FV and FVP Forum > High Resistance Tasks - continued
smileypete:
<< It seems to me there's sometimes a split, in that tasks you want to do are NOT the tasks you *feel most capable* of doing at the time, anyone find that? >>
I think the split only results from incorrectly interpreting the question as "What do I want to do more than x?" instead of "What do I want before I do x?"
Provided you stick to the fact that the question relates solely to the order you want to do things in, the split shouldn't arise - just as starring tasks because you want them to have priority is completely unnecessary because the question already covers that.
Adding stars is just a method of procrastinating over something. The correct way to deal with a high-resistance urgent task is to put a dot next to it and do it.
<< It seems to me there's sometimes a split, in that tasks you want to do are NOT the tasks you *feel most capable* of doing at the time, anyone find that? >>
I think the split only results from incorrectly interpreting the question as "What do I want to do more than x?" instead of "What do I want before I do x?"
Provided you stick to the fact that the question relates solely to the order you want to do things in, the split shouldn't arise - just as starring tasks because you want them to have priority is completely unnecessary because the question already covers that.
Adding stars is just a method of procrastinating over something. The correct way to deal with a high-resistance urgent task is to put a dot next to it and do it.
April 24, 2012 at 12:53 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
MartyH:
<< My suggestion would be that unless it's an emergency (drop everything and put out the fire), just drop the tweaks and work the list per the rules. Answer the right question (what do I want to do before 'X'?) and then work the resulting chain. >>
Absolutely right.
<< My suggestion would be that unless it's an emergency (drop everything and put out the fire), just drop the tweaks and work the list per the rules. Answer the right question (what do I want to do before 'X'?) and then work the resulting chain. >>
Absolutely right.
April 24, 2012 at 13:02 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Deven:
I read over your system a few times. To me, it seems as if the system is unnecessarily complicated. Then again, I have only just read it and not at all actually implemented it. I see your need to prioritize, but I think your approach may have problems down the line that you aren’t seeing now.
Double stars and single stars for ‘really’ urgent and ‘regular’ urgent. - Why put urgency on a 2 point scale? What’s preventing you from say, a 3 point scale or 5 point scale? How do you determine the really urgent from the regular urgent?
The purpose of the star is to guarantee that they cycle more frequently- Why not just create a chain of urgent items and work through it twice or thrice (or n times until satisfied) instead of just once then?
As Mark said, your system becomes an ABC prioritization system (whcih might as well be a 123 system or 12345 system etc.). -My experience with these is that it is quite difficult to actually determine what gets an ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ ...in your case double star, star or no star. What is great about the question, is that prioritization becomes more natural as it is relative to the root item. ‘what do I want to do before i do x’ makes your decisions more relative.
The problem I see yourself having is what ‘want’ means. Yes, it is left undefined. So you should take advantage of that. Try to shift your attention to ‘want before’, rather than ‘want’ and you should get better results. The FV won’t suddenly motivate you to want to do something. So yes, those ugly tasks that you don’t feel like doing but are putting pressure on you, requires you to ‘suck it up and get motivated to do it’ (Thats not to be rude in any way, its just the only way I can put it).
Does adding a star really draw your attention to a tasks urgency? If something is urgent, usually your mind just knows because the pressure from the urgency is pecking at you constantly.
Adding a star, highlight , letter, number or symbol won’t do anything different to the task. It will just remind you more. But honestly, you wouldn’t need that reminding if you just scanned your list. If your list is too long to scan, then reconsider your priorities. Can some items be removed? Can you actually do the items written? Do you really know what you need to do and where will it lead you to? Does it add value to your life? Is it really urgent...If so when does it need to be done by? etc.
I read over your system a few times. To me, it seems as if the system is unnecessarily complicated. Then again, I have only just read it and not at all actually implemented it. I see your need to prioritize, but I think your approach may have problems down the line that you aren’t seeing now.
Double stars and single stars for ‘really’ urgent and ‘regular’ urgent. - Why put urgency on a 2 point scale? What’s preventing you from say, a 3 point scale or 5 point scale? How do you determine the really urgent from the regular urgent?
The purpose of the star is to guarantee that they cycle more frequently- Why not just create a chain of urgent items and work through it twice or thrice (or n times until satisfied) instead of just once then?
As Mark said, your system becomes an ABC prioritization system (whcih might as well be a 123 system or 12345 system etc.). -My experience with these is that it is quite difficult to actually determine what gets an ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ ...in your case double star, star or no star. What is great about the question, is that prioritization becomes more natural as it is relative to the root item. ‘what do I want to do before i do x’ makes your decisions more relative.
The problem I see yourself having is what ‘want’ means. Yes, it is left undefined. So you should take advantage of that. Try to shift your attention to ‘want before’, rather than ‘want’ and you should get better results. The FV won’t suddenly motivate you to want to do something. So yes, those ugly tasks that you don’t feel like doing but are putting pressure on you, requires you to ‘suck it up and get motivated to do it’ (Thats not to be rude in any way, its just the only way I can put it).
Does adding a star really draw your attention to a tasks urgency? If something is urgent, usually your mind just knows because the pressure from the urgency is pecking at you constantly.
Adding a star, highlight , letter, number or symbol won’t do anything different to the task. It will just remind you more. But honestly, you wouldn’t need that reminding if you just scanned your list. If your list is too long to scan, then reconsider your priorities. Can some items be removed? Can you actually do the items written? Do you really know what you need to do and where will it lead you to? Does it add value to your life? Is it really urgent...If so when does it need to be done by? etc.
April 24, 2012 at 16:42 |
GMBW
GMBW
Deven >>The "magic slot" is the first item in the list, because the FV rules require the first unactioned item to be the root of the chain in the preselection process. What's magic about this is that you're including it on your list whether you want to do it or not. Everything else is supposed to be selected on the basis of The Question ("What do I want to do before I do x?") to create the chain of tasks to do in sequence,<<
Are you using the first item as "x" as you create the entire chain? the way I understand the FV rules is that the first item on the list is 'x' only until another task gets dotted. Then the dotted task becomes the 'x', etc. So the 'magic slot' task (or any other task number) is 'x' only until there's another dot. It's not used to pick every dotted item.
Are you using the first item as "x" as you create the entire chain? the way I understand the FV rules is that the first item on the list is 'x' only until another task gets dotted. Then the dotted task becomes the 'x', etc. So the 'magic slot' task (or any other task number) is 'x' only until there's another dot. It's not used to pick every dotted item.
April 24, 2012 at 17:22 |
Lillian
Lillian
I share Deven's need. When reading the list, especially if I do it quickly, it's very easy to miss (or otherwise not dot) things that are high-resistance and low-urgency -- but will become high-urgency if I ignore them.
Yes, answering the question with an awareness of the bigger picture would probably get them dotted sooner, but that's a learned skill. "Want to do before" has many components, and I can't keep all of them in mind at once. Maybe it's lack of skill, maybe it's carelessness.
Whatever the reason, I fell behind on some key projects. (I also made great progress on some less-critical projects.)
A daily pass to put on stars or highlight lines gives the "urgent" part of the question the attention it needs. The, when selecting for a chain, I know that factor has been looked at. If it has a star, I should think twice before saying I don't want to do it before X. If it doesn't, then I can safely be careless.
My variation of the star method worked well. Each day I put two stars on the first unactioned item (the magic slot), then examined the list and adjusted the other stars. I sorted the list first by stars then by date. If more than ten lines got stars, I started over. They couldn't all be urgent! Then I dotted the first task and used The Question to pre-select a chain. I still read the entire list. Often something mid-list would catch my eye, so it got dotted.
Knowing that nothing was lurking mid-list gave me confidence that my choices were good. Seeing the starred tasks together also helped me judge how much time I had available. If I have very little time, that changes how much I want to do discretionary tasks.
Today I tried highlighting tasks instead of starring them. Again, it gives the logical, urgency, consequence-fearing part of my brain the time it needs to evaluate each task individually. Then when pre-selecting a chain, I know how busy the day is. When I work the chain and reach "read for fun", I know what the next chain is likely to be like.
Yes, answering the question with an awareness of the bigger picture would probably get them dotted sooner, but that's a learned skill. "Want to do before" has many components, and I can't keep all of them in mind at once. Maybe it's lack of skill, maybe it's carelessness.
Whatever the reason, I fell behind on some key projects. (I also made great progress on some less-critical projects.)
A daily pass to put on stars or highlight lines gives the "urgent" part of the question the attention it needs. The, when selecting for a chain, I know that factor has been looked at. If it has a star, I should think twice before saying I don't want to do it before X. If it doesn't, then I can safely be careless.
My variation of the star method worked well. Each day I put two stars on the first unactioned item (the magic slot), then examined the list and adjusted the other stars. I sorted the list first by stars then by date. If more than ten lines got stars, I started over. They couldn't all be urgent! Then I dotted the first task and used The Question to pre-select a chain. I still read the entire list. Often something mid-list would catch my eye, so it got dotted.
Knowing that nothing was lurking mid-list gave me confidence that my choices were good. Seeing the starred tasks together also helped me judge how much time I had available. If I have very little time, that changes how much I want to do discretionary tasks.
Today I tried highlighting tasks instead of starring them. Again, it gives the logical, urgency, consequence-fearing part of my brain the time it needs to evaluate each task individually. Then when pre-selecting a chain, I know how busy the day is. When I work the chain and reach "read for fun", I know what the next chain is likely to be like.
April 24, 2012 at 19:54 |
Cricket
Cricket
I'm not satisfied by Deven's solution, but I do see the problem. If I may put in an analogy here. Imagine your job was to eat food out of your fridge (or move food). You have three categories: fresh produce, semi-perishable, and non-perishable. Although you definitely want all of the food used up over time (and there's always new stuff coming in), you have a priority to get that fresh produce gone first. And that especially means broccoli even though the resistance factor is high. So you never like to select yucky veggies, but you don't want to waste them by letting them go moldy. And you really don't need the system to nag you about not getting to the hard candy in reasonable time.
April 24, 2012 at 21:44 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
<<<Yes, answering the question with an awareness of the bigger picture would probably get them dotted sooner, but that's a learned skill. >> - Cricket
Exactly right. Initially I used FV to procrastinate over an important project (when it finally registered with me as near-panic-stations urgent, FV helped me stay calm enough to get a remarkable amount done in the final few hours, but still). Anyway, I learned from that, and for the next project, which I "didn't want to do at all", I ended up "wanting" to select it much more often, and combine it with 5-10-15-20 intervals...and it was a breeze.
Did the structure of FV itself help me learn from experience? Possibly.
