FV and FVP Forum > Prioritized FV - Part 4
I'm getting as tired of this thread as everyone else, but I don't want to just drop it on the floor and fail to respond to people. I'll try to keep it shorter; this thread has consumed too many hours of my time and attention. I haven't posted in a week because I've been swamped with urgent tasks that have mostly kept me from working my FV list at all. I started chain #14 on May 22, and didn't finish that one until May 29, when I also worked chain #15. I was completely off-list on May 30, but worked a one-task chain (monthly report) yesterday as chain #16. I'm now on chain #17.
June 1, 2012 at 16:21 |
Deven
Re: http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1832264#post1834625
<< Prioritizing consistently by any one of these on its own presents a problem. >> ... << The ideal solution is one which takes all three of these into account, which is precisely what FV is designed to do. >>
I wanted standard FV to work perfectly for me out of the box, but it didn't. I was careful to make the smallest tweak possible to achieve the goal that I had. As Seraphim rightly points out, this slight change to the mechanics has a substantial effect on the dynamics, but that's the entire point. So far, it's still working much better for me than standard FV, though it's still hard to stay on-list and work enough chains every day.
<< Deven's states:
"... the FV algorithm draws attention to the first item, and standard FV indiscriminantly uses the oldest unactioned task, while Prioritized FV draws attention to the oldest unactioned task at the highest priority level."
This contradicts itself because if you are giving something a high priority then you want to do it before other lower priority tasks. This is the definition of "priority". >>
This isn't contradictory at all. Here's what you wrote in the FV instructions: "Notice what has happened here. The root tasks (the ones in italics) have been done in strict list order, regardless of importance, urgency or any other factor." Prioritized FV places the high-priority tasks at the top of the list, so when the root tasks are done in strict list order, they will come before the lower-priority tasks.
Note that this is only about root tasks, not the rest of the chain.
<< Therefore the question "What to you want to do before x?" would already have resulted in the high priority task being selected. >>
That's what I hoped would happen, but for high-resistance tasks, it doesn't. Whatever the benchmark task may be, I do NOT want to do the high-resistance task before it.
You've said that I must be interpreting the question wrong if I'm not selecting the task, but remember what you wrote in the FV instructions: "There may be a whole variety of reasons why you might want to do one thing before another thing and all of them are valid." This strikes me as inconsistent. It seems that "all of them are valid" only until it drives a need to tweak the system?
<< If it doesn't, it's because you are not actually giving the task priority. >>
I agree that the task isn't being given priority in practice when it doesn't get selected for the chains.
Prioritized FV is designed to work around that problem by separating the decision on what SHOULD be a priority (be adding or removing stars) from the decision of what to do before the benchmark task. Any prioritized task can still be selected just as easily from the top of the list as the bottom, and if it isn't, it will flow through the "magic slot" at the top of the list where the FV algorithm forces the root tasks to be done in strict list order. This applies "little and often" more to any high-resistance high-priority tasks, and doesn't harm low-resistance ones.
<< Giving a task top priority is not a matter of putting stars in front of it and moving it around the list. It's a matter of doing it first. >>
All well and good, but how does this address high-priority high-resistance tasks?
<< Prioritizing consistently by any one of these on its own presents a problem. >> ... << The ideal solution is one which takes all three of these into account, which is precisely what FV is designed to do. >>
I wanted standard FV to work perfectly for me out of the box, but it didn't. I was careful to make the smallest tweak possible to achieve the goal that I had. As Seraphim rightly points out, this slight change to the mechanics has a substantial effect on the dynamics, but that's the entire point. So far, it's still working much better for me than standard FV, though it's still hard to stay on-list and work enough chains every day.
<< Deven's states:
"... the FV algorithm draws attention to the first item, and standard FV indiscriminantly uses the oldest unactioned task, while Prioritized FV draws attention to the oldest unactioned task at the highest priority level."
This contradicts itself because if you are giving something a high priority then you want to do it before other lower priority tasks. This is the definition of "priority". >>
This isn't contradictory at all. Here's what you wrote in the FV instructions: "Notice what has happened here. The root tasks (the ones in italics) have been done in strict list order, regardless of importance, urgency or any other factor." Prioritized FV places the high-priority tasks at the top of the list, so when the root tasks are done in strict list order, they will come before the lower-priority tasks.
Note that this is only about root tasks, not the rest of the chain.
