FV and FVP Forum > Committing versus permitting
Mark, did your philosophy on what the add to the list change between AF and FV? AF was supposed to capture anything, is FV supposed to only capture commitments? If so, what about the other stuff?
August 21, 2012 at 15:52 |
Deven
Deven
@Deven: The FV instructions state: << Anyone who has tried one or more of these systems will recognize the strong family resemblance that they have with FV. The most striking resemblance is that they are all based on one long list (either paper or electronic) which can be used to capture just about every possible action that springs into one's mind. >>
August 21, 2012 at 19:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
@Chris Cooper: Thanks for posting this. I've been trying to ask the same question but you did it in a much clearer way than I did! :-)
August 21, 2012 at 19:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I thought that the FV list was still intended as a catch-all, but I didn't look back at the instructions to see that quote verifying that intention.
It begs the question of why dismissal was thought necessary for Autofocus and SuperFocus, but not for FV, doesn't it? (Personally, I suspect they're ALL better off without dismissal...)
It begs the question of why dismissal was thought necessary for Autofocus and SuperFocus, but not for FV, doesn't it? (Personally, I suspect they're ALL better off without dismissal...)
August 21, 2012 at 22:08 |
Deven
Deven
FV does include dismissal, but in tiny bits. That first task can't be avoided. It's do-or-die time, although "do" can be as small as fooling yourself that you'll work on it next time and rewriting it a the new end of the list. Or we think, "It's only one project. I'll do 15 minutes now, and keep the plate spinning." Eventually, we have dozens of plates that are only barely spinning rather than several that we set down gently and a few we can be proud of.
AF, on the other hand, often enough presents you with several items, all on the same page, and we say, "Good grief! What a huge number of low-importance plates. It will take me all week just to keep them all spinning, leaving no time for the ones I really care about." Then we take action.
AF, on the other hand, often enough presents you with several items, all on the same page, and we say, "Good grief! What a huge number of low-importance plates. It will take me all week just to keep them all spinning, leaving no time for the ones I really care about." Then we take action.
August 22, 2012 at 14:51 |
Cricket
Cricket
Cricket -- That's an interesting dynamic there. I guess it depends somewhat on each person, since my experience has been the opposite.
With AF1, it took me a long time to feel OK dismissing a page that had many items on it -- what if something important was lurking there, but I am in too much of a rush, or too overwhelmed at the moment, to notice it? I got the hang of it eventually, but it sure took a long time.
With FV it seems a lot easier to delete that one item if it really doesn't need any more attention. The decision isn't diluted by being mixed together with several other items on the same page.
For me, DWM came closer than AF or FV to achieving an equilibrium, in which the task list does not grow endlessly, but it was an equilibrium with lots of low-importance spinning plates. :-)
The only real cure I've found for this is DIT. I'm really loving using DIT as the base system and processing the will-do list with the FV algorithm.
With AF1, it took me a long time to feel OK dismissing a page that had many items on it -- what if something important was lurking there, but I am in too much of a rush, or too overwhelmed at the moment, to notice it? I got the hang of it eventually, but it sure took a long time.
With FV it seems a lot easier to delete that one item if it really doesn't need any more attention. The decision isn't diluted by being mixed together with several other items on the same page.
For me, DWM came closer than AF or FV to achieving an equilibrium, in which the task list does not grow endlessly, but it was an equilibrium with lots of low-importance spinning plates. :-)
The only real cure I've found for this is DIT. I'm really loving using DIT as the base system and processing the will-do list with the FV algorithm.
August 22, 2012 at 16:39 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Deven -
In AF1 and SF, dismissal (and the threat of dismissal) is the main mechanism for filtering the tasks and ultimately driving your focus to what's more important. It's the main mechanism for forcing you to make a decision about the tasks that have been lingering. It also eliminates the need for a "Weed list" task.
FV is just different. It has different mechanisms for doing the filtering and the focusing. The fact that Mark is now finding it necessary to have a "Weed list" task makes me think the AF mechanism for doing this is more powerful.
In AF1 and SF, dismissal (and the threat of dismissal) is the main mechanism for filtering the tasks and ultimately driving your focus to what's more important. It's the main mechanism for forcing you to make a decision about the tasks that have been lingering. It also eliminates the need for a "Weed list" task.
FV is just different. It has different mechanisms for doing the filtering and the focusing. The fact that Mark is now finding it necessary to have a "Weed list" task makes me think the AF mechanism for doing this is more powerful.
August 22, 2012 at 16:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
I realize that AF1 and SF use dismissal (and the threat thereof) as a filtering mechanism, but I'm not satisfied with the mechanism. It feels a bit too arbitrary to me, though I realize that an arbitrary mechanism might be called for if a list is growing so fast that some ruthless elimination becomes necessary. Nevertheless, it rubs me the wrong way. I much prefer the filtering to be done on a task-by-task basis as in FV and AF2ND.