Exactly right. Initially I used FV to procrastinate over an important project (when it finally registered with me as near-panic-stations urgent, FV helped me stay calm enough to get a remarkable amount done in the final few hours, but still). Anyway, I learned from that, and for the next project, which I "didn't want to do at all", I ended up "wanting" to select it much more often, and combine it with 5-10-15-20 intervals...and it was a breeze.
Did the structure of FV itself help me learn from experience? Possibly.
April 25, 2012 at 0:02 |
John Graham
John Graham
Maybe, if you know something is giving resistance, and you absolutely know you don't want to do it at all, just dot it anyways. Since what you want is to reduce the resistance.
Avoiding high resistance tasks will only make them harder. Even worse if they have a deadline associated with them. Do yourself a favor and keep dotting it to get the small but frequent bits of work accomplished on it.
Avoiding high resistance tasks will only make them harder. Even worse if they have a deadline associated with them. Do yourself a favor and keep dotting it to get the small but frequent bits of work accomplished on it.
April 25, 2012 at 0:12 |
GMBW
GMBW
One easy solution is to stop buying broccoli.
April 25, 2012 at 0:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
But broccoli is healthful. If I only ate what I most liked, I would quickly decline in health. But this is the point: semi-urgent, important, unpleasant tasks need an extra something beyond what FV offers to get sufficient attention.
April 25, 2012 at 3:19 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
GMBW: <Maybe, if you know something is giving resistance, and you absolutely know you don't want to do it at all, just dot it anyways. >
If you absolutely don't want to do it at all, cross it off the list and don't do it.
If you absolutely don't want to do it at all, cross it off the list and don't do it.
April 25, 2012 at 5:01 |
MartyH
MartyH
In The Question ("What do I want to do before I do x?") , I think the most important word is "before", not "want". The whole point of selecting the tasks is to order them. The initial task is often something you aren't eager to do or it would have already been acted upon (and be at the end of the list if you hadn't finished).
Lillian, I'm sure you are right: < the first item on the list is 'x' only until another task gets dotted. Then the dotted task becomes the 'x', etc. So the 'magic slot' task (or any other task number) is 'x' only until there's another dot. It's not used to pick every dotted item. > This is what makes the sequencing work.
If working little and often, the result is that the sequence of the items on each ladder gets reversed. So next time you can't create the same ladder using the same x before y logic since x and y got reversed. I think this is a key component in the engine that keeps things running.
Lillian, I'm sure you are right: < the first item on the list is 'x' only until another task gets dotted. Then the dotted task becomes the 'x', etc. So the 'magic slot' task (or any other task number) is 'x' only until there's another dot. It's not used to pick every dotted item. > This is what makes the sequencing work.
If working little and often, the result is that the sequence of the items on each ladder gets reversed. So next time you can't create the same ladder using the same x before y logic since x and y got reversed. I think this is a key component in the engine that keeps things running.
April 25, 2012 at 5:09 |
MartyH
MartyH
Regarding the broccoli: My admittedly obtuse point was that if one has trouble eating the broccoli before it spoils (i.e., acting on semi-urgent tasks before the inaction causes problems), one way to solve the problem is to stop buying broccoli (i.e., stop signing up for semi-urgent tasks).
Another way of dealing with the broccoli is to grow it fresh, and only pick enough to eat right now. The rest will stay fresh in your garden till you are ready for it. If you have too much in your garden and will never eat it, then you can sell it or give it away.
I.e., reorganize your work so the urgent items arrive in immediately actionable chunks, and if there's too much of it to make that possible, then you might try to delegate some of it.
Another way is to buy frozen broccoli. Easier than growing it yourself, and almost no chance of spoilage, but it's not quite as healthful as fresh broccoli. I.e., reorganize your work so it doesn't expire so quickly -- queue it up differently, process it differently, arrange to have it delivered to you differently. There may be tradeoffs involved.
In other words: Reorganize your systems to address the overwhelming number of urgent items. Go read DIT for ideas. :-)
Personally, I find that FV handles this all quite well. I have ~600 items on my list, I get some "do it now" urgent items pretty much every day. I get even more "do it today" and "do it this week" urgent items. And there are countless "do it by end of quarter" and "do it sometime this year, maybe drop it altogether" and "I have no idea when to do this".
So far, I haven't had FV drop anything important, not even once. FV *has* dropped stuff that looked important at first, but after FV sifted it, it was found wanting, and was discarded. I find FV handles these different levels of urgency (as well as the sifting) much more effectively than AF1, AF4, DWM, or my own "AutoDIT".
At first I relied on Outlook reminders as a "backup" system for urgent items, but lately I have stopped using them because FV does fine without them. It took me awhile to really trust FV.
I do acknowledge that others are having an issue with this. But I find it somewhat perplexing, given that FV has been so successful for me in handling these kinds of tasks, and other systems (AF, DWM, etc.) have not been so successful.
Another way of dealing with the broccoli is to grow it fresh, and only pick enough to eat right now. The rest will stay fresh in your garden till you are ready for it. If you have too much in your garden and will never eat it, then you can sell it or give it away.
I.e., reorganize your work so the urgent items arrive in immediately actionable chunks, and if there's too much of it to make that possible, then you might try to delegate some of it.
Another way is to buy frozen broccoli. Easier than growing it yourself, and almost no chance of spoilage, but it's not quite as healthful as fresh broccoli. I.e., reorganize your work so it doesn't expire so quickly -- queue it up differently, process it differently, arrange to have it delivered to you differently. There may be tradeoffs involved.
In other words: Reorganize your systems to address the overwhelming number of urgent items. Go read DIT for ideas. :-)
Personally, I find that FV handles this all quite well. I have ~600 items on my list, I get some "do it now" urgent items pretty much every day. I get even more "do it today" and "do it this week" urgent items. And there are countless "do it by end of quarter" and "do it sometime this year, maybe drop it altogether" and "I have no idea when to do this".
So far, I haven't had FV drop anything important, not even once. FV *has* dropped stuff that looked important at first, but after FV sifted it, it was found wanting, and was discarded. I find FV handles these different levels of urgency (as well as the sifting) much more effectively than AF1, AF4, DWM, or my own "AutoDIT".
At first I relied on Outlook reminders as a "backup" system for urgent items, but lately I have stopped using them because FV does fine without them. It took me awhile to really trust FV.
I do acknowledge that others are having an issue with this. But I find it somewhat perplexing, given that FV has been so successful for me in handling these kinds of tasks, and other systems (AF, DWM, etc.) have not been so successful.
April 25, 2012 at 8:28 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan:
<<So you never LIKE to select yucky veggies, but you don't WANT to waste them by letting them go moldy.>>
Emphasis mine!
The question is not "What would I LIKE to do before x?"
It's "What do I WANT to do before x?"
As Marty says, the emphasis is on the order.
<<So you never LIKE to select yucky veggies, but you don't WANT to waste them by letting them go moldy.>>
Emphasis mine!
The question is not "What would I LIKE to do before x?"
It's "What do I WANT to do before x?"
As Marty says, the emphasis is on the order.
April 25, 2012 at 10:26 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Maybe this will help those who are having difficulty with the word "want":
Imagine I gave you five extremely unpleasant tasks to do today and said it didn't matter what order you did them in as long as you finished them. Dire penalties would follow if you didn't.
The first thing you say to yourself is:
"Ok, I've got to do them whether I like it or not. Which do I want to do first?"
Imagine I gave you five extremely unpleasant tasks to do today and said it didn't matter what order you did them in as long as you finished them. Dire penalties would follow if you didn't.
The first thing you say to yourself is:
"Ok, I've got to do them whether I like it or not. Which do I want to do first?"
April 25, 2012 at 10:39 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
So does anyone ACTUALLY write broccoli on the list of things to do?
April 25, 2012 at 12:23 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
MartyH:
I was referring to tasks that are unpleasant but you must do anyways. Not just unpleasant ones. If you don't have to do any task I simply wouldn't put it on my list as a commitment in the first place.
If they are unpleasant/resistive tasks that must be done , keep dotting it early, so they will become less resistive over time. And hopefully before it becomes urgent.
I was referring to tasks that are unpleasant but you must do anyways. Not just unpleasant ones. If you don't have to do any task I simply wouldn't put it on my list as a commitment in the first place.
If they are unpleasant/resistive tasks that must be done , keep dotting it early, so they will become less resistive over time. And hopefully before it becomes urgent.
April 25, 2012 at 13:45 |
GMBW
GMBW
GMBW: The rules say to dot it if its the first item or if you want to do it more than x. I only commented because you specifically said "you absolutely know you don't want to do it at all". In that case it doesn't get dotted unless its the first item and even then you could choose just to drop it off the list.
I actually think we pretty much agree about this whole thing. Follow the rules and do little and often. With little and often and only a couple of hours a day, you should be able to touch almost all items within just a few days if there are only 50 or so. At that point, you've either made progress and reduced resistance or decided not to do them. Either way is success.
I actually think we pretty much agree about this whole thing. Follow the rules and do little and often. With little and often and only a couple of hours a day, you should be able to touch almost all items within just a few days if there are only 50 or so. At that point, you've either made progress and reduced resistance or decided not to do them. Either way is success.
April 25, 2012 at 14:10 |
MartyH
MartyH
MartyH:
<< The rules say to dot it if its the first item or if you want to do it more than x. >>
I think you meant to say "if you want to do it BEFORE x."
<< The rules say to dot it if its the first item or if you want to do it more than x. >>
I think you meant to say "if you want to do it BEFORE x."
April 25, 2012 at 15:31 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
MartyH:
Fair enough. I guess there is some miscommunication in what I'm saying.
For me, I have a set of commitments on my list and if there is one burdening task I keep skimming over that makes me cringe each time I look at it, but I know I absolutely positively must do ...I would rather just 'want' to do it before engaging in any chain, do it often in small chunks, and get it over with instead of doing it all in one go when things are very urgent. i.e. have a huge annoying task to do when time is limited!
I don't want to put my self in that position. I simply don't want to postpone the task to that point. So, when asking the question for such a task, usually my answer is 'nothing' . In other words, while pre-selecting, I come to the resistance-urgent task and ask "what do I want to do before r-u task? ..."Nothing"... And the chain ends. This is usually the case the great majority of the time.
The majority of the time, there is no task that trumps an urgent task, far more an urgent and resistant one. Unless of course it is even more resistant- urgent than the previous etc. I just apply some reality to it. I have to get it done by this time and I know avoiding it will increase the anxiety as time passes. So, I suck it up, get a start on it early and build a routine to work on it till finished.