<< Therefore the question "What to you want to do before x?" would already have resulted in the high priority task being selected. >>
That's what I hoped would happen, but for high-resistance tasks, it doesn't. Whatever the benchmark task may be, I do NOT want to do the high-resistance task before it.
You've said that I must be interpreting the question wrong if I'm not selecting the task, but remember what you wrote in the FV instructions: "There may be a whole variety of reasons why you might want to do one thing before another thing and all of them are valid." This strikes me as inconsistent. It seems that "all of them are valid" only until it drives a need to tweak the system?
<< If it doesn't, it's because you are not actually giving the task priority. >>
I agree that the task isn't being given priority in practice when it doesn't get selected for the chains.
Prioritized FV is designed to work around that problem by separating the decision on what SHOULD be a priority (be adding or removing stars) from the decision of what to do before the benchmark task. Any prioritized task can still be selected just as easily from the top of the list as the bottom, and if it isn't, it will flow through the "magic slot" at the top of the list where the FV algorithm forces the root tasks to be done in strict list order. This applies "little and often" more to any high-resistance high-priority tasks, and doesn't harm low-resistance ones.
<< Giving a task top priority is not a matter of putting stars in front of it and moving it around the list. It's a matter of doing it first. >>
All well and good, but how does this address high-priority high-resistance tasks?
June 1, 2012 at 17:01 |
Deven
>>Whatever the benchmark task may be, I do NOT want to do the high-resistance task before it.
So if you don't want to do the high-resistance task, you don't select it with FV.
>>There may be a whole variety of reasons why you might want to do one thing before another thing and all of them are valid.
Yes, and based on the reasons you're applying to the task, you said you don't want to do it.
>>It seems that "all of them are valid" only until it drives a need to tweak the system?
But the tweak is to select a task you don't want to do which goes against the FV algorithm of selecting tasks you want to do. FV is to select tasks you want to do, not to select tasks you don't want to do.
On another site I go to, it could be described as - you have responsible-adult-does-this-task reasons for having this item on your list. You also have a 3yr old kid in your head yelling "I DON'T WANT TO AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!! I DON'T WANT TO AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!!" about the task. Are you letting the responsible-adult or the 3-yr-old-kid decide about working on the task?
So if you don't want to do the high-resistance task, you don't select it with FV.
>>There may be a whole variety of reasons why you might want to do one thing before another thing and all of them are valid.
Yes, and based on the reasons you're applying to the task, you said you don't want to do it.
>>It seems that "all of them are valid" only until it drives a need to tweak the system?
But the tweak is to select a task you don't want to do which goes against the FV algorithm of selecting tasks you want to do. FV is to select tasks you want to do, not to select tasks you don't want to do.
On another site I go to, it could be described as - you have responsible-adult-does-this-task reasons for having this item on your list. You also have a 3yr old kid in your head yelling "I DON'T WANT TO AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!! I DON'T WANT TO AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!!" about the task. Are you letting the responsible-adult or the 3-yr-old-kid decide about working on the task?
June 1, 2012 at 20:59 |
Lillian
Deven, you've already admitted that the high urgency, high resistance task that triggered your creation of P-FV was a faux-urgent task. FV actually revealed that fact to you by letting it be ignored. You are losing one of FV's great strengths, this sifting ability.
Also, FV handles urgent interruptions seamlessly and elegantly, by letting you extend the chain. P-FV can't allow that, because it would prevent you from working on the starred items. Maybe this is one reason you tend to go off-list when urgency crises hit.
Just some food for thought...
Also, FV handles urgent interruptions seamlessly and elegantly, by letting you extend the chain. P-FV can't allow that, because it would prevent you from working on the starred items. Maybe this is one reason you tend to go off-list when urgency crises hit.
Just some food for thought...
June 2, 2012 at 7:35 |
Seraphim
you could try the shoe company system
June 2, 2012 at 18:11 |
matthewS
Deven,
>>There may be a whole variety of reasons why you might want to do one thing before another thing and all of them are valid. ... It seems that "all of them are valid" only until it drives a need to tweak the system?
Probably the reason you could never find a reason to "want" to do the task was because it wasn't as urgent or important as you initially thought it was.
That's not a flaw of the system. It works that way by design. The thing you are trying to fix is one of the key elements that makes FV such a great system.
>>There may be a whole variety of reasons why you might want to do one thing before another thing and all of them are valid. ... It seems that "all of them are valid" only until it drives a need to tweak the system?
