FV and FVP Forum > Combining Standard FV and Alternative FV
Okay, here's an idea off the top of my head. This may not be workable, or there may be a better way to do this, but I'm throwing it out there as food for thought and to stimulate conversation about this.
Proposed algorithm:
1. Mark the first unaction task on the list with a single dot to mark it as preselected.
2. Make a pass through the full FV list, using the Alternative FV question, marking tasks with a single dot.
3. Make a second pass through the full FV list, this time using the standard FV question and marking tasks with TWO dots, starting with a benchmark task of the last task selected by the first pass (i.e. the highest-resistance task).
4. Start working the chain in reverse, starting with the last task selected with TWO dots. Ignore tasks with a single dot during this pass.
5. After reaching the top of the list, make a second pass in reverse from the bottom of the list, working the tasks with a single dot this time.
This is definitely more complicated than the normal algorithm for standard FV or Alternative FV, but it might be worth the complexity. The first part of working the chain (step 4 above) should provide the "laddering" effect while the second part (step 5) should provide the "cycling downhill" effect.
So, is this the best of both worlds, or a crazy idea doomed to failure? I don't know, but I'm going to give it a try.
Proposed algorithm:
1. Mark the first unaction task on the list with a single dot to mark it as preselected.
2. Make a pass through the full FV list, using the Alternative FV question, marking tasks with a single dot.
3. Make a second pass through the full FV list, this time using the standard FV question and marking tasks with TWO dots, starting with a benchmark task of the last task selected by the first pass (i.e. the highest-resistance task).
4. Start working the chain in reverse, starting with the last task selected with TWO dots. Ignore tasks with a single dot during this pass.
5. After reaching the top of the list, make a second pass in reverse from the bottom of the list, working the tasks with a single dot this time.
This is definitely more complicated than the normal algorithm for standard FV or Alternative FV, but it might be worth the complexity. The first part of working the chain (step 4 above) should provide the "laddering" effect while the second part (step 5) should provide the "cycling downhill" effect.
So, is this the best of both worlds, or a crazy idea doomed to failure? I don't know, but I'm going to give it a try.
June 21, 2012 at 20:13 |
Deven
Deven
Question: With this algorithm, is it good or bad to add a second dot in step 3 to a task that already had a single dot from step 2? Not sure on that one...
June 21, 2012 at 22:13 |
Deven
Deven
This seems too complicated. If you process your list using the Standard Question for a while, high-resistance tasks get bunched at the beginning. So one could dot the chain using Alt-Q first, and probably only get part-way into the list. Likewise, the low-resistance (want-to-do-before) tasks are usually near the end of the list, so one could finish the preselection using Std-Q. No need for multiple passes and double dots.
What do you think?
What do you think?
June 21, 2012 at 22:46 |
ubi
ubi
It seems like for some of you, the answer to "what do I want to do before x" is "fiddle with the FV algorithm some more"
June 22, 2012 at 1:42 |
ss
ss
ubi:
<< This seems too complicated. If you process your list using the Standard Question for a while, high-resistance tasks get bunched at the beginning. So one could dot the chain using Alt-Q first, and probably only get part-way into the list. Likewise, the low-resistance (want-to-do-before) tasks are usually near the end of the list, so one could finish the preselection using Std-Q. No need for multiple passes and double dots. >>
It's definitely more complicated, but I was trying to think of a way to combine the strengths of both standard FV and Alternative FV. I wanted to do it in one pass, but I decided to try two passes to ensure that there's enough tasks available to ladder up to the highest-resistance task, which could easily be near the end of the list. (And using the Alternative FV question, it's likely to end up at the end of the list quickly.)
Switching back and forth between standard FV and Alternative FV is much simpler, but it doesn't let you ladder up to the most-resisted task and cycle downhill from there in one chain. Using both questions in one pass to build the chain could, but either side of the hill could end up being too steep.
<< This seems too complicated. If you process your list using the Standard Question for a while, high-resistance tasks get bunched at the beginning. So one could dot the chain using Alt-Q first, and probably only get part-way into the list. Likewise, the low-resistance (want-to-do-before) tasks are usually near the end of the list, so one could finish the preselection using Std-Q. No need for multiple passes and double dots. >>
It's definitely more complicated, but I was trying to think of a way to combine the strengths of both standard FV and Alternative FV. I wanted to do it in one pass, but I decided to try two passes to ensure that there's enough tasks available to ladder up to the highest-resistance task, which could easily be near the end of the list. (And using the Alternative FV question, it's likely to end up at the end of the list quickly.)