All in all, the task I usually want to work on the most, or falls at the end of my preselection chain, is a task that is most important or irritating me the most. Either I want to do the most important thing to achieve something early or just get an annoying task off my chest and relax a bit. I don't simply do what I want as in 'what seems fun to me/nice to do/easiest/quickest'. It is generally generated to alleviate anxiety from my pool of commitments or to ensure I'm working on my priorities.
Fair enough. I guess there is some miscommunication in what I'm saying.
For me, I have a set of commitments on my list and if there is one burdening task I keep skimming over that makes me cringe each time I look at it, but I know I absolutely positively must do ...I would rather just 'want' to do it before engaging in any chain, do it often in small chunks, and get it over with instead of doing it all in one go when things are very urgent. i.e. have a huge annoying task to do when time is limited!
I don't want to put my self in that position. I simply don't want to postpone the task to that point. So, when asking the question for such a task, usually my answer is 'nothing' . In other words, while pre-selecting, I come to the resistance-urgent task and ask "what do I want to do before r-u task? ..."Nothing"... And the chain ends. This is usually the case the great majority of the time.
The majority of the time, there is no task that trumps an urgent task, far more an urgent and resistant one. Unless of course it is even more resistant- urgent than the previous etc. I just apply some reality to it. I have to get it done by this time and I know avoiding it will increase the anxiety as time passes. So, I suck it up, get a start on it early and build a routine to work on it till finished.
All in all, the task I usually want to work on the most, or falls at the end of my preselection chain, is a task that is most important or irritating me the most. Either I want to do the most important thing to achieve something early or just get an annoying task off my chest and relax a bit. I don't simply do what I want as in 'what seems fun to me/nice to do/easiest/quickest'. It is generally generated to alleviate anxiety from my pool of commitments or to ensure I'm working on my priorities.
April 25, 2012 at 16:55 |
GMBW
GMBW
Of course Mark is right. And I know better. Sloppy writing and sloppier proof reading on my part.
Even worse that I am an avid supporter of the correct question and especially the BEFORE part since I think the resequencing it causes is what drives the whole system.
Even worse that I am an avid supporter of the correct question and especially the BEFORE part since I think the resequencing it causes is what drives the whole system.
April 26, 2012 at 4:43 |
MartyH
MartyH
I'm falling behind on this thread, but I want to get more work done on other things on my list, so I'll have to catch up more slowly. For the moment, I want to respond to Mark's post from the earlier thread:
<< What you appear to have ended up with is a basic A, B, C prioritizing system. They can be very effective over a short period but tend to break down because one tends only ever to get half way down priority B. >>
Mark,
I absolutely agree that the tweak I suggested is a prioritizing system. In fact, I'd prefer to center the discussion around that -- that it's a system for prioritizing the tasks on the FV list. Urgency MAY be the reason to mark a task as higher priority, but there are other possible reasons, such as importance, approaching deadlines, desire for completion, feeling like you should be working on something, etc. As with your undefinition of "want", the concept of "higher priority" need not be defined because all of the possible reasons are valid.
Can we focus on priority rather than urgency? Many people are connecting "urgent" with "must do now", and I was referring to tasks that aren't THAT urgent (yet).
While I agree that this forms something resembling an A/B/C prioritizing system, there's a critical difference. The preselection process remains unchanged. "Prioritized FV" (if I may call it that) still builds the chains/ladders exactly the same way as standard FV rules, but the root task in the chain will always one of the highest-priority tasks. Everything on the list is still eligible to be preselected, and lower-priority tasks likely WILL be selected routinely, especially if the higher-priority tasks are high-resistance tasks.
Given this, why would you expect it to fail ("one tends only ever to get half way down priority B") when priority B & C tasks will be preselected when starting with priority A?
Prioritizing the tasks may also fit better with the "structured procrastination" model where you'll always get something done as long as there's something "more important" that you're putting off. If the root task is always highest-priority, then it qualifies as "more important" in some sense, right?
<< What you appear to have ended up with is a basic A, B, C prioritizing system. They can be very effective over a short period but tend to break down because one tends only ever to get half way down priority B. >>
Mark,
I absolutely agree that the tweak I suggested is a prioritizing system. In fact, I'd prefer to center the discussion around that -- that it's a system for prioritizing the tasks on the FV list. Urgency MAY be the reason to mark a task as higher priority, but there are other possible reasons, such as importance, approaching deadlines, desire for completion, feeling like you should be working on something, etc. As with your undefinition of "want", the concept of "higher priority" need not be defined because all of the possible reasons are valid.
Can we focus on priority rather than urgency? Many people are connecting "urgent" with "must do now", and I was referring to tasks that aren't THAT urgent (yet).
While I agree that this forms something resembling an A/B/C prioritizing system, there's a critical difference. The preselection process remains unchanged. "Prioritized FV" (if I may call it that) still builds the chains/ladders exactly the same way as standard FV rules, but the root task in the chain will always one of the highest-priority tasks. Everything on the list is still eligible to be preselected, and lower-priority tasks likely WILL be selected routinely, especially if the higher-priority tasks are high-resistance tasks.
Given this, why would you expect it to fail ("one tends only ever to get half way down priority B") when priority B & C tasks will be preselected when starting with priority A?
Prioritizing the tasks may also fit better with the "structured procrastination" model where you'll always get something done as long as there's something "more important" that you're putting off. If the root task is always highest-priority, then it qualifies as "more important" in some sense, right?
April 26, 2012 at 17:02 |
Deven
Deven
Lillian:
<< Are you using the first item as "x" as you create the entire chain? the way I understand the FV rules is that the first item on the list is 'x' only until another task gets dotted. Then the dotted task becomes the 'x', etc. So the 'magic slot' task (or any other task number) is 'x' only until there's another dot. It's not used to pick every dotted item. >>
Of course not! I'm following the standard FV rules for preselection -- the high-priority root task is the subject of The Question only until the next task is preselected, then The Question changes to be relative to that task. What makes it a "magic slot" is that the first task in the list MUST be included in the preselection, unlike the rest of the list. For tasks that are high resistance, they are less likely to be selected by The Question because I'm less likely to want to do them before the previously-selected task.
<< Are you using the first item as "x" as you create the entire chain? the way I understand the FV rules is that the first item on the list is 'x' only until another task gets dotted. Then the dotted task becomes the 'x', etc. So the 'magic slot' task (or any other task number) is 'x' only until there's another dot. It's not used to pick every dotted item. >>
Of course not! I'm following the standard FV rules for preselection -- the high-priority root task is the subject of The Question only until the next task is preselected, then The Question changes to be relative to that task. What makes it a "magic slot" is that the first task in the list MUST be included in the preselection, unlike the rest of the list. For tasks that are high resistance, they are less likely to be selected by The Question because I'm less likely to want to do them before the previously-selected task.
April 26, 2012 at 17:07 |
Deven
Deven
GMBW:
<< Double stars and single stars for ‘really’ urgent and ‘regular’ urgent. - Why put urgency on a 2 point scale? What’s preventing you from say, a 3 point scale or 5 point scale? How do you determine the really urgent from the regular urgent? >>
I'll just respond to this part of your post for the moment. I'll try to respond to the rest later.
Let's move away from urgency and view it as a priority tweak, because you might choose to prioritize something for reasons other than urgency, as I mentioned in my reply to Mark above.
As far as I'm concerned, the number of stars is variable -- if you want to use 1-5 stars to prioritize tasks, go for it! The number of stars really just means "higher priority than anything with fewer stars, same priority as anything the the same number of stars." But I'm guessing 5 stars would be overkill, since most people would likely do fine with one or two. (And if you'd rather use priority numbers or letters than stars, that would work equally well.)
That being said, yesterday I finally got to the root of the first chain I made since starting to test this tweak, and decided I needed to make a list of triple-starred tasks to elevate a couple tasks above the list of double-starred tasks I already had. However, I view this as a temporary expedient. The more stars I need to use, the more I'm falling behind and need to focus and get caught up. (Hence why I'm not trying to respond to everything on this thread yet.) If I ever find the need to start using quadruple stars, I will be very irritated!
<< Double stars and single stars for ‘really’ urgent and ‘regular’ urgent. - Why put urgency on a 2 point scale? What’s preventing you from say, a 3 point scale or 5 point scale? How do you determine the really urgent from the regular urgent? >>
I'll just respond to this part of your post for the moment. I'll try to respond to the rest later.
Let's move away from urgency and view it as a priority tweak, because you might choose to prioritize something for reasons other than urgency, as I mentioned in my reply to Mark above.
As far as I'm concerned, the number of stars is variable -- if you want to use 1-5 stars to prioritize tasks, go for it! The number of stars really just means "higher priority than anything with fewer stars, same priority as anything the the same number of stars." But I'm guessing 5 stars would be overkill, since most people would likely do fine with one or two. (And if you'd rather use priority numbers or letters than stars, that would work equally well.)
That being said, yesterday I finally got to the root of the first chain I made since starting to test this tweak, and decided I needed to make a list of triple-starred tasks to elevate a couple tasks above the list of double-starred tasks I already had. However, I view this as a temporary expedient. The more stars I need to use, the more I'm falling behind and need to focus and get caught up. (Hence why I'm not trying to respond to everything on this thread yet.) If I ever find the need to start using quadruple stars, I will be very irritated!
April 26, 2012 at 17:22 |
Deven
Deven
I'm a bit confuse now. So let's say this is solely for priority purposes (important and/or urgent items), you choose an 'A' item as the root and build a chain of other 'A', 'B' and/or 'C' items? Or do you build a chain only of 'A's' , a chain only of 'B's and only of 'Cs' (three separate chains and work in order)?
Maybe I'm interpreting your system incorrectly. Im all for prioritizing but I can't see how your system would make things better. I'll reread it.
Maybe I'm interpreting your system incorrectly. Im all for prioritizing but I can't see how your system would make things better. I'll reread it.
April 26, 2012 at 17:58 |
GMBW
GMBW
The issue I see with the stars is that you may find there are times when you just don't have time to work on ANY of these high-priority items because other high-immediacy items must be done first. And then you'd need to suspend your rules for processing the stars. And then you need to decide on rules (at least informal ones) for when to suspend the stars and when to actually use them.
This is the same problem I had with SF's rule for obligatory action on everything in the second column. The overall situation can change, making the unfinished items in Column 2 less important right now, but the rules didn't allow for moving them back into Column 1.
This is the same problem I had with SF's rule for obligatory action on everything in the second column. The overall situation can change, making the unfinished items in Column 2 less important right now, but the rules didn't allow for moving them back into Column 1.