Probably the reason you could never find a reason to "want" to do the task was because it wasn't as urgent or important as you initially thought it was.
That's not a flaw of the system. It works that way by design. The thing you are trying to fix is one of the key elements that makes FV such a great system.
June 2, 2012 at 20:05 |
Seraphim
I also have urgent items I am resisting and just don't have any natural desire to do. But part of me knows that it needs to be done, and I *do* want to do the things that *need* to be done. It's something I've committed to, and I *do* want to keep my commitments. At some point, this aspect of "wanting" ignites in my soul, and the item says "I am ready to be done, get it done!!"
If that never happens, then it's a sign the task really isn't that important or urgent, even if I consciously think it is important, or even if my boss or someone else is telling me it's important. The task loses the battle of relative importance and urgency, and doesn't get done, and generally I never have any regrets about it. Actually, I've NEVER had any regrets about these.
Also, my boss doesn't even notice, because the same thing was happening to him: he thought it was important, but later realized it really wasn't. If he *did* care or still think it was important, he would keep talking about it, or asking me about it, and that would prompt me to take action.
Putting stars next to items you think are important destroys this feature of FV.
If that never happens, then it's a sign the task really isn't that important or urgent, even if I consciously think it is important, or even if my boss or someone else is telling me it's important. The task loses the battle of relative importance and urgency, and doesn't get done, and generally I never have any regrets about it. Actually, I've NEVER had any regrets about these.
Also, my boss doesn't even notice, because the same thing was happening to him: he thought it was important, but later realized it really wasn't. If he *did* care or still think it was important, he would keep talking about it, or asking me about it, and that would prompt me to take action.
Putting stars next to items you think are important destroys this feature of FV.
June 2, 2012 at 20:07 |
Seraphim
Matthew -
Shoe company system???
Shoe company system???
June 3, 2012 at 2:57 |
Lillian
Deven - I forget if this has come up already in these threads, but have you tried Mark's Alternative FV question "What am I resisting more than x?" without using your starred-item tweak? I'm guessing your high-resistance task would get dotted with that question :)
June 3, 2012 at 20:43 |
Lillian
My problem with FV was the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th dots in each chain. The first dot was often on a task that really should have been dismissed. I didn't have the time to do it right, and they just hung around, getting tiny bits of work when it each time they reached the top, and otherwise reminding me of how much I wasn't getting done. By the 5th dot, I reached important things. I knew those early lines weren't important, but it always made sense to do them before the previous dot. I now have half-a-page of Someday/Maybe items. It's a start.
My week trying FV wasn't. My list of must-dos was long enough that I stayed on that. I barely looked at the FV list. Today I made the mistake of starting the day with necessary tasks that also throw off the rest of the day. I should learn to do those later in the day.
My week trying FV wasn't. My list of must-dos was long enough that I stayed on that. I barely looked at the FV list. Today I made the mistake of starting the day with necessary tasks that also throw off the rest of the day. I should learn to do those later in the day.
June 4, 2012 at 21:36 |
Cricket
Cricket, I am having a hard time understanding your post. When you say the first four dots, do you mean the top of the list, oldest items, including the root item? Or do you mean the first four dots that actually get actioned in the chain, which would be the ones closest to the end of the list?
June 5, 2012 at 0:21 |
Seraphim
The order they were put on the page. The first dot is the oldest unactioned -- the magic slot, but also the task most likely to need dismissing. Almost anything should be done before it. After a few cycles, all the important projects had been actioned, and the only ones left on the first few pages were unimportant.
On a scale of 1-100, a typical chain would be 1 2 3 4 7 10 30 58 75 99 --- 7/10 of them were unimportant! Prioritized FV was a way of keeping the unimportant ones out of the way, without admitting they needed to be put off indefinitely. I had hoped that FV would help me make progress on them. I'd have enough time, if I didn't waste so much. And I did make progress on them -- at the expense of the more important ones. Prioritized FV for me was a way to avoid dismissing them. I'm not saying FV will work for me, but those unimportant tasks were gumming up the works.
On a scale of 1-100, a typical chain would be 1 2 3 4 7 10 30 58 75 99 --- 7/10 of them were unimportant! Prioritized FV was a way of keeping the unimportant ones out of the way, without admitting they needed to be put off indefinitely. I had hoped that FV would help me make progress on them. I'd have enough time, if I didn't waste so much. And I did make progress on them -- at the expense of the more important ones. Prioritized FV for me was a way to avoid dismissing them. I'm not saying FV will work for me, but those unimportant tasks were gumming up the works.
