phrasing problems...consider this..here is my experience..here is my reasoning..it may help/it may not”.
>>If forcing yourself to always write the objective clearly is helpful for you, then great, do it! But that's not the only way to use FV successfully.<<
Absolutely. I’m aware of that. And I think its great that everyone has a different way. In a sense, my ‘destinations’ are only dynamic to the point I choose to do it or choose not to. example: tv watched...Ill just delete (and forget ) it if I believe its wasteful effort and time. Which in many cases I do.
When you say “ My "destinations" are very dynamic, and often are not clearly defined till after an iteration or two.” I don’t understand the need to clearly define the task later on. Personally, I feel mental overhead defining it later. I just write what I’m telling myself to do when it pops up. In other words, when something to do pops into my head, it is already defined. The problem is recording that definition in a way that asks you to redefine it later on. I understand I may be the rare 1% that sees this. But its all good. :)
Again, I respect the fact you do things differently, and I’m not trying to say ‘this is the way to FV succesully’ . Its more like ‘‘if you are experiecing resistance/task phrasing problems...consider this..here is my experience..here is my reasoning..it may help/it may not”.
April 6, 2012 at 21:53 |
GMBW
GMBW
@ Seraphim
I understand you have had problems with unformed tasks / seeing tasks not defined incorporated on your list. I believe that is (at least) the gist of it from your thread on not clearly formed tasks. I am curious, if you have tried this get ____ method or not. If so, whats your experience like? If not, is there a particular reason? I believe you won’t have a problem with unformed tasks on your list if you simply don’t put them on it. I don’t think an idea box/inbox, ignoring them during scans to be necessary.
I understand you have had problems with unformed tasks / seeing tasks not defined incorporated on your list. I believe that is (at least) the gist of it from your thread on not clearly formed tasks. I am curious, if you have tried this get ____ method or not. If so, whats your experience like? If not, is there a particular reason? I believe you won’t have a problem with unformed tasks on your list if you simply don’t put them on it. I don’t think an idea box/inbox, ignoring them during scans to be necessary.
April 6, 2012 at 22:36 |
GMBW
GMBW
My problem was an artifact of OneNote's capture function. It would put things like "Screenshot 4/6/2012 2:56 PM" or "Untitled Email" on my list. They would slow me down because I'd have to scan through the details to decide "do I want to do this before X?" Now I just leave them the way they are, until they start to jump out and say "define me!". In which case they get a dot. Working fine now.
As far as writing tasks is concerned, I do something very close to what Mark does, which in the end is very close to the "get ______" idea.
As far as writing tasks is concerned, I do something very close to what Mark does, which in the end is very close to the "get ______" idea.
April 6, 2012 at 22:58 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I see. Glad its all good now.
April 6, 2012 at 23:04 |
GMBW
GMBW
GBMW-
>>I don’t understand the need to clearly define the task later on. Personally, I feel mental overhead defining it later. I just write what I’m telling myself to do when it pops up. In other words, when something to do pops into my head, it is already defined.<<
That's an interesting description of your task defining process.
What do you do with tasks/ideas/whatever like "convert room to something useable" when you, or your wife (who's given up on the shed :) ) don't know what the end result of the room conversion is? You only know that the room as-is is unuseable. Assume the room doesn't need any structural or repair work - just clearing out stored misc. stuff and maybe changing furniture depending what the end-use turns out to be.
(fwiw, this actually is a task on my list)
Even though I have no idea what I'm eventually going to use the room for, I have 'clear out stuff from room' on my list (or "{get} stuff cleared out from room" to keep in line with the thread :) ). That single task obviously covers a lot of sub-tasks dealing with the specific stuff (keep vs shred papers, keep vs donate clothing, etc etc) which I may (or not) write out on my list. I hope at some point during the clearing out, I'll get an idea of what the room will be used for and then add whatever tasks are needed to get that accomplished.
Would you do something similar as treating it almost as 2 separate projects (1) "{get} room cleared ou"t and (2) "{get} room arranged to be used as (some as yet undefined use)" Or would you only have a task of "{get} room re-purposed" ?
>>I don’t understand the need to clearly define the task later on. Personally, I feel mental overhead defining it later. I just write what I’m telling myself to do when it pops up. In other words, when something to do pops into my head, it is already defined.<<
That's an interesting description of your task defining process.