April 26, 2012 at 19:55 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Deven
>>Of course not! I'm following the standard FV rules for preselection<<
Ok, I thought you must be, but something about the way you explained your selection process sounded, to me, that you were using the first item for the entire chain. So I asked :) :)
>>Of course not! I'm following the standard FV rules for preselection<<
Ok, I thought you must be, but something about the way you explained your selection process sounded, to me, that you were using the first item for the entire chain. So I asked :) :)
April 26, 2012 at 23:08 |
Lillian
Lillian
'Priority' refers to what is to be done before (prior to) something else. So it's entirely covered by the question, is it not?
April 27, 2012 at 6:43 |
John Graham
John Graham
GMBW:
<< I'm a bit confuse now. So let's say this is solely for priority purposes (important and/or urgent items), you choose an 'A' item as the root and build a chain of other 'A', 'B' and/or 'C' items? Or do you build a chain only of 'A's' , a chain only of 'B's and only of 'Cs' (three separate chains and work in order)?
Maybe I'm interpreting your system incorrectly. Im all for prioritizing but I can't see how your system would make things better. I'll reread it. >>
If you have a list of A priorities (i.e. double-starred) followed by B priorities (starred) followed by C priorities (unstarred), every chain could still have A's, B's and C's. As I said, I'm not touching FV's preselection mechanism at all, only the rewriting methodology.
The reason I believe this is an improvement is because the "magic slot" at the top of the list gets special treatment by FV. It's the only item in the entire list that you HAVE to action, everything else is optional until it eventually flows into that slot. The purpose of prioritizing the list is to ensure that higher-priority tasks flow into that slot before lower-priority tasks. That's it.
<< I'm a bit confuse now. So let's say this is solely for priority purposes (important and/or urgent items), you choose an 'A' item as the root and build a chain of other 'A', 'B' and/or 'C' items? Or do you build a chain only of 'A's' , a chain only of 'B's and only of 'Cs' (three separate chains and work in order)?
Maybe I'm interpreting your system incorrectly. Im all for prioritizing but I can't see how your system would make things better. I'll reread it. >>
If you have a list of A priorities (i.e. double-starred) followed by B priorities (starred) followed by C priorities (unstarred), every chain could still have A's, B's and C's. As I said, I'm not touching FV's preselection mechanism at all, only the rewriting methodology.
The reason I believe this is an improvement is because the "magic slot" at the top of the list gets special treatment by FV. It's the only item in the entire list that you HAVE to action, everything else is optional until it eventually flows into that slot. The purpose of prioritizing the list is to ensure that higher-priority tasks flow into that slot before lower-priority tasks. That's it.
April 27, 2012 at 15:06 |
Deven
Deven
John Graham:
<< 'Priority' refers to what is to be done before (prior to) something else. So it's entirely covered by the question, is it not? >>
I'm not prioritizing the "doing". I'm prioritizing the order of tasks in the list. That's an important difference. The sequence of tasks that you do is determined by the normal FV preselection process, not the priority levels.
<< 'Priority' refers to what is to be done before (prior to) something else. So it's entirely covered by the question, is it not? >>
I'm not prioritizing the "doing". I'm prioritizing the order of tasks in the list. That's an important difference. The sequence of tasks that you do is determined by the normal FV preselection process, not the priority levels.
April 27, 2012 at 15:09 |
Deven
Deven
Lillian:
<< Ok, I thought you must be, but something about the way you explained your selection process sounded, to me, that you were using the first item for the entire chain. So I asked :) :) >>
Sorry for the confusion! :)
<< Ok, I thought you must be, but something about the way you explained your selection process sounded, to me, that you were using the first item for the entire chain. So I asked :) :) >>
Sorry for the confusion! :)
April 27, 2012 at 15:10 |
Deven
Deven
I'm definitely giving Deven's idea today!
April 27, 2012 at 15:30 |
Jim Dandy
Jim Dandy
Seraphim:
<< The issue I see with the stars is that you may find there are times when you just don't have time to work on ANY of these high-priority items because other high-immediacy items must be done first. And then you'd need to suspend your rules for processing the stars. And then you need to decide on rules (at least informal ones) for when to suspend the stars and when to actually use them. >>
Not at all. You handle such situations exactly the same as with standard FV -- you can put the immediate tasks at the end of the list and dot them to mark them as part of the chain, then start working on them immediately. Or if it's a drop-everything task, just stop and do it, then return to processing the list. No difference from FV here at all, no need to decide "when to suspend the stars". The stars don't affect the preselection process, only the rewriting.
<< This is the same problem I had with SF's rule for obligatory action on everything in the second column. >>
SuperFocus sounded great on paper, but when I tried to use it, I had to give up on it within the first week or two, because the compulsory C2 actions were not only overwhelming, but also generating so much resistance that I was quickly growing to resent using the system. I quickly started experimenting with AutoFocus variants (and ultimately devised my own variant) because I couldn't stand the compulsory actions.
This is completely different. Yes, there is a little compusion in FV, but it only applies to that "magic slot" at the top of the list. Most importantly, because of The Question and the preselection process, the chain forms a ladder of tasks to help break down resistance to actioning the only compulsory task at the root of the chain. I'm not changing that at all. The only thing I'm changing is the sequences of items in the list (by rewriting tasks in priority order) so that the highest-priority tasks will benefit from the benefits of that "magic slot" -- compulsory action (little and often) and using the laddering effect to help conquer high-resistance high-priority tasks (in particular) more efficiently than standard FV can.
<< The overall situation can change, making the unfinished items in Column 2 less important right now, but the rules didn't allow for moving them back into Column 1. >>
Absolutely, and I found the SF rules far too inflexible in this regard. I was even resisting starting tasks that felt ready, simply because I knew they would become obligatory until done. The C2 rules seemed to work for some people, but they were completely wrong for me.
My approach with "Prioritized FV" is quite different. You can add or remove stars at any time for any reason -- and doing so qualifies as actioning a task (thinking about it to reevaluate its priority), so it should be rewritten in the appropriate place for its new priority even if no other action is being taken on the task.
Let me offer a real-world example from my list. On Wednesday, I decided that I wanted to prioritize a couple tasks (including the high-resistance one I referred to earlier) even higher than the list of double-starred tasks, so I decided to assign triple stars to them. (I don't particularly like having so many priority levels, but the system is extensible to any number.) At the end of the day, I was almost done deploying a code change for a customer, but I didn't want to risk breaking something by rushing the task just as I was about to go home. Therefore, I marked this task with triple stars also and left it unfinished on my list and went home, having finished my chain for the day.
Yesterday, I started my new chain with 3 triple-starred tasks, and selected one of those high-priority high-resistance tasks as the root, then decided I wanted to finish deploying the code change I had ready, so that became the second task in my chain. As I scanned down the list, there were a couple more tasks that I decided I wanted to do before the deployment, but that's not relevant here. When I made it to the deployment task in the chain, I finished deploying the new code (with a change the customer was waiting for), but I couldn't delete the task because it's about tuning this process in general. However, it was no longer urgent, so when I rewrote the task, I dropped all the stars and added it to the bottom of the unstarred list, knowing it was a low-resistance task that I would jump on when the customer comes back with more requests, so I didn't feel any need to prioritize it in the list.
I was not trapped into keeping the task at a high priority because it was there once. Stars can be added or removed at any time, and the task rewritten appropriately. It works for me, YMMV.
<< The issue I see with the stars is that you may find there are times when you just don't have time to work on ANY of these high-priority items because other high-immediacy items must be done first. And then you'd need to suspend your rules for processing the stars. And then you need to decide on rules (at least informal ones) for when to suspend the stars and when to actually use them. >>
Not at all. You handle such situations exactly the same as with standard FV -- you can put the immediate tasks at the end of the list and dot them to mark them as part of the chain, then start working on them immediately. Or if it's a drop-everything task, just stop and do it, then return to processing the list. No difference from FV here at all, no need to decide "when to suspend the stars". The stars don't affect the preselection process, only the rewriting.
<< This is the same problem I had with SF's rule for obligatory action on everything in the second column. >>
SuperFocus sounded great on paper, but when I tried to use it, I had to give up on it within the first week or two, because the compulsory C2 actions were not only overwhelming, but also generating so much resistance that I was quickly growing to resent using the system. I quickly started experimenting with AutoFocus variants (and ultimately devised my own variant) because I couldn't stand the compulsory actions.
This is completely different. Yes, there is a little compusion in FV, but it only applies to that "magic slot" at the top of the list. Most importantly, because of The Question and the preselection process, the chain forms a ladder of tasks to help break down resistance to actioning the only compulsory task at the root of the chain. I'm not changing that at all. The only thing I'm changing is the sequences of items in the list (by rewriting tasks in priority order) so that the highest-priority tasks will benefit from the benefits of that "magic slot" -- compulsory action (little and often) and using the laddering effect to help conquer high-resistance high-priority tasks (in particular) more efficiently than standard FV can.
<< The overall situation can change, making the unfinished items in Column 2 less important right now, but the rules didn't allow for moving them back into Column 1. >>
Absolutely, and I found the SF rules far too inflexible in this regard. I was even resisting starting tasks that felt ready, simply because I knew they would become obligatory until done. The C2 rules seemed to work for some people, but they were completely wrong for me.
My approach with "Prioritized FV" is quite different. You can add or remove stars at any time for any reason -- and doing so qualifies as actioning a task (thinking about it to reevaluate its priority), so it should be rewritten in the appropriate place for its new priority even if no other action is being taken on the task.
Let me offer a real-world example from my list. On Wednesday, I decided that I wanted to prioritize a couple tasks (including the high-resistance one I referred to earlier) even higher than the list of double-starred tasks, so I decided to assign triple stars to them. (I don't particularly like having so many priority levels, but the system is extensible to any number.) At the end of the day, I was almost done deploying a code change for a customer, but I didn't want to risk breaking something by rushing the task just as I was about to go home. Therefore, I marked this task with triple stars also and left it unfinished on my list and went home, having finished my chain for the day.
Yesterday, I started my new chain with 3 triple-starred tasks, and selected one of those high-priority high-resistance tasks as the root, then decided I wanted to finish deploying the code change I had ready, so that became the second task in my chain. As I scanned down the list, there were a couple more tasks that I decided I wanted to do before the deployment, but that's not relevant here. When I made it to the deployment task in the chain, I finished deploying the new code (with a change the customer was waiting for), but I couldn't delete the task because it's about tuning this process in general. However, it was no longer urgent, so when I rewrote the task, I dropped all the stars and added it to the bottom of the unstarred list, knowing it was a low-resistance task that I would jump on when the customer comes back with more requests, so I didn't feel any need to prioritize it in the list.