June 5, 2012 at 2:10 |
Cricket
Cricket - why not dismiss them or put them in a tickler file for 2-3 weeks from now? If they're 'clutter' on the list, get them out of the way. I tend to weed through my home-list when it's over 50 or 60 items, maybe a quarter of them go into the next month's tickler. Next month, some make it back to the list, some get dismissed.
June 5, 2012 at 2:27 |
Lillian
Cricket,
I too am having some trouble understanding, so maybe I am missing something. Your chain looks like this: 1 2 3 4 7 10 30 58 75 99. You say that almost all items on your list should be done before number 1. But you do realize that you are not suposed to select items 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 30, 58, 75, and 99 because they should be done before 1. You select item 2 because you want to do it before item 1. You select three because you want to do it before 2. You select 99, not because you want to do it before 1, per se, but because you want to do it before item 75, which you want to do before item 58 and so forth.
Also, why are you selecting so many unimportant items? In fact why are unimportant items on your list at all? If you want them on the list, then ignore them. Don't select them unless they have achieved some level of urgency.
I too am having some trouble understanding, so maybe I am missing something. Your chain looks like this: 1 2 3 4 7 10 30 58 75 99. You say that almost all items on your list should be done before number 1. But you do realize that you are not suposed to select items 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 30, 58, 75, and 99 because they should be done before 1. You select item 2 because you want to do it before item 1. You select three because you want to do it before 2. You select 99, not because you want to do it before 1, per se, but because you want to do it before item 75, which you want to do before item 58 and so forth.
Also, why are you selecting so many unimportant items? In fact why are unimportant items on your list at all? If you want them on the list, then ignore them. Don't select them unless they have achieved some level of urgency.
June 5, 2012 at 4:27 |
Chris
For me, with FV, it would be a lot more typical to preselect the root, plus maybe two or three oldish tasks of fairly low or medium priority, and then 10 or 20 hot, current, important tasks and projects.
June 5, 2012 at 5:43 |
Seraphim
Lillian and Chris: I wanted to do 2 more than 1, and 3 more than 2. Maybe not much more, but enough more. That improved later, but there were still too many shiny projects that caught my eye.
I know I waste a lot of time. If I use it well, I'll have time to do all those projects. FV promised (I thought -- I probably read more into it than Mark intended) to help me do that. "Throw everything at it." Putting them back on the someday/maybe list was hard.
Today is errand day.
I know I waste a lot of time. If I use it well, I'll have time to do all those projects. FV promised (I thought -- I probably read more into it than Mark intended) to help me do that. "Throw everything at it." Putting them back on the someday/maybe list was hard.
Today is errand day.
June 5, 2012 at 13:32 |
Cricket
Hi Cricket:
> I wanted to do 2 more than 1, and 3 more than 2. Maybe not much more, but enough more.
It's not "more than" but "before than" the last dotted item. And also, as far as I understand it, "right now" or during the "current working session".
Time available has been key to help me build useful chains (i.e. without those "2"s and "3"s), instead of trying to build the perfect chain reflecting an ideal "order" between tasks.
When sitting down to work, factors like time/mood/location all affect what I dot. It's like working the list in the context of "ok, what will I work on before leaving to pick up the kids?", for example.
> I wanted to do 2 more than 1, and 3 more than 2. Maybe not much more, but enough more.
It's not "more than" but "before than" the last dotted item. And also, as far as I understand it, "right now" or during the "current working session".
Time available has been key to help me build useful chains (i.e. without those "2"s and "3"s), instead of trying to build the perfect chain reflecting an ideal "order" between tasks.
When sitting down to work, factors like time/mood/location all affect what I dot. It's like working the list in the context of "ok, what will I work on before leaving to pick up the kids?", for example.
June 6, 2012 at 1:16 |
Hugo Ferreira
Hugo: You're right. It's Before. I was thinking "before" when working the list (at least after the first week). At the level I was, though, it didn't make much difference. Given a choice between working on Y before X, or having to wait for the next chain to make progress on Y, of course I wanted to work on Y before X. (And Z before Y, and...) No matter what the question, Y would have gotten a dot, just so I could work on it. I made exciting progress on unimportant things I'd almost given up on.
For now, though, I'm back to a system that worked well for almost a year (before I got bored with it). It has features of AF and FV and three-choice and time-boxing and scheduling, but fits my personality better.