What do you do with tasks/ideas/whatever like "convert room to something useable" when you, or your wife (who's given up on the shed :) ) don't know what the end result of the room conversion is? You only know that the room as-is is unuseable. Assume the room doesn't need any structural or repair work - just clearing out stored misc. stuff and maybe changing furniture depending what the end-use turns out to be.
(fwiw, this actually is a task on my list)
Even though I have no idea what I'm eventually going to use the room for, I have 'clear out stuff from room' on my list (or "{get} stuff cleared out from room" to keep in line with the thread :) ). That single task obviously covers a lot of sub-tasks dealing with the specific stuff (keep vs shred papers, keep vs donate clothing, etc etc) which I may (or not) write out on my list. I hope at some point during the clearing out, I'll get an idea of what the room will be used for and then add whatever tasks are needed to get that accomplished.
Would you do something similar as treating it almost as 2 separate projects (1) "{get} room cleared ou"t and (2) "{get} room arranged to be used as (some as yet undefined use)" Or would you only have a task of "{get} room re-purposed" ?
April 7, 2012 at 20:35 |
Lillian
Lillian
@lillian
you won’t let the discussion about shed with wife go. lol. fwiw, I know having a purpose for a discussion with my wife seems cold. But remember its just wording to keep me focused and progressing towards something/some conclusion/decision. Also, its just wording to keep me priorities in order. As in, make sure to discuss this, then this...with her. Otherwise, I may forget/stray from the point. Its not meant to seem robotic/uncaring. :)
Short answer: Let the stuff float in your head. Clarify that subet of what you actually want to get out of these thoughts. Minddump them on your list in a form that will instruct you later.
you won’t let the discussion about shed with wife go. lol. fwiw, I know having a purpose for a discussion with my wife seems cold. But remember its just wording to keep me focused and progressing towards something/some conclusion/decision. Also, its just wording to keep me priorities in order. As in, make sure to discuss this, then this...with her. Otherwise, I may forget/stray from the point. Its not meant to seem robotic/uncaring. :)
Short answer: Let the stuff float in your head. Clarify that subet of what you actually want to get out of these thoughts. Minddump them on your list in a form that will instruct you later.
April 7, 2012 at 23:29 |
GMBW
GMBW
@lillian
Longer answer:
>>What do you do with tasks/ideas/whatever like "convert room to something useable" when you, or your wife (who's given up on the shed :) ) don't know what the end result of the room conversion is? You only know that the room as-is is unuseable. Assume the room doesn't need any structural or repair work - just clearing out stored misc. stuff and maybe changing furniture depending what the end-use turns out to be.<<
Suppose all this stuff is floating in my head. Fine. But what do I need to get? -the room converted. I wouldn’t worry about what I’m converting it to at all. If I knew it would be floating in my head as well and I’d adjust the task accordingly.
I understand what you’re saying. But it’s kind of unnecessary. I’ll give you an example and return to your specific example. If I had to write an essay on something. I don’t necessarily know the conclusion/what my end result is. why? I haven’t formed an opinion. why? I haven’t done research? why? I haven’t read anything....etc. I personally wouldn’t concern myself/hesitate to get started on the essay because I don’t know the conclusion. I’d concern myself with what the conclusion is not until I got the necessary components done/started. If I have an opinion, before I start working, that too will influence the end result. Whats the point? Form an outcome/as far as you can see it. You can always fine tune and perfect the end result along the way or later.
Back to your situation, I’d work with task -the room converted. You don’t know what the room is used for. Okay. But, the room doesn’t suddenly not need to be converted. You’re probably worried ‘what do I convert it to?’ Just get started with the other stuff you listed like- stuff cleared out , -decision about ...etc.
Also, its good to start a project but be open to options along the way. For example, several times I’ve re-painted my room. This required me clearing it out. But when the paint dried, I realized the possibilities of redesigning it and moving things out/decluttering.
<<I hope at some point during the clearing out, I'll get an idea of what the room will be used for and then add whatever tasks are needed to get that accomplished.>>
You most likely will. But if you don’t, the result still would be a cleared room. And now, a bunch of new things/options/possibilities will float into your head about what to convert it to.