I was not trapped into keeping the task at a high priority because it was there once. Stars can be added or removed at any time, and the task rewritten appropriately. It works for me, YMMV.
April 27, 2012 at 15:36 |
Deven
Deven
Deven << the "magic slot" at the top of the list gets special treatment by FV. It's the only item in the entire list that you HAVE to action, everything else is optional until it eventually flows into that slot. >>
not necessarily - the top item has to be included in the chain, but by the time you get to the top of chain, if it's not possible to work on the item it's allowed to cross it off and re-write. I've had items that happened to (for example - 'call company X re billing issue' which I can't do at 8pm because the billing office is closed). Not sure if that helps your situation or not, or even if I'm interpreting the instructions correctly, but that's how I'm running my FV list
not necessarily - the top item has to be included in the chain, but by the time you get to the top of chain, if it's not possible to work on the item it's allowed to cross it off and re-write. I've had items that happened to (for example - 'call company X re billing issue' which I can't do at 8pm because the billing office is closed). Not sure if that helps your situation or not, or even if I'm interpreting the instructions correctly, but that's how I'm running my FV list
April 27, 2012 at 15:39 |
Lillian
Lillian
Jim Dandy:
<< I'm definitely giving Deven's idea today! >>
I was hoping you'd see these threads and give it a try. You've raised the issue of high-resistance urgent items at least 3-4 times; I hope this is a solution to the problem.
Please review the detailed example I gave in the previous thread, if you didn't see it yet:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749#post1797272
Let us know if it makes a difference for you!
<< I'm definitely giving Deven's idea today! >>
I was hoping you'd see these threads and give it a try. You've raised the issue of high-resistance urgent items at least 3-4 times; I hope this is a solution to the problem.
Please review the detailed example I gave in the previous thread, if you didn't see it yet:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749#post1797272
Let us know if it makes a difference for you!
April 27, 2012 at 15:43 |
Deven
Deven
Lillian:
<< not necessarily - the top item has to be included in the chain, but by the time you get to the top of chain, if it's not possible to work on the item it's allowed to cross it off and re-write. I've had items that happened to (for example - 'call company X re billing issue' which I can't do at 8pm because the billing office is closed). Not sure if that helps your situation or not, or even if I'm interpreting the instructions correctly, but that's how I'm running my FV list >>
You're right, if it's not possible to work on the item, you can rewrite it without additional action, but that was true even in SuperFocus with its heavy dose of compulsion. It's a bit of a technicality, but I should have noted it.
But now that you mention it, this is another benefit of prioritizing the list. If you have a high-resistance task that you feel you should do soon but really don't want to, this loophole makes it easier to procrastinate on it. For example, suppose you know that calling company X about the billing issue will be a nightmare to straighten out, and you realistically expect it to be an hour-long phone call and you're dreading it.
You might consider it a priority (you don't want to overpay your bill), yet feel high resistance towards the task and be inclined to procrastinate on it. Sure, you HAVE to rewrite the task if the billing office is closed, but what if you just tell yourself you can't do it now because you can't afford to spend the next hour on the phone (even though the billing office is open), so you justify rewriting it on that basis? That's pretty easy to do over and over again, but every time you rewrite it, it's even easier to completely ignore the task until it flows back into that "magic slot" at the top of the list and the FV rules force you to preselect it and at least TRY to action it if you can.
My tweak is to rewrite tasks in prioritized groups, so that hated task will flow back into the "magic slot" over and over again, much more often than it would under standard FV rules, increasing the likelihood of actually completing the task in a more timely fashion. That's what it's all about.
<< not necessarily - the top item has to be included in the chain, but by the time you get to the top of chain, if it's not possible to work on the item it's allowed to cross it off and re-write. I've had items that happened to (for example - 'call company X re billing issue' which I can't do at 8pm because the billing office is closed). Not sure if that helps your situation or not, or even if I'm interpreting the instructions correctly, but that's how I'm running my FV list >>
You're right, if it's not possible to work on the item, you can rewrite it without additional action, but that was true even in SuperFocus with its heavy dose of compulsion. It's a bit of a technicality, but I should have noted it.
But now that you mention it, this is another benefit of prioritizing the list. If you have a high-resistance task that you feel you should do soon but really don't want to, this loophole makes it easier to procrastinate on it. For example, suppose you know that calling company X about the billing issue will be a nightmare to straighten out, and you realistically expect it to be an hour-long phone call and you're dreading it.
You might consider it a priority (you don't want to overpay your bill), yet feel high resistance towards the task and be inclined to procrastinate on it. Sure, you HAVE to rewrite the task if the billing office is closed, but what if you just tell yourself you can't do it now because you can't afford to spend the next hour on the phone (even though the billing office is open), so you justify rewriting it on that basis? That's pretty easy to do over and over again, but every time you rewrite it, it's even easier to completely ignore the task until it flows back into that "magic slot" at the top of the list and the FV rules force you to preselect it and at least TRY to action it if you can.
My tweak is to rewrite tasks in prioritized groups, so that hated task will flow back into the "magic slot" over and over again, much more often than it would under standard FV rules, increasing the likelihood of actually completing the task in a more timely fashion. That's what it's all about.
April 27, 2012 at 15:55 |
Deven
Deven
Deven >>You might consider it a priority (you don't want to overpay your bill), yet feel high resistance towards the task and be inclined to procrastinate on it. Sure, you HAVE to rewrite the task if the billing office is closed, but what if you just tell yourself you can't do it now because you can't afford to spend the next hour on the phone (even though the billing office is open), so you justify rewriting it on that basis? That's pretty easy to do over and over again, but every time you rewrite it, it's even easier to completely ignore the task until it flows back into that "magic slot" at the top of the list and the FV rules force you to preselect it and at least TRY to action it if you can.<<
I agree, but at the same time, at some point, no matter where the task is on the list, you **know** that you have to bite the bullet and make that call NOW because it's gotten to be a 'choice' of a 1 hour dreaded call vs being overdue with penalties on a bill that's $500 overstated. Not sure if 'choice' is the right word, but I can't think of a better one. (I suppose you could even put it on the list AF-style -- one task of: make 1 hr call-from-hell and one task of: pay extra $500 and penalties on overdue bill. Then let FV determine which tasks gets dotted & worked on first)
I agree, but at the same time, at some point, no matter where the task is on the list, you **know** that you have to bite the bullet and make that call NOW because it's gotten to be a 'choice' of a 1 hour dreaded call vs being overdue with penalties on a bill that's $500 overstated. Not sure if 'choice' is the right word, but I can't think of a better one. (I suppose you could even put it on the list AF-style -- one task of: make 1 hr call-from-hell and one task of: pay extra $500 and penalties on overdue bill. Then let FV determine which tasks gets dotted & worked on first)
April 27, 2012 at 17:19 |
Lillian
Lillian
Mark:
<< Provided you stick to the fact that the question relates solely to the order you want to do things in, the split shouldn't arise - just as starring tasks because you want them to have priority is completely unnecessary because the question already covers that. >>
Ah, but it doesn't. Despite the undefinition of "want", it's a matter of apples and oranges.
Let's take the billing example I was discussing with Lillian. Suppose you've been overcharged on a cell phone bill by $100, and that you can afford it but don't want to overpay. You know you're in the right, you have the proof and you know you can get it fixed if you call the company and walk them through why the bill is wrong. However, you also know that the bill is very complicated and difficult to understand, and that the people at the cell phone company that answer the phone invariably take forever to grasp billing problems like this one. You fully expect the phone call to take an hour based on your past experiences with the company. For the sake of argument, let's assume this estimate is accurate -- it WILL take an hour on the phone with the company to straighten it out, and you WILL hate every minute of it. So you write it at the bottom of your FV list, but you're dreading making that call.
With standard FV, it wouldn't be hard to procrastinate on making this call for weeks or months. After all, you're dreading the call, and it's not urgent to you (because you can spare the $100), so it's just something you feel that you need to do eventually, not right now. So every time you are building a chain and asking yourself The Question, you never select this task because you are dreading this call and doing ANYTHING else first sounds better. Therefore, when does it end up in your preselected chain? Probably only when it flows into the "magic slot" and is therefore required to be preselected as the root of a new chain. How often does that happen? Several times a week, perhaps? Then, when it does get selected as the root of a chain, it would still be easy to tell yourself you don't have an hour to spare to deal with it now (which may be true) and you can't do "little and often" on it (because it probably IS a single indivisible task), so you justify rewriting it at the end of the FV list, thereby giving you a number of days to ignore the task guilt-free until it flows back to the top again.
By contrast, with "Prioritized FV", you mark the task with a star (or two), because you really do want that $100 back, sooner or later. You're still dreading the call, and you still avoid it, but now every time you dodge the task, you're rewriting it at the end of the list of same-priority tasks, not at the end of the full list. As a result, it necessarily flows into that "magic slot" more quickly than it would with standard FV, and now maybe you're being forced to consider the task every few hours instead of every few days. Won't that be likely to encourage you to resolve that billing issue sooner than you likely would with standard FV?
The Question doesn't cover this; it's a different kind of "want". You want to resolve the billing issue sooner or later, because you want your $100 back, yet it can wait indefinitely. The Question asks, "What do I want to do before I do x?", which isn't going to get your $100 back soon because you DON'T want to make that call before any given "x".
<< Adding stars is just a method of procrastinating over something. The correct way to deal with a high-resistance urgent task is to put a dot next to it and do it. >>
Nobody would have problems with procrastination if "just do it" worked for them. That's not really helpful advice for a procrastinator.
The FV instructions say: << The most distinctive feature of FV is the way that its algorithm is primarily based on psychological readiness - this then opens the way to keeping urgency and importance in the best achievable balance. >> This is truly revolutionary, but in the example above, is standard FV really providing "the best achievable balance" if a procrastinator can so easily put off that dreaded phone call for months?
I believe that "Prioritized FV" provides a better balance with very little added complexity. You've tried so many variations in your own experimentation; why not try it and see how it really compares in practice? What's the worst that could happen?
<< Provided you stick to the fact that the question relates solely to the order you want to do things in, the split shouldn't arise - just as starring tasks because you want them to have priority is completely unnecessary because the question already covers that. >>
Ah, but it doesn't. Despite the undefinition of "want", it's a matter of apples and oranges.