For now, though, I'm back to a system that worked well for almost a year (before I got bored with it). It has features of AF and FV and three-choice and time-boxing and scheduling, but fits my personality better.
June 6, 2012 at 3:33 |
Cricket
Cricket:
>I know I waste a lot of time. If I use it well, I'll have time to do all those projects. FV promised (I thought -- I probably read more into it than Mark intended) to help me do that. "Throw everything at it." Putting them back on the someday/maybe list was hard.<
The thing that I keep forgetting and re-learning about Mark's systems (the ones that I've used - I've mostly stuck to the AF variants and FV) is that things are supposed to fall off of them and not get done. Especially if you throw everything at it. They're designed to weed out the stuff that should be on the Someday/Maybe list. With every iteration of the system that I've used, stuff bubbles to the "do or delete" point and I struggle with feelings of failure and try to push myself harder, but that's not how it is supposed to work. I'm supposed to be really looking at these things and questioning how much I want to do them.
Maybe your perception that you are wasting too much time and should be able to do all this is spot on. But remember that stuff falling off is sort of part of the design. We can (and possibly should) always think of more ideas than we can act on.
Trying to force myself to waste less time has failed for me so many times that I've given up. But things are changing for some reason. (Awareness of mortality and the feeling of time running out, I suspect.) I'm slowly beginning to waste less time - I'm less likely to unconsciously spend hours on the internet. I get restless and want to do something more satisfying. I'm hoping that as I observe what's important with the help of FV that my tolerance for brainlessness will diminish. I suspect I'll always need some, but I want to improve my balance of brainless, important day-to-day, and important life work.
>I know I waste a lot of time. If I use it well, I'll have time to do all those projects. FV promised (I thought -- I probably read more into it than Mark intended) to help me do that. "Throw everything at it." Putting them back on the someday/maybe list was hard.<
The thing that I keep forgetting and re-learning about Mark's systems (the ones that I've used - I've mostly stuck to the AF variants and FV) is that things are supposed to fall off of them and not get done. Especially if you throw everything at it. They're designed to weed out the stuff that should be on the Someday/Maybe list. With every iteration of the system that I've used, stuff bubbles to the "do or delete" point and I struggle with feelings of failure and try to push myself harder, but that's not how it is supposed to work. I'm supposed to be really looking at these things and questioning how much I want to do them.
Maybe your perception that you are wasting too much time and should be able to do all this is spot on. But remember that stuff falling off is sort of part of the design. We can (and possibly should) always think of more ideas than we can act on.
Trying to force myself to waste less time has failed for me so many times that I've given up. But things are changing for some reason. (Awareness of mortality and the feeling of time running out, I suspect.) I'm slowly beginning to waste less time - I'm less likely to unconsciously spend hours on the internet. I get restless and want to do something more satisfying. I'm hoping that as I observe what's important with the help of FV that my tolerance for brainlessness will diminish. I suspect I'll always need some, but I want to improve my balance of brainless, important day-to-day, and important life work.
June 6, 2012 at 14:04 |
R.M. Koske
@ Lillian, "shoe company system" = Just Do It
June 7, 2012 at 22:10 |
matthewS
I'm falling behind again; chain #19 took from June 5 until today to complete. (But I was out of the office all last week.) I'm now on chain #20, and "FV forum" is the middle task of three in this chain. But I'm taking a half day today, so I'll resume at this point tomorrow.
June 20, 2012 at 17:17 |
Deven
Lillian:
<< So if you don't want to do the high-resistance task, you don't select it with FV. >>
That's exactly the problem.
<< Yes, and based on the reasons you're applying to the task, you said you don't want to do it. >>
Yes, a fact that I acknowledged up front.
<< But the tweak is to select a task you don't want to do which goes against the FV algorithm of selecting tasks you want to do. FV is to select tasks you want to do, not to select tasks you don't want to do. >>
FV always selects the first item in the list as the root for the chain, no matter what. And then it selects what you want to do BEFORE that task, which doesn't necessarily mean you want to do that either. It's not only selecting what you want to do, but it's obviously more likely to.
<< On another site I go to, it could be described as - you have responsible-adult-does-this-task reasons for having this item on your list. You also have a 3yr old kid in your head yelling "I DON'T WANT TO AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!! I DON'T WANT TO AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!!" about the task. Are you letting the responsible-adult or the 3-yr-old-kid decide about working on the task? >>
Neither. I was letting the system decide, and I wasn't satisfied with the outcome when following the standard FV algorithm. I'm happy so far with the outcome using Prioritized FV, but still finding it difficult to work the system frequently enough. I want to process more chains per day, but interruptions and distractions tend to pull me away from using the system at all.