<<Would you do something similar as treating it almost as 2 separate projects (1) "{get} room cleared ou"t and (2) "{get} room arranged to be used as (some as yet undefined use)" Or would you only have a task of "{get} room re-purposed" >>
Yes. I like to divide things ruthlessly so that my list is fluent and filled with tiny tasks but not pointless ones. It would be something (not exactly of course) like
-room cleared
-options about different rooms
you could eventually break these down into:
-quarter of room cleared
-important papers filed
-unimportant papers trashed
-discussion with family about rooms needed
-etc.
Longer answer:
>>What do you do with tasks/ideas/whatever like "convert room to something useable" when you, or your wife (who's given up on the shed :) ) don't know what the end result of the room conversion is? You only know that the room as-is is unuseable. Assume the room doesn't need any structural or repair work - just clearing out stored misc. stuff and maybe changing furniture depending what the end-use turns out to be.<<
Suppose all this stuff is floating in my head. Fine. But what do I need to get? -the room converted. I wouldn’t worry about what I’m converting it to at all. If I knew it would be floating in my head as well and I’d adjust the task accordingly.
I understand what you’re saying. But it’s kind of unnecessary. I’ll give you an example and return to your specific example. If I had to write an essay on something. I don’t necessarily know the conclusion/what my end result is. why? I haven’t formed an opinion. why? I haven’t done research? why? I haven’t read anything....etc. I personally wouldn’t concern myself/hesitate to get started on the essay because I don’t know the conclusion. I’d concern myself with what the conclusion is not until I got the necessary components done/started. If I have an opinion, before I start working, that too will influence the end result. Whats the point? Form an outcome/as far as you can see it. You can always fine tune and perfect the end result along the way or later.
Back to your situation, I’d work with task -the room converted. You don’t know what the room is used for. Okay. But, the room doesn’t suddenly not need to be converted. You’re probably worried ‘what do I convert it to?’ Just get started with the other stuff you listed like- stuff cleared out , -decision about ...etc.
Also, its good to start a project but be open to options along the way. For example, several times I’ve re-painted my room. This required me clearing it out. But when the paint dried, I realized the possibilities of redesigning it and moving things out/decluttering.
<<I hope at some point during the clearing out, I'll get an idea of what the room will be used for and then add whatever tasks are needed to get that accomplished.>>
You most likely will. But if you don’t, the result still would be a cleared room. And now, a bunch of new things/options/possibilities will float into your head about what to convert it to.
<<Would you do something similar as treating it almost as 2 separate projects (1) "{get} room cleared ou"t and (2) "{get} room arranged to be used as (some as yet undefined use)" Or would you only have a task of "{get} room re-purposed" >>
Yes. I like to divide things ruthlessly so that my list is fluent and filled with tiny tasks but not pointless ones. It would be something (not exactly of course) like
-room cleared
-options about different rooms
you could eventually break these down into:
-quarter of room cleared
-important papers filed
-unimportant papers trashed
-discussion with family about rooms needed
-etc.
April 7, 2012 at 23:31 |
GMBW
GMBW
Lillian, although you didn't address your question to all of us, here are my thoughts.
The basic task you have is "Get the room empty." This implies a series of binary decisions on everything that is currently occupying the room. Mark has an excellent article about how to do this, somewhere on this site. The basic idea is that it is easier to ask yourself one Yes-or-No question on each thing in the pile. You can make decisions rapidly if you don't have multiple alternatives. After each round, you should have much less to deal with, so splitting up the remaining stuff with a different Yes-or-No question will go even faster than the first round.
For your Empty Room example, you could start with "Discard <item>?" Yes or No. (Repeat question for everything in the room – end of first round.) Then "Move <item> to use in another room?" Then "Donate <item>?" Then "Store/File <item> away?" At some point, the pile that is left (from all the No answers) will be small and you'll know how to finish with it. While doing all the sorting, discarding, donating, filing, and storing away, you can dream about what to use the soon-to-be-empty room for!
Hope this helps.
The basic task you have is "Get the room empty." This implies a series of binary decisions on everything that is currently occupying the room. Mark has an excellent article about how to do this, somewhere on this site. The basic idea is that it is easier to ask yourself one Yes-or-No question on each thing in the pile. You can make decisions rapidly if you don't have multiple alternatives. After each round, you should have much less to deal with, so splitting up the remaining stuff with a different Yes-or-No question will go even faster than the first round.