Let's take the billing example I was discussing with Lillian. Suppose you've been overcharged on a cell phone bill by $100, and that you can afford it but don't want to overpay. You know you're in the right, you have the proof and you know you can get it fixed if you call the company and walk them through why the bill is wrong. However, you also know that the bill is very complicated and difficult to understand, and that the people at the cell phone company that answer the phone invariably take forever to grasp billing problems like this one. You fully expect the phone call to take an hour based on your past experiences with the company. For the sake of argument, let's assume this estimate is accurate -- it WILL take an hour on the phone with the company to straighten it out, and you WILL hate every minute of it. So you write it at the bottom of your FV list, but you're dreading making that call.
With standard FV, it wouldn't be hard to procrastinate on making this call for weeks or months. After all, you're dreading the call, and it's not urgent to you (because you can spare the $100), so it's just something you feel that you need to do eventually, not right now. So every time you are building a chain and asking yourself The Question, you never select this task because you are dreading this call and doing ANYTHING else first sounds better. Therefore, when does it end up in your preselected chain? Probably only when it flows into the "magic slot" and is therefore required to be preselected as the root of a new chain. How often does that happen? Several times a week, perhaps? Then, when it does get selected as the root of a chain, it would still be easy to tell yourself you don't have an hour to spare to deal with it now (which may be true) and you can't do "little and often" on it (because it probably IS a single indivisible task), so you justify rewriting it at the end of the FV list, thereby giving you a number of days to ignore the task guilt-free until it flows back to the top again.
By contrast, with "Prioritized FV", you mark the task with a star (or two), because you really do want that $100 back, sooner or later. You're still dreading the call, and you still avoid it, but now every time you dodge the task, you're rewriting it at the end of the list of same-priority tasks, not at the end of the full list. As a result, it necessarily flows into that "magic slot" more quickly than it would with standard FV, and now maybe you're being forced to consider the task every few hours instead of every few days. Won't that be likely to encourage you to resolve that billing issue sooner than you likely would with standard FV?
The Question doesn't cover this; it's a different kind of "want". You want to resolve the billing issue sooner or later, because you want your $100 back, yet it can wait indefinitely. The Question asks, "What do I want to do before I do x?", which isn't going to get your $100 back soon because you DON'T want to make that call before any given "x".
<< Adding stars is just a method of procrastinating over something. The correct way to deal with a high-resistance urgent task is to put a dot next to it and do it. >>
Nobody would have problems with procrastination if "just do it" worked for them. That's not really helpful advice for a procrastinator.
The FV instructions say: << The most distinctive feature of FV is the way that its algorithm is primarily based on psychological readiness - this then opens the way to keeping urgency and importance in the best achievable balance. >> This is truly revolutionary, but in the example above, is standard FV really providing "the best achievable balance" if a procrastinator can so easily put off that dreaded phone call for months?
I believe that "Prioritized FV" provides a better balance with very little added complexity. You've tried so many variations in your own experimentation; why not try it and see how it really compares in practice? What's the worst that could happen?
April 27, 2012 at 17:20 |
Deven
Deven
Lillian:
<< I agree, but at the same time, at some point, no matter where the task is on the list, you **know** that you have to bite the bullet and make that call NOW because it's gotten to be a 'choice' of a 1 hour dreaded call vs being overdue with penalties on a bill that's $500 overstated. Not sure if 'choice' is the right word, but I can't think of a better one. (I suppose you could even put it on the list AF-style -- one task of: make 1 hr call-from-hell and one task of: pay extra $500 and penalties on overdue bill. Then let FV determine which tasks gets dotted & worked on first) >>
See my reply to Mark above. Suppose the bill is wrong and you want to fix it, but you CAN afford it, so you do NOT need to fix it right away. You can just pay the bill when it comes due and get a credit later, so it can wait. As long as you make that call eventually, you won't be out the money. Since you have the money to spare, it becomes a "whenever" task.
Now, ask yourself which approach will likely get this task resolved sooner, "Prioritized FV" or standard FV, when there's not really much of a hurry to get it done?
<< I agree, but at the same time, at some point, no matter where the task is on the list, you **know** that you have to bite the bullet and make that call NOW because it's gotten to be a 'choice' of a 1 hour dreaded call vs being overdue with penalties on a bill that's $500 overstated. Not sure if 'choice' is the right word, but I can't think of a better one. (I suppose you could even put it on the list AF-style -- one task of: make 1 hr call-from-hell and one task of: pay extra $500 and penalties on overdue bill. Then let FV determine which tasks gets dotted & worked on first) >>
See my reply to Mark above. Suppose the bill is wrong and you want to fix it, but you CAN afford it, so you do NOT need to fix it right away. You can just pay the bill when it comes due and get a credit later, so it can wait. As long as you make that call eventually, you won't be out the money. Since you have the money to spare, it becomes a "whenever" task.
Now, ask yourself which approach will likely get this task resolved sooner, "Prioritized FV" or standard FV, when there's not really much of a hurry to get it done?
April 27, 2012 at 17:24 |
Deven
Deven
Deven >>The Question doesn't cover this; it's a different kind of "want". You want to resolve the billing issue sooner or later, because you want your $100 back, yet it can wait indefinitely<<
Indefinitely is overstating things, isn't it? I mean, if you pay the extra $100 now so the bill's not overdue and call the company 6 months later, I'd think that just compounds the whole problem. Not only do you have explain the billing error from 6 months ago, you have 6 months of additional bills, that even if they're right, complicate research for the company. And many companies probably have a "you have X days to dispute the bill" rule/policy/guideline. Not to mention the valid question (on their side, even if they don't ask) - why in the world did you pay the bill in the first place 6 months ago if you knew it was wrong??
Indefinitely is overstating things, isn't it? I mean, if you pay the extra $100 now so the bill's not overdue and call the company 6 months later, I'd think that just compounds the whole problem. Not only do you have explain the billing error from 6 months ago, you have 6 months of additional bills, that even if they're right, complicate research for the company. And many companies probably have a "you have X days to dispute the bill" rule/policy/guideline. Not to mention the valid question (on their side, even if they don't ask) - why in the world did you pay the bill in the first place 6 months ago if you knew it was wrong??
April 27, 2012 at 17:29 |
Lillian
Lillian
Alan Baljeu:
<< I'm not satisfied by Deven's solution, but I do see the problem. >>
What rubs you the wrong way about the solution, apart from the very fact of applying ANY tweak to Mark's system? I know that's somewhat taboo, but I tried standard FV and found it lacking in this one area alone. Otherwise, I think it's awesome! (Thanks, Mark!)
<< I'm not satisfied by Deven's solution, but I do see the problem. >>
What rubs you the wrong way about the solution, apart from the very fact of applying ANY tweak to Mark's system? I know that's somewhat taboo, but I tried standard FV and found it lacking in this one area alone. Otherwise, I think it's awesome! (Thanks, Mark!)
April 27, 2012 at 17:32 |
Deven
Deven
Lillian:
<< Indefinitely is overstating things, isn't it? I mean, if you pay the extra $100 now so the bill's not overdue and call the company 6 months later, I'd think that just compounds the whole problem. Not only do you have explain the billing error from 6 months ago, you have 6 months of additional bills, that even if they're right, complicate research for the company. And many companies probably have a "you have X days to dispute the bill" rule/policy/guideline. Not to mention the valid question (on their side, even if they don't ask) - why in the world did you pay the bill in the first place 6 months ago if you knew it was wrong?? >>
Well, that's easily explained -- you paid the amount due by the due date! Many people do that without analyzing every bill in detail. I've often discovered a billing error 2-3 months after the fact, just because I wasn't looking at it closely enough when it happened. It's hardly unusual.
At any rate, you're arguing why it's undesirable to let it slide for 6 months, and I agree with you, but it's beside the point. Given the example I offered, and no actual deadline for action, which approach will lead to resolution sooner?
<< Indefinitely is overstating things, isn't it? I mean, if you pay the extra $100 now so the bill's not overdue and call the company 6 months later, I'd think that just compounds the whole problem. Not only do you have explain the billing error from 6 months ago, you have 6 months of additional bills, that even if they're right, complicate research for the company. And many companies probably have a "you have X days to dispute the bill" rule/policy/guideline. Not to mention the valid question (on their side, even if they don't ask) - why in the world did you pay the bill in the first place 6 months ago if you knew it was wrong?? >>
Well, that's easily explained -- you paid the amount due by the due date! Many people do that without analyzing every bill in detail. I've often discovered a billing error 2-3 months after the fact, just because I wasn't looking at it closely enough when it happened. It's hardly unusual.
At any rate, you're arguing why it's undesirable to let it slide for 6 months, and I agree with you, but it's beside the point. Given the example I offered, and no actual deadline for action, which approach will lead to resolution sooner?
April 27, 2012 at 17:37 |
Deven
Deven
GMBW:
<< Maybe, if you know something is giving resistance, and you absolutely know you don't want to do it at all, just dot it anyways. Since what you want is to reduce the resistance.
Avoiding high resistance tasks will only make them harder. Even worse if they have a deadline associated with them. Do yourself a favor and keep dotting it to get the small but frequent bits of work accomplished on it. >>
While this approach does avoid the taboo of tweaking Mark's system, it still effectively amounts to changing The Question from "What do I want to do before I do x?" to "What do I want to do before I do x, or feel resistance to?" I am carefully avoiding any changes to The Question, and if you change the preselection process in any way, you're likely changing it, whether you realize or admit it or not. I am using EXACTLY the same preselection process as standard FV.
Note that The Question focuses on the ORDERING of the tasks to be done, and the "before" part of the question is critical to that. If you change the preselection process to dot the high-resistance tasks because you feel you should do so to break down the resistance, how does that have anything at all to do with the ordering of the tasks? Shouldn't that be a red flag?
Even if you believe that this approach follows standard FV, you're still losing the laddering effect, which is the primary benefit of the chains. If you keep selecting the high-resistance task, it will always be near the bottom of the list and there will be few (if any) tasks following it in the list to be used to ladder up to the high-resistance task. My approach with "Prioritized FV" is to rewrite the higher-priority tasks near the top of the list -- which means you'll get more benefit from the laddering effect when marking high-resistance tasks as a priority. (And there's nothing to stop you from selecting it in every chain if you want to do so, of course.)
The only "downside" I can see to this tweak (apart from a slight increase in complexity) is with respect to individual lower-priority tasks -- they'll get less attention because they can't ever reach the "magic slot" until ALL of the higher-priority tasks are gone. However, that's the whole point -- the higher-priority tasks deserve more attention by definition. And the low-priority tasks CAN still get done -- they just have to satisfy The Question to make the list.