<< So if you don't want to do the high-resistance task, you don't select it with FV. >>
That's exactly the problem.
<< Yes, and based on the reasons you're applying to the task, you said you don't want to do it. >>
Yes, a fact that I acknowledged up front.
<< But the tweak is to select a task you don't want to do which goes against the FV algorithm of selecting tasks you want to do. FV is to select tasks you want to do, not to select tasks you don't want to do. >>
FV always selects the first item in the list as the root for the chain, no matter what. And then it selects what you want to do BEFORE that task, which doesn't necessarily mean you want to do that either. It's not only selecting what you want to do, but it's obviously more likely to.
<< On another site I go to, it could be described as - you have responsible-adult-does-this-task reasons for having this item on your list. You also have a 3yr old kid in your head yelling "I DON'T WANT TO AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!! I DON'T WANT TO AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!!" about the task. Are you letting the responsible-adult or the 3-yr-old-kid decide about working on the task? >>
Neither. I was letting the system decide, and I wasn't satisfied with the outcome when following the standard FV algorithm. I'm happy so far with the outcome using Prioritized FV, but still finding it difficult to work the system frequently enough. I want to process more chains per day, but interruptions and distractions tend to pull me away from using the system at all.
June 21, 2012 at 17:47 |
Deven
Seraphim:
<< Deven, you've already admitted that the high urgency, high resistance task that triggered your creation of P-FV was a faux-urgent task. FV actually revealed that fact to you by letting it be ignored. You are losing one of FV's great strengths, this sifting ability. >>
FV doesn't contain a dismissal process like AF does, so I'm not sure this qualifies as a "sifting ability" per se. High-resistance tasks tend to drift toward the top of the list, but that's a measure of the resistance to the task, not importance or urgency. Just because this task happened to be faux-urgent doesn't really matter, because if it was truly-urgent but still high-resistance, FV still would have easily ignored it, at least until the urgency generates a sense of panic. I don't want that.
<< Also, FV handles urgent interruptions seamlessly and elegantly, by letting you extend the chain. P-FV can't allow that, because it would prevent you from working on the starred items. Maybe this is one reason you tend to go off-list when urgency crises hit. >>
I tend to go off-list because I never really established the habit of having a system tell me what to do all the time. I'm still working on that.
Prioritized FV only affects the rewriting rule, that's all. You can still extend the chain the same way as standard FV when something urgent arises, and if it's urgent enough to want to do it before the other tasks on your current chain (starred or not), then you should do so. But you also have the option to prioritize the task appropriately and add it to the list to be selected for a future chain if it's not so urgent. Either approach works fine.
<< Just some food for thought... >>
Yummy!
<< Deven, you've already admitted that the high urgency, high resistance task that triggered your creation of P-FV was a faux-urgent task. FV actually revealed that fact to you by letting it be ignored. You are losing one of FV's great strengths, this sifting ability. >>
FV doesn't contain a dismissal process like AF does, so I'm not sure this qualifies as a "sifting ability" per se. High-resistance tasks tend to drift toward the top of the list, but that's a measure of the resistance to the task, not importance or urgency. Just because this task happened to be faux-urgent doesn't really matter, because if it was truly-urgent but still high-resistance, FV still would have easily ignored it, at least until the urgency generates a sense of panic. I don't want that.
<< Also, FV handles urgent interruptions seamlessly and elegantly, by letting you extend the chain. P-FV can't allow that, because it would prevent you from working on the starred items. Maybe this is one reason you tend to go off-list when urgency crises hit. >>
I tend to go off-list because I never really established the habit of having a system tell me what to do all the time. I'm still working on that.
Prioritized FV only affects the rewriting rule, that's all. You can still extend the chain the same way as standard FV when something urgent arises, and if it's urgent enough to want to do it before the other tasks on your current chain (starred or not), then you should do so. But you also have the option to prioritize the task appropriately and add it to the list to be selected for a future chain if it's not so urgent. Either approach works fine.
<< Just some food for thought... >>
Yummy!
June 21, 2012 at 17:59 |
Deven
Seraphim:
<< That's not a flaw of the system. It works that way by design. The thing you are trying to fix is one of the key elements that makes FV such a great system. >>
I found that standard FV acts as an enabler for procrastination on high-resistance tasks, and that it was hard to keep track of which tasks were more important than others. Marking the priority tasks is much easier than trying to remember, even if you don't use the modified rewriting rule that defines Prioritized FV.