For your Empty Room example, you could start with "Discard <item>?" Yes or No. (Repeat question for everything in the room – end of first round.) Then "Move <item> to use in another room?" Then "Donate <item>?" Then "Store/File <item> away?" At some point, the pile that is left (from all the No answers) will be small and you'll know how to finish with it. While doing all the sorting, discarding, donating, filing, and storing away, you can dream about what to use the soon-to-be-empty room for!
Hope this helps.
April 7, 2012 at 23:43 |
ubi
ubi
Speaking as a wife (although one with a perfectly good shed), I prefer "Wife, can we discuss the shed after supper?" over "Where are my keys? Oh, what should we do with the shed?" "Pass the butter. What will we use it for?" "I'm off to take kid to karate. How big does it have to be?" "Long day. Good night. Does it need a window?"
April 7, 2012 at 23:50 |
Cricket
Cricket
Eeps. I don't like examining each item in a room and deciding whether to keep or discard, then another round asking move and another asking... Some things will get touched many times.
I prefer to take a quick look and ask, "What would be an easy box to fill?" Garbage, donation, filing, basement,... "Easy" includes physical and psychological. I fill the box until it's no longer easy to put stuff in. Then I deal with the box (put in car for errands day, put on Daughter's bed to try on, throw away, file papers, etc.) I need to be careful that the box doesn't get too full, otherwise I'll stall in the middle of dealing with it. (It's been two years since I left a pile on top of the file cabinet!)
Then it's on to the next box, which will be of a different character.
I might have two or three boxes on the go, but rarely more. It's easier to scan the room for things to go in one box than several.
Yes, this way means a trip to the donation site every few weeks rather than one big one, but the stuff moves out of the house faster. I don't have to squeeze between boxes waiting to go. It also means several short try-on sessions rather than one long fighting one and a doable session at the filing cabinet.
This works at many levels. When doing the email, I start with junk mail. Easy, fast, and a huge dent in the pile. Then reports and things I won't have to think about. Again, easy. Eventually I reach the few things I need to think about.
I prefer to take a quick look and ask, "What would be an easy box to fill?" Garbage, donation, filing, basement,... "Easy" includes physical and psychological. I fill the box until it's no longer easy to put stuff in. Then I deal with the box (put in car for errands day, put on Daughter's bed to try on, throw away, file papers, etc.) I need to be careful that the box doesn't get too full, otherwise I'll stall in the middle of dealing with it. (It's been two years since I left a pile on top of the file cabinet!)
Then it's on to the next box, which will be of a different character.
I might have two or three boxes on the go, but rarely more. It's easier to scan the room for things to go in one box than several.
Yes, this way means a trip to the donation site every few weeks rather than one big one, but the stuff moves out of the house faster. I don't have to squeeze between boxes waiting to go. It also means several short try-on sessions rather than one long fighting one and a doable session at the filing cabinet.
This works at many levels. When doing the email, I start with junk mail. Easy, fast, and a huge dent in the pile. Then reports and things I won't have to think about. Again, easy. Eventually I reach the few things I need to think about.
April 8, 2012 at 0:21 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket,
I'll admit I haven't tried the iterative Yes/No method on anything as big as a room crammed with lots of stuff yet. But I did use it quite successfully recently on a couple of desk drawers. My goal was to make the two drawers I use all the time more functional. They had gotten so crammed with stuff that I was hunting for the things I need. I didn't even know which things I wanted to keep in which drawers. So I pulled both drawers out of the desk, poured their contents out onto the floor in another room (with enough space to lay everything out), and then handled it all in about 90 minutes. I used paper bags for the sorted piles. First question was Garbage? – easy, one big bag into the trash. Then was Not-in-these-drawers? – another big bag of stuff to be figured out later. Then I had a lot less stuff to put back into the two drawers. The last question was Drawer#1? About half the stuff was piled ready for arranging in Drawer#1, the other half in a second pile for Drawer#2. Had to vacuum & dust the drawers first, then it was quite joyous to arrange everything neatly and put the drawers back in the desk. After a couple of days, I dispatched with the 'Not' bag of items similarly.