<< Maybe, if you know something is giving resistance, and you absolutely know you don't want to do it at all, just dot it anyways. Since what you want is to reduce the resistance.
Avoiding high resistance tasks will only make them harder. Even worse if they have a deadline associated with them. Do yourself a favor and keep dotting it to get the small but frequent bits of work accomplished on it. >>
While this approach does avoid the taboo of tweaking Mark's system, it still effectively amounts to changing The Question from "What do I want to do before I do x?" to "What do I want to do before I do x, or feel resistance to?" I am carefully avoiding any changes to The Question, and if you change the preselection process in any way, you're likely changing it, whether you realize or admit it or not. I am using EXACTLY the same preselection process as standard FV.
Note that The Question focuses on the ORDERING of the tasks to be done, and the "before" part of the question is critical to that. If you change the preselection process to dot the high-resistance tasks because you feel you should do so to break down the resistance, how does that have anything at all to do with the ordering of the tasks? Shouldn't that be a red flag?
Even if you believe that this approach follows standard FV, you're still losing the laddering effect, which is the primary benefit of the chains. If you keep selecting the high-resistance task, it will always be near the bottom of the list and there will be few (if any) tasks following it in the list to be used to ladder up to the high-resistance task. My approach with "Prioritized FV" is to rewrite the higher-priority tasks near the top of the list -- which means you'll get more benefit from the laddering effect when marking high-resistance tasks as a priority. (And there's nothing to stop you from selecting it in every chain if you want to do so, of course.)
The only "downside" I can see to this tweak (apart from a slight increase in complexity) is with respect to individual lower-priority tasks -- they'll get less attention because they can't ever reach the "magic slot" until ALL of the higher-priority tasks are gone. However, that's the whole point -- the higher-priority tasks deserve more attention by definition. And the low-priority tasks CAN still get done -- they just have to satisfy The Question to make the list.
April 27, 2012 at 17:52 |
Deven
Deven
GMBW:
[Responding to the rest of your post from the other day...]
<< I read over your system a few times. To me, it seems as if the system is unnecessarily complicated. Then again, I have only just read it and not at all actually implemented it. I see your need to prioritize, but I think your approach may have problems down the line that you aren’t seeing now. >>
Perhaps my explanation was unnecessarily complicated; the priority tweak is quite simple. Here are the ONLY real differences from standard FV:
* You may add or remove stars to a task at any time to reflect its priority. This is sufficient to qualify as actioning a task, so it should be rewritten immediately unless it's also being selected for the current chain at the same time.
* When rewriting a task, add it at the end of the (possibly empty) group of tasks with same number of stars, such that tasks with more stars are always earlier in the list than tasks with fewer (or no) stars.
That's it. Really not all that complicated.
<< The purpose of the star is to guarantee that they cycle more frequently- Why not just create a chain of urgent items and work through it twice or thrice (or n times until satisfied) instead of just once then? >>
Because that would be a much greater deviation from standard FV, and I don't think it's necessary to stray that far.
<< As Mark said, your system becomes an ABC prioritization system (whcih might as well be a 123 system or 12345 system etc.). -My experience with these is that it is quite difficult to actually determine what gets an ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ ...in your case double star, star or no star. What is great about the question, is that prioritization becomes more natural as it is relative to the root item. ‘what do I want to do before i do x’ makes your decisions more relative. >>
It's not critical to get it exactly right -- at worst, "Prioritized FV" should work as well as standard FV. In fact, it is identical to standard FV whenever there are no tasks marked as priority tasks, so you can use the priority feature as much or as little as you want.
Since low-priority tasks can still be selected just as easily for every chain (because I haven't touched the preselection process at all), this really isn't the same thing as a basic ABC priority scheme, because I'm prioritizing the ordering of the list, not the doing of tasks (except indirectly via the list order).
<< The problem I see yourself having is what ‘want’ means. Yes, it is left undefined. So you should take advantage of that. Try to shift your attention to ‘want before’, rather than ‘want’ and you should get better results. The FV won’t suddenly motivate you to want to do something. So yes, those ugly tasks that you don’t feel like doing but are putting pressure on you, requires you to ‘suck it up and get motivated to do it’ (Thats not to be rude in any way, its just the only way I can put it). >>
Tweaking the list order is preferable (in my mind) to tweaking my definition of "want" because it provides more benefit of the laddering effect for high-resistance high-priority tasks, as I explained in my previous post.
<< Does adding a star really draw your attention to a tasks urgency? If something is urgent, usually your mind just knows because the pressure from the urgency is pecking at you constantly. >>
It's all relative. I have dozens of tasks on my official list for work, and there's often a number of them which are urgent to someone. Someone has to lose, but I'd still prefer to prioritize the tasks that are urgent to someone over the ones that nobody is in a hurry for.
<< Adding a star, highlight , letter, number or symbol won’t do anything different to the task. It will just remind you more. But honestly, you wouldn’t need that reminding if you just scanned your list. If your list is too long to scan, then reconsider your priorities. Can some items be removed? Can you actually do the items written? Do you really know what you need to do and where will it lead you to? Does it add value to your life? Is it really urgent...If so when does it need to be done by? etc. >>
It doesn't just remind me more -- using those stars to rewrite the priority tasks near the top of the list guarantees they flow into that "magic slot" at the top more, which keeps the higher-priority tasks on the front burner where they belong. Lower-priority tasks SHOULD remain on the back burner until the higher-priority tasks are done -- but that doesn't mean you don't stir the pot once in while.
[Responding to the rest of your post from the other day...]
<< I read over your system a few times. To me, it seems as if the system is unnecessarily complicated. Then again, I have only just read it and not at all actually implemented it. I see your need to prioritize, but I think your approach may have problems down the line that you aren’t seeing now. >>
Perhaps my explanation was unnecessarily complicated; the priority tweak is quite simple. Here are the ONLY real differences from standard FV:
* You may add or remove stars to a task at any time to reflect its priority. This is sufficient to qualify as actioning a task, so it should be rewritten immediately unless it's also being selected for the current chain at the same time.
* When rewriting a task, add it at the end of the (possibly empty) group of tasks with same number of stars, such that tasks with more stars are always earlier in the list than tasks with fewer (or no) stars.
That's it. Really not all that complicated.
<< The purpose of the star is to guarantee that they cycle more frequently- Why not just create a chain of urgent items and work through it twice or thrice (or n times until satisfied) instead of just once then? >>
Because that would be a much greater deviation from standard FV, and I don't think it's necessary to stray that far.
<< As Mark said, your system becomes an ABC prioritization system (whcih might as well be a 123 system or 12345 system etc.). -My experience with these is that it is quite difficult to actually determine what gets an ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ ...in your case double star, star or no star. What is great about the question, is that prioritization becomes more natural as it is relative to the root item. ‘what do I want to do before i do x’ makes your decisions more relative. >>
It's not critical to get it exactly right -- at worst, "Prioritized FV" should work as well as standard FV. In fact, it is identical to standard FV whenever there are no tasks marked as priority tasks, so you can use the priority feature as much or as little as you want.
Since low-priority tasks can still be selected just as easily for every chain (because I haven't touched the preselection process at all), this really isn't the same thing as a basic ABC priority scheme, because I'm prioritizing the ordering of the list, not the doing of tasks (except indirectly via the list order).
<< The problem I see yourself having is what ‘want’ means. Yes, it is left undefined. So you should take advantage of that. Try to shift your attention to ‘want before’, rather than ‘want’ and you should get better results. The FV won’t suddenly motivate you to want to do something. So yes, those ugly tasks that you don’t feel like doing but are putting pressure on you, requires you to ‘suck it up and get motivated to do it’ (Thats not to be rude in any way, its just the only way I can put it). >>
Tweaking the list order is preferable (in my mind) to tweaking my definition of "want" because it provides more benefit of the laddering effect for high-resistance high-priority tasks, as I explained in my previous post.
<< Does adding a star really draw your attention to a tasks urgency? If something is urgent, usually your mind just knows because the pressure from the urgency is pecking at you constantly. >>
It's all relative. I have dozens of tasks on my official list for work, and there's often a number of them which are urgent to someone. Someone has to lose, but I'd still prefer to prioritize the tasks that are urgent to someone over the ones that nobody is in a hurry for.
<< Adding a star, highlight , letter, number or symbol won’t do anything different to the task. It will just remind you more. But honestly, you wouldn’t need that reminding if you just scanned your list. If your list is too long to scan, then reconsider your priorities. Can some items be removed? Can you actually do the items written? Do you really know what you need to do and where will it lead you to? Does it add value to your life? Is it really urgent...If so when does it need to be done by? etc. >>
It doesn't just remind me more -- using those stars to rewrite the priority tasks near the top of the list guarantees they flow into that "magic slot" at the top more, which keeps the higher-priority tasks on the front burner where they belong. Lower-priority tasks SHOULD remain on the back burner until the higher-priority tasks are done -- but that doesn't mean you don't stir the pot once in while.
April 27, 2012 at 18:12 |
Deven
Deven
John Graham:
<< Exactly right. Initially I used FV to procrastinate over an important project (when it finally registered with me as near-panic-stations urgent, FV helped me stay calm enough to get a remarkable amount done in the final few hours, but still). Anyway, I learned from that, and for the next project, which I "didn't want to do at all", I ended up "wanting" to select it much more often, and combine it with 5-10-15-20 intervals...and it was a breeze.
Did the structure of FV itself help me learn from experience? Possibly. >>
That makes it sound like FV has created fear in you that the system will fail you (by allowing you to procrastinate until near-panic-stations urgency arises), and while that may be helping right now (you're more inclined to select unwanted tasks for a chain), it seems to fly in the face of the advice from everyone to "trust the system" -- it seems you're finding the system is working better for you now because you trust it LESS. What's the takeaway from that?
<< Exactly right. Initially I used FV to procrastinate over an important project (when it finally registered with me as near-panic-stations urgent, FV helped me stay calm enough to get a remarkable amount done in the final few hours, but still). Anyway, I learned from that, and for the next project, which I "didn't want to do at all", I ended up "wanting" to select it much more often, and combine it with 5-10-15-20 intervals...and it was a breeze.
Did the structure of FV itself help me learn from experience? Possibly. >>
That makes it sound like FV has created fear in you that the system will fail you (by allowing you to procrastinate until near-panic-stations urgency arises), and while that may be helping right now (you're more inclined to select unwanted tasks for a chain), it seems to fly in the face of the advice from everyone to "trust the system" -- it seems you're finding the system is working better for you now because you trust it LESS. What's the takeaway from that?