Am I misinterpreting a strength of FV as a weakness? Perhaps. You might be right about that, but I also have to consider that standard FV was causing me stress, knowing this task and others were being neglected by the system, while Prioritized FV got the task done and I felt relieved that it was finally done. Faux-urgent or not, I wanted the task done, but it wasn't the answer to The Question despite that.
<< That's not a flaw of the system. It works that way by design. The thing you are trying to fix is one of the key elements that makes FV such a great system. >>
I found that standard FV acts as an enabler for procrastination on high-resistance tasks, and that it was hard to keep track of which tasks were more important than others. Marking the priority tasks is much easier than trying to remember, even if you don't use the modified rewriting rule that defines Prioritized FV.
Am I misinterpreting a strength of FV as a weakness? Perhaps. You might be right about that, but I also have to consider that standard FV was causing me stress, knowing this task and others were being neglected by the system, while Prioritized FV got the task done and I felt relieved that it was finally done. Faux-urgent or not, I wanted the task done, but it wasn't the answer to The Question despite that.
June 21, 2012 at 18:11 |
Deven
Lillian:
<< Deven - I forget if this has come up already in these threads, but have you tried Mark's Alternative FV question "What am I resisting more than x?" without using your starred-item tweak? I'm guessing your high-resistance task would get dotted with that question :) >>
I wonder what sort of reception Alternative FV would receive if it had come from anyone but Mark. Obviously he has special insight, but would anyone give it a fair shot if someone else had proposed exactly the same suggestion?
Anyway, I haven't tried the Alternative FV question yet, since Prioritized FV has been working well for me -- when I actually use it! Yes, you're right that the high-resistance task would have been selected with that question, but then it becomes of trading the "laddering effect" for the "cycling downhill" effect, and getting started could be a real problem.
I'm trying to think of a way to combine the two questions into one algorithm that would result in a chain where you ladder up to the highest-resistance task and cycle downhill from there, but I'm not sure how that result could be achieved. Any ideas? If it could be done, it might work really well...
<< Deven - I forget if this has come up already in these threads, but have you tried Mark's Alternative FV question "What am I resisting more than x?" without using your starred-item tweak? I'm guessing your high-resistance task would get dotted with that question :) >>
I wonder what sort of reception Alternative FV would receive if it had come from anyone but Mark. Obviously he has special insight, but would anyone give it a fair shot if someone else had proposed exactly the same suggestion?
Anyway, I haven't tried the Alternative FV question yet, since Prioritized FV has been working well for me -- when I actually use it! Yes, you're right that the high-resistance task would have been selected with that question, but then it becomes of trading the "laddering effect" for the "cycling downhill" effect, and getting started could be a real problem.
I'm trying to think of a way to combine the two questions into one algorithm that would result in a chain where you ladder up to the highest-resistance task and cycle downhill from there, but I'm not sure how that result could be achieved. Any ideas? If it could be done, it might work really well...
June 21, 2012 at 18:19 |
Deven
Lillian:
<< Cricket - why not dismiss them or put them in a tickler file for 2-3 weeks from now? If they're 'clutter' on the list, get them out of the way. I tend to weed through my home-list when it's over 50 or 60 items, maybe a quarter of them go into the next month's tickler. Next month, some make it back to the list, some get dismissed. >>
Like AutoFocus before it, FV is intended to operate on a single list. Isn't this a red flag, if you find you have to hide tasks from the system so it remains functional? With Prioritized FV, I don't need a tickler file for such tasks, they just occupy the middle of the list and get neglected by design. :)
<< Cricket - why not dismiss them or put them in a tickler file for 2-3 weeks from now? If they're 'clutter' on the list, get them out of the way. I tend to weed through my home-list when it's over 50 or 60 items, maybe a quarter of them go into the next month's tickler. Next month, some make it back to the list, some get dismissed. >>
Like AutoFocus before it, FV is intended to operate on a single list. Isn't this a red flag, if you find you have to hide tasks from the system so it remains functional? With Prioritized FV, I don't need a tickler file for such tasks, they just occupy the middle of the list and get neglected by design. :)
June 21, 2012 at 18:24 |
Deven
Cricket:
<< For now, though, I'm back to a system that worked well for almost a year (before I got bored with it). It has features of AF and FV and three-choice and time-boxing and scheduling, but fits my personality better. >>
Didn't you say that Prioritized FV was working well for you? Or did you find a problem with it later?