I highly recommend this technique, whenever you're faced with a pile of stuff that seems overwhelming. I won't be afraid to try it on a whole room when the time comes.
I'll admit I haven't tried the iterative Yes/No method on anything as big as a room crammed with lots of stuff yet. But I did use it quite successfully recently on a couple of desk drawers. My goal was to make the two drawers I use all the time more functional. They had gotten so crammed with stuff that I was hunting for the things I need. I didn't even know which things I wanted to keep in which drawers. So I pulled both drawers out of the desk, poured their contents out onto the floor in another room (with enough space to lay everything out), and then handled it all in about 90 minutes. I used paper bags for the sorted piles. First question was Garbage? – easy, one big bag into the trash. Then was Not-in-these-drawers? – another big bag of stuff to be figured out later. Then I had a lot less stuff to put back into the two drawers. The last question was Drawer#1? About half the stuff was piled ready for arranging in Drawer#1, the other half in a second pile for Drawer#2. Had to vacuum & dust the drawers first, then it was quite joyous to arrange everything neatly and put the drawers back in the desk. After a couple of days, I dispatched with the 'Not' bag of items similarly.
I highly recommend this technique, whenever you're faced with a pile of stuff that seems overwhelming. I won't be afraid to try it on a whole room when the time comes.
April 8, 2012 at 0:55 |
ubi
ubi
The original post on this was about "How to clear a pile [of papers]?" and the technique I recommend is called Halving, and is reported to be from Mark's GED book (which I don't have a copy of). For stuff that's not actually in a pile, you can certainly walk about with a box or bag (or tape & paper for labeling large items), and just gather or mark everything that meets the Yes answer. Then only the things that are still around and unlabeled need to be considered for the next question. Even if you don't have a big enough box or the strength to move everything, I would think it's easy to identify everything in one go, rather than discarding/donating a box of stuff now, another box in a few days, etc.
April 8, 2012 at 1:04 |
ubi
ubi
- "Gotta do something about that room"
I've had tasks written like that. They work fine.
Or: "Deal with the room".
Or even: "That room!!!"
It works especially well for high-resistance tasks. For rooms you'd rather pretend didn't exist.
When I see a high-resistance, time-consuming, multi-layered item like that, I usually pass over it. Again and again. Eventually it gets under my skin and my subconscious starts working on it. Finally I will dot the item, and take some small action, like opening the door, peeking into the room, and closing the door again.
It goes to the end of the list again. And still percolates. Finally it occurs to me that I can sort out one or two of those boxes while I'm a passive participant in some interminable phone meeting while working from home. (Despite my best efforts, they do keep happening more often than I'd like!) So, I go get a box from the room and put it by my desk, and next time I'm in one of those meetings, I work on it. It feels good to make progress. I wish I had brought two boxes. The subconscious goes into overdrive.
When the weekend comes, the items says "Do me before X!" So I decide to see if I can clear out some more boxes. I end up spending 6 hours down there, loving it, and get rid of all the boxes, figure out with my wife what to do with the room, re-arrange the furniture, clean and dust everything, and then get a migraine and go lie down. But it's finally done. And it felt like the right thing to do, and in retrospect I am so happy it's finally done.
It actually hasn't happened that way with a room lately, but it DID happen, almost exactly in that sequence (with and without the migraine), with installing a drip system, completing a couple challenging projects at work this week, and working through the formidable pile of 3 weeks of mail and scraps and unfinished books that were cluttering my desk.
And I don't think I paid any attention at all to how I was wording the tasks. I just wrote whatever first came into my head that seemed good enough.
Actually, that last bit seems to be the common thread here. Write it down in whatever way works for you, and don't worry about it too much. If you like using a formula with seven required verbal keywords, use a formula with seven required verbal keywords. If you like a particular semantic pattern, great. If you get fully-formed objectives popping into your head in the "Get ________" structure, then use that. If you feel lost without defining "next actions", then define "next actions". If you don't follow any particular format or structure, that's fine too.
FV can handle them all.
If you feel you are struggling, then read threads like this to see what other people are doing, and maybe try something new or different.
I've had tasks written like that. They work fine.
Or: "Deal with the room".
Or even: "That room!!!"
It works especially well for high-resistance tasks. For rooms you'd rather pretend didn't exist.