April 27, 2012 at 18:22 |
Deven
Deven
smileypete:
<< (Started a new thread as the other one is well over 50 posts...) >>
About time to do that again now!
<< It seems to me there's sometimes a split, in that tasks you want to do are NOT the tasks you *feel most capable* of doing at the time, anyone find that? >>
I think the FV preselection algorithm is genius. I haven't been using it long, but I have faith that it will work well for me. My priority tweak is specific to the rewriting process ONLY.
<< If so, maybe one way forward is to 'chunk' as you go, ie dot the task then add a few words outlining the next action that you feel happy about doing.
Any thoughts? Might be better than adding more tweaks and layers of stars and stuff :-) >>
I do try to utilize GTD-style "next actions" with tasks, at least when it feels like it may be helpful. I'm not sure it's worth doing across the board -- too much of a good thing?
<< (Started a new thread as the other one is well over 50 posts...) >>
About time to do that again now!
<< It seems to me there's sometimes a split, in that tasks you want to do are NOT the tasks you *feel most capable* of doing at the time, anyone find that? >>
I think the FV preselection algorithm is genius. I haven't been using it long, but I have faith that it will work well for me. My priority tweak is specific to the rewriting process ONLY.
<< If so, maybe one way forward is to 'chunk' as you go, ie dot the task then add a few words outlining the next action that you feel happy about doing.
Any thoughts? Might be better than adding more tweaks and layers of stars and stuff :-) >>
I do try to utilize GTD-style "next actions" with tasks, at least when it feels like it may be helpful. I'm not sure it's worth doing across the board -- too much of a good thing?
April 27, 2012 at 19:39 |
Deven
Deven
Cricket:
<< I share Deven's need. When reading the list, especially if I do it quickly, it's very easy to miss (or otherwise not dot) things that are high-resistance and low-urgency -- but will become high-urgency if I ignore them. >>
That's my concern. Standard FV seems to enable more procrastination on high-resistance tasks until they become so urgent you can't put it off any more. I'd rather clear those tasks before it gets to that point, and that's the goal of my priority tweak.
<< Yes, answering the question with an awareness of the bigger picture would probably get them dotted sooner, but that's a learned skill. "Want to do before" has many components, and I can't keep all of them in mind at once. Maybe it's lack of skill, maybe it's carelessness.
Whatever the reason, I fell behind on some key projects. (I also made great progress on some less-critical projects.) >>
My guess is that you made great progress on those less-critical project because they flowed into the "magic slot", right? That's what happened with me, and while I was happy that I was making progress on some long-neglected tasks, I felt that things were out of balance because there wasn't enough emphasis on high-priority tasks.
<< A daily pass to put on stars or highlight lines gives the "urgent" part of the question the attention it needs. The, when selecting for a chain, I know that factor has been looked at. If it has a star, I should think twice before saying I don't want to do it before X. If it doesn't, then I can safely be careless. >>
That's a little different than what I'm suggesting (I don't perform any scans specifically for the purpose of updating stars), but using stars or other markers with standard FV can certain inform The Question and make it more likely for the high-priority tasks to catch your attention and therefore be more likely to be selected. However, for high-priority tasks which are also high-resistance, I believe that the "magic slot" is the only solution, and my priority tweak focuses on flowing high-priority tasks through that "magic slot" more often to take best advantage of it.
<< My variation of the star method worked well. Each day I put two stars on the first unactioned item (the magic slot), then examined the list and adjusted the other stars. I sorted the list first by stars then by date. If more than ten lines got stars, I started over. They couldn't all be urgent! Then I dotted the first task and used The Question to pre-select a chain. I still read the entire list. Often something mid-list would catch my eye, so it got dotted. >>
I take it you're using an electronic implementation here? Sorting the list by stars (if you put the most stars first) then date should give almost the same effect as my approach, although I would take care to try to maintain the same sequence of tasks from the same date with the same number of stars -- if you don't, there will be additional side-effects that may unbalance the "little and often" round-robin effect for tasks at the same priority level.
My approach amounts to an incremental insertion sort, so there's never a need to actually sort the list, per se. That makes it easy to implement on index cards, which I'm using.
If I were you, I wouldn't start over if you end up with more than 10 starred tasks -- maybe they all ARE urgent! Instead, scan that list to see if any of them is noticably higher priority than the others, and add another star to those, rewriting to the double-starred list. If all the starred tasks seem to be equal in priority, leave them! Processing the list will cycle around the list of priorities as the root tasks, and give attention to them all.
I agree about scanning the entire list (following the standard FV preselection algorithm) and that items mid-list can and should catch your attention and end up selected for the chain. This is why this prioritizing system is NOT a simple ABC prioritization scheme.
<< Knowing that nothing was lurking mid-list gave me confidence that my choices were good. Seeing the starred tasks together also helped me judge how much time I had available. If I have very little time, that changes how much I want to do discretionary tasks. >>
It sounds like you're effectively doing something mostly equivalent to what I'm doing, though not precisely the same. How's it working for you compared with standard FV?
<< Today I tried highlighting tasks instead of starring them. Again, it gives the logical, urgency, consequence-fearing part of my brain the time it needs to evaluate each task individually. Then when pre-selecting a chain, I know how busy the day is. When I work the chain and reach "read for fun", I know what the next chain is likely to be like. >>
As in, using a highlighter? Hmm. It occurs to me that using a highlighter to preselect tasks (instead of a dot) and a large black permanent marker to cross them out, it might work VERY well visually, although I'm not sure I want to use other writing implements. :)
Still, it sounds interesting, I may try it at work where I can leave the markers on the desk...
<< I share Deven's need. When reading the list, especially if I do it quickly, it's very easy to miss (or otherwise not dot) things that are high-resistance and low-urgency -- but will become high-urgency if I ignore them. >>
That's my concern. Standard FV seems to enable more procrastination on high-resistance tasks until they become so urgent you can't put it off any more. I'd rather clear those tasks before it gets to that point, and that's the goal of my priority tweak.
<< Yes, answering the question with an awareness of the bigger picture would probably get them dotted sooner, but that's a learned skill. "Want to do before" has many components, and I can't keep all of them in mind at once. Maybe it's lack of skill, maybe it's carelessness.
Whatever the reason, I fell behind on some key projects. (I also made great progress on some less-critical projects.) >>
My guess is that you made great progress on those less-critical project because they flowed into the "magic slot", right? That's what happened with me, and while I was happy that I was making progress on some long-neglected tasks, I felt that things were out of balance because there wasn't enough emphasis on high-priority tasks.
<< A daily pass to put on stars or highlight lines gives the "urgent" part of the question the attention it needs. The, when selecting for a chain, I know that factor has been looked at. If it has a star, I should think twice before saying I don't want to do it before X. If it doesn't, then I can safely be careless. >>
That's a little different than what I'm suggesting (I don't perform any scans specifically for the purpose of updating stars), but using stars or other markers with standard FV can certain inform The Question and make it more likely for the high-priority tasks to catch your attention and therefore be more likely to be selected. However, for high-priority tasks which are also high-resistance, I believe that the "magic slot" is the only solution, and my priority tweak focuses on flowing high-priority tasks through that "magic slot" more often to take best advantage of it.
<< My variation of the star method worked well. Each day I put two stars on the first unactioned item (the magic slot), then examined the list and adjusted the other stars. I sorted the list first by stars then by date. If more than ten lines got stars, I started over. They couldn't all be urgent! Then I dotted the first task and used The Question to pre-select a chain. I still read the entire list. Often something mid-list would catch my eye, so it got dotted. >>
I take it you're using an electronic implementation here? Sorting the list by stars (if you put the most stars first) then date should give almost the same effect as my approach, although I would take care to try to maintain the same sequence of tasks from the same date with the same number of stars -- if you don't, there will be additional side-effects that may unbalance the "little and often" round-robin effect for tasks at the same priority level.
My approach amounts to an incremental insertion sort, so there's never a need to actually sort the list, per se. That makes it easy to implement on index cards, which I'm using.
If I were you, I wouldn't start over if you end up with more than 10 starred tasks -- maybe they all ARE urgent! Instead, scan that list to see if any of them is noticably higher priority than the others, and add another star to those, rewriting to the double-starred list. If all the starred tasks seem to be equal in priority, leave them! Processing the list will cycle around the list of priorities as the root tasks, and give attention to them all.
I agree about scanning the entire list (following the standard FV preselection algorithm) and that items mid-list can and should catch your attention and end up selected for the chain. This is why this prioritizing system is NOT a simple ABC prioritization scheme.
<< Knowing that nothing was lurking mid-list gave me confidence that my choices were good. Seeing the starred tasks together also helped me judge how much time I had available. If I have very little time, that changes how much I want to do discretionary tasks. >>
It sounds like you're effectively doing something mostly equivalent to what I'm doing, though not precisely the same. How's it working for you compared with standard FV?
<< Today I tried highlighting tasks instead of starring them. Again, it gives the logical, urgency, consequence-fearing part of my brain the time it needs to evaluate each task individually. Then when pre-selecting a chain, I know how busy the day is. When I work the chain and reach "read for fun", I know what the next chain is likely to be like. >>
As in, using a highlighter? Hmm. It occurs to me that using a highlighter to preselect tasks (instead of a dot) and a large black permanent marker to cross them out, it might work VERY well visually, although I'm not sure I want to use other writing implements. :)
Still, it sounds interesting, I may try it at work where I can leave the markers on the desk...
April 27, 2012 at 20:02 |
Deven
Deven
Alan Baljeu:
<< So does anyone ACTUALLY write broccoli on the list of things to do? >>
Not me, I love broccoli! :)
But we do have a whiteboard on the fridge where we try to write leftovers and anything in danger of expiring, to help people (okay, me!) remember it's there waiting to be eaten...
<< So does anyone ACTUALLY write broccoli on the list of things to do? >>
Not me, I love broccoli! :)
But we do have a whiteboard on the fridge where we try to write leftovers and anything in danger of expiring, to help people (okay, me!) remember it's there waiting to be eaten...
April 27, 2012 at 20:06 |
Deven
Deven
I've created a new followup thread so that this thread may be locked:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1806263
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1806263
April 27, 2012 at 20:52 |
Deven
Deven
It seems to me there's sometimes a split, in that tasks you want to do are NOT the tasks you *feel most capable* of doing at the time, anyone find that?
If so, maybe one way forward is to 'chunk' as you go, ie dot the task then add a few words outlining the next action that you feel happy about doing.
Any thoughts? Might be better than adding more tweaks and layers of stars and stuff :-)