I'd like to hear more about this other system you've used. What are its features, strengths and flaws? How does it work?
<< For now, though, I'm back to a system that worked well for almost a year (before I got bored with it). It has features of AF and FV and three-choice and time-boxing and scheduling, but fits my personality better. >>
Didn't you say that Prioritized FV was working well for you? Or did you find a problem with it later?
I'd like to hear more about this other system you've used. What are its features, strengths and flaws? How does it work?
June 21, 2012 at 18:28 |
Deven
Deven >Like AutoFocus before it, FV is intended to operate on a single list. Isn't this a red flag, if you find you have to hide tasks from the system so it remains functional? With Prioritized FV, I don't need a tickler file for such tasks, they just occupy the middle of the list and get neglected by design. :)
But I find a single list to get overwhelmingly large. After pruning (see the pruning&focus thread) my list is all current & actionable tasks. In DWM these are the tasks would have 'fallen over the waterfall' or in AF these would've been dismissed without action. In FV, I move them to a tickler file. Either way, it keeps the list at a manageable (to me) length
But I find a single list to get overwhelmingly large. After pruning (see the pruning&focus thread) my list is all current & actionable tasks. In DWM these are the tasks would have 'fallen over the waterfall' or in AF these would've been dismissed without action. In FV, I move them to a tickler file. Either way, it keeps the list at a manageable (to me) length
June 22, 2012 at 1:48 |
Lillian
Lillian:
<< But I find a single list to get overwhelmingly large. After pruning (see the pruning&focus thread) my list is all current & actionable tasks. In DWM these are the tasks would have 'fallen over the waterfall' or in AF these would've been dismissed without action. In FV, I move them to a tickler file. Either way, it keeps the list at a manageable (to me) length >>
I guess I never really liked the idea of dismissal, and even if I can't get everything done, I'd rather not have things removed from the list arbitrarily. (I can still choose to delete items, after all.) Also, keeping them in the main list means they *might* get selected for any chain, though they usually aren't.
Still, there's value in keeping the list short too, so I'm not really objecting to what you're doing, but I'm not sure I want to follow that approach.
<< But I find a single list to get overwhelmingly large. After pruning (see the pruning&focus thread) my list is all current & actionable tasks. In DWM these are the tasks would have 'fallen over the waterfall' or in AF these would've been dismissed without action. In FV, I move them to a tickler file. Either way, it keeps the list at a manageable (to me) length >>
I guess I never really liked the idea of dismissal, and even if I can't get everything done, I'd rather not have things removed from the list arbitrarily. (I can still choose to delete items, after all.) Also, keeping them in the main list means they *might* get selected for any chain, though they usually aren't.
Still, there's value in keeping the list short too, so I'm not really objecting to what you're doing, but I'm not sure I want to follow that approach.
June 22, 2012 at 15:44 |
Deven
Deven- >Still, there's value in keeping the list short too ... but I'm not sure I want to follow that approach.
Maybe I'm not remembering all the details correctly, but wasn't some of your concern with standard FV the amount of time it took for items on your list to cycle around back to the top slot? A shorter list helps with that :)
Maybe I'm not remembering all the details correctly, but wasn't some of your concern with standard FV the amount of time it took for items on your list to cycle around back to the top slot? A shorter list helps with that :)
June 24, 2012 at 19:15 |
Lillian
Lillian:
<< Maybe I'm not remembering all the details correctly, but wasn't some of your concern with standard FV the amount of time it took for items on your list to cycle around back to the top slot? A shorter list helps with that :) >>
Granted, but on the flip side, I want to be using a system that is effective with any list, not just short lists...
<< Maybe I'm not remembering all the details correctly, but wasn't some of your concern with standard FV the amount of time it took for items on your list to cycle around back to the top slot? A shorter list helps with that :) >>
Granted, but on the flip side, I want to be using a system that is effective with any list, not just short lists...
July 3, 2012 at 20:35 |
Deven
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1763749 (High Resistance Urgent Tasks)
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1801713 (High Resistance Tasks - continued)
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1806263 (Prioritized FV)
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1827694 (Prioritized FV - Part 2)
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1832264 (Prioritized FV - Part 3)
The first post in the "Prioritized FV" thread above describes the context of this this thread, and should be read first.