When I see a high-resistance, time-consuming, multi-layered item like that, I usually pass over it. Again and again. Eventually it gets under my skin and my subconscious starts working on it. Finally I will dot the item, and take some small action, like opening the door, peeking into the room, and closing the door again.
It goes to the end of the list again. And still percolates. Finally it occurs to me that I can sort out one or two of those boxes while I'm a passive participant in some interminable phone meeting while working from home. (Despite my best efforts, they do keep happening more often than I'd like!) So, I go get a box from the room and put it by my desk, and next time I'm in one of those meetings, I work on it. It feels good to make progress. I wish I had brought two boxes. The subconscious goes into overdrive.
When the weekend comes, the items says "Do me before X!" So I decide to see if I can clear out some more boxes. I end up spending 6 hours down there, loving it, and get rid of all the boxes, figure out with my wife what to do with the room, re-arrange the furniture, clean and dust everything, and then get a migraine and go lie down. But it's finally done. And it felt like the right thing to do, and in retrospect I am so happy it's finally done.
It actually hasn't happened that way with a room lately, but it DID happen, almost exactly in that sequence (with and without the migraine), with installing a drip system, completing a couple challenging projects at work this week, and working through the formidable pile of 3 weeks of mail and scraps and unfinished books that were cluttering my desk.
And I don't think I paid any attention at all to how I was wording the tasks. I just wrote whatever first came into my head that seemed good enough.
Actually, that last bit seems to be the common thread here. Write it down in whatever way works for you, and don't worry about it too much. If you like using a formula with seven required verbal keywords, use a formula with seven required verbal keywords. If you like a particular semantic pattern, great. If you get fully-formed objectives popping into your head in the "Get ________" structure, then use that. If you feel lost without defining "next actions", then define "next actions". If you don't follow any particular format or structure, that's fine too.
FV can handle them all.
If you feel you are struggling, then read threads like this to see what other people are doing, and maybe try something new or different.
April 8, 2012 at 6:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
@ubi: Halving is a fantastic technique, but only if you can motivate yourself to get started, and only if you can keep motivated long enough to get through the whole pile, and only if you can keep your attention long enough to remember what your halving criterion is. :-)
April 8, 2012 at 6:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
GBMW,
Thanks for sharing.
I am liking this Get___ business. It is a simple and brilliant idea. At least for us suffering from task phrasing problems.
I see that it benefits my decisions on the pre-selecting stage: It is faster now; it is easier to break down tasks into smaller ones *if* needed; and I'm not lost with my initially *brilliant* and *meaningful* key words.
On the other hand, no many more words are required: sometimes less.
I believe Mark's got interest on it as well. I'm waiting for his comments.
Thanks for sharing.
I am liking this Get___ business. It is a simple and brilliant idea. At least for us suffering from task phrasing problems.
I see that it benefits my decisions on the pre-selecting stage: It is faster now; it is easier to break down tasks into smaller ones *if* needed; and I'm not lost with my initially *brilliant* and *meaningful* key words.
On the other hand, no many more words are required: sometimes less.
I believe Mark's got interest on it as well. I'm waiting for his comments.
April 8, 2012 at 8:37 |
paco_pepe
paco_pepe
Easiest way to clear a room?
Take the entire contents outside and burn them.
If you're too wimpy to do that, first give yourself one week to remove anything that you really need to keep.
Take the entire contents outside and burn them.
If you're too wimpy to do that, first give yourself one week to remove anything that you really need to keep.
April 8, 2012 at 12:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I'm having fun trying to phrase many of the outcomes so that they don't use passive-voice verbs, where possible. It's easy with things, e.g. "(Get) aspirin." You don't need an adjective or verb to know when that task is done.
It's harder with things like exercise. For example, this morning I wanted to do a P90X Shoulders & Arms (S&A) workout. I thought about "(Get) S&A worked out" but didn't like the sound of that. So I asked myself "Why do I want to get/do this?" Then it became obvious – to maintain or improve strength, posture, etc. So I wrote "(Get) S&A stronger" and, as I was doing the workout, I considered increasing the reps and weight on some of the routines.
To train myself to this way of approaching task entry, I'm actually writing "get" at the start of each, though GMBW doesn't recommend it. Training wheels are helpful at first.