Switching back and forth between standard FV and Alternative FV is much simpler, but it doesn't let you ladder up to the most-resisted task and cycle downhill from there in one chain. Using both questions in one pass to build the chain could, but either side of the hill could end up being too steep.
June 22, 2012 at 15:38 |
Deven
Deven
Deven, isn't this going to create really long chains? How relevant/useful/whatever will the chain be by the time you get 1/2 or 3/4 way through it?
June 22, 2012 at 15:53 |
Lillian
Lillian
Lillian:
<< Deven, isn't this going to create really long chains? How relevant/useful/whatever will the chain be by the time you get 1/2 or 3/4 way through it? >>
Following this algorithm, I ended up with a chain of 6 tasks, 3 of which were single-dotted and 3 of which were double-dotted. I did only select tasks that I was sure of; if I wasn't sure if it was higher-resistance or something I wanted to do before (depending on the question in use), I didn't select it. That's in line with the "definitely" idea that came up in another thread, and it does seem to be a good way to keep the chains shorter.
I figure if I have shorter chains, I'll complete chains more often and still get to the tasks that I wasn't sure about quickly enough.
<< Deven, isn't this going to create really long chains? How relevant/useful/whatever will the chain be by the time you get 1/2 or 3/4 way through it? >>
Following this algorithm, I ended up with a chain of 6 tasks, 3 of which were single-dotted and 3 of which were double-dotted. I did only select tasks that I was sure of; if I wasn't sure if it was higher-resistance or something I wanted to do before (depending on the question in use), I didn't select it. That's in line with the "definitely" idea that came up in another thread, and it does seem to be a good way to keep the chains shorter.
I figure if I have shorter chains, I'll complete chains more often and still get to the tasks that I wasn't sure about quickly enough.
June 22, 2012 at 16:04 |
Deven
Deven
Well, the chain is only 6 tasks, but I haven't finished that chain yet. I'm not sure if that's because of high-resistance items in the chain, distractions, or just failing to follow the list. Jury's still out. I'll be out of the office the rest of the week; maybe next week will be better?
Has anyone else tried this combined algorithm to use both questions in each pass?
Has anyone else tried this combined algorithm to use both questions in each pass?
July 3, 2012 at 20:37 |
Deven
Deven
Well, I finally got back to that 6-task chain and finished it yesterday. I made a new chain yesterday, but I'm just getting started on it now. This time I ended up with 9 tasks in the chain -- 3 with single dots (Alternative FV question) and 6 with double dots (Standard FV question).
The biggest problem I'm still having is staying on-list and keeping the chains moving forward...
The biggest problem I'm still having is staying on-list and keeping the chains moving forward...
July 12, 2012 at 15:34 |
Deven
Deven
Okay, I guess nobody else was daring enough to give this a try.
Myself, I gave up halfway through the second chain. Not due to the complexity of this aglorithm, though it's decidedly more complex than standard FV. On the contrary, it does seem to generate a chain that ladders up to the most-resisted task and cycles downhill from there. That's not the problem I'm having.
I've described the problem I'm having with FV here:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1900291
Myself, I gave up halfway through the second chain. Not due to the complexity of this aglorithm, though it's decidedly more complex than standard FV. On the contrary, it does seem to generate a chain that ladders up to the most-resisted task and cycles downhill from there. That's not the problem I'm having.
I've described the problem I'm having with FV here:
http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1900291
July 25, 2012 at 3:28 |
Deven
Deven
Standard FV: "What do I want to do before I do x?"
Alternative FV: "What am I resisting more than x?"
Standard FV provides the "laddering" effect to work your way up to a task you may not want to do at all, while Alternative FV provides the "cycling downhill" effect instead, but "you may need to use every trick in the book to get that most difficult task started."
Is there an effective algorithm to combine these into a single algorithm so each chain ladders its way up to the highest-resistance task, to cycle downhill from there?