As for tasks like "Weed list", that reminds me of GTD's required weekly maintenance ritual, which I could never make part of my routine. At least for me, any system that requires regular "maintenance breaks" is begging for failure, whether it's weeding the list, reviewing someday/maybe items or whatever. I need a system that's streamlined and handles the system maintenance inline as a natural part of the processing.
I'm experimenting with AF2ND now, but there's another thread for that discussion:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1908142
I realize that AF1 and SF use dismissal (and the threat thereof) as a filtering mechanism, but I'm not satisfied with the mechanism. It feels a bit too arbitrary to me, though I realize that an arbitrary mechanism might be called for if a list is growing so fast that some ruthless elimination becomes necessary. Nevertheless, it rubs me the wrong way. I much prefer the filtering to be done on a task-by-task basis as in FV and AF2ND.
As for tasks like "Weed list", that reminds me of GTD's required weekly maintenance ritual, which I could never make part of my routine. At least for me, any system that requires regular "maintenance breaks" is begging for failure, whether it's weeding the list, reviewing someday/maybe items or whatever. I need a system that's streamlined and handles the system maintenance inline as a natural part of the processing.
I'm experimenting with AF2ND now, but there's another thread for that discussion:
http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1908142
August 23, 2012 at 21:25 |
Deven
Deven
Yes, nuntym's AF2ND does seem to have a very effective sifting mechanism.
August 24, 2012 at 5:59 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Yes, but I never seem to be satisfied with implicit prioritization, so I've added explicit prioritization yet again -- calling it "AF2ND+" for lack of a better name. See the AF2ND thread for details. Only been using AF2ND+ since yesterday -- as always, time will tell.
August 24, 2012 at 16:17 |
Deven
Deven
Hi Mark, if you could clarify re the opening posts on this thread please that would be appreciated. Thankyou.
August 30, 2012 at 1:06 |
Chris
Chris
Chris Cooper and Chris:
I think Mark is busy with other parts of his life right now and has been taking a well-deserved holiday from the forum with rare exceptions as he has the time or desire.
I think Mark is busy with other parts of his life right now and has been taking a well-deserved holiday from the forum with rare exceptions as he has the time or desire.
August 30, 2012 at 2:14 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
I believe Mark actually committed to watching certain TV programs, for example. Having committed to something, there is still an open question of the level of commitment. Are you going to watch every episode regularly, or only when you find a bit of time?
I'm presently running a commitment based scheme with two lists.
List 1 gets everything that comes up.
List 2 gets only things I commit to, by drawing from List 1 anything that is ready and able to be worked on in the near future. I run FV over List 2, and when I've worked on them I move back to List 1.
When the FV list is feeling light, I return to List 1 to refill it. It's at this point that I might commit to watching a TV program in the near future. It's also at this point that I might *decide* I'm never going to watch that (because I've got other things going on) and kill it from List 1. In this way I keep both lists light.
I'm presently running a commitment based scheme with two lists.
List 1 gets everything that comes up.
List 2 gets only things I commit to, by drawing from List 1 anything that is ready and able to be worked on in the near future. I run FV over List 2, and when I've worked on them I move back to List 1.
When the FV list is feeling light, I return to List 1 to refill it. It's at this point that I might commit to watching a TV program in the near future. It's also at this point that I might *decide* I'm never going to watch that (because I've got other things going on) and kill it from List 1. In this way I keep both lists light.
August 30, 2012 at 20:04 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Michael B: "I think Mark is busy with other parts of his life right now and has been taking a well-deserved holiday from the forum"
I don't remember anyone signing that off! How very dare he!
Alan Baljeu: "I'm presently running a commitment based scheme with two lists. [...]"
That seems like a lot of faffing around and needless complexity. Why not just have a single list and pull a few items from it each day and work them? A la http://zenhabits.net/simple-work/
I don't remember anyone signing that off! How very dare he!
Alan Baljeu: "I'm presently running a commitment based scheme with two lists. [...]"
That seems like a lot of faffing around and needless complexity. Why not just have a single list and pull a few items from it each day and work them? A la http://zenhabits.net/simple-work/
August 31, 2012 at 21:58 |
Chris
Chris
"That seems like a lot of faffing around and needless complexity.
It's not a lot of complexity.
"Why not just have a single list and pull a few items from it each day and work them? "
Um that's pretty close to the same thing.
It's not a lot of complexity.
"Why not just have a single list and pull a few items from it each day and work them? "
Um that's pretty close to the same thing.
August 31, 2012 at 22:08 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
"Um that's pretty close to the same thing."
Apart from the two lists, the unecessary use of FV and the distraction in thinking about committments?
If it works for you then fine, but I suspect that next month you'll be trying something else in the quest to find the true system. I'll grant you it's a fun way to procrastinate.
Apart from the two lists, the unecessary use of FV and the distraction in thinking about committments?
If it works for you then fine, but I suspect that next month you'll be trying something else in the quest to find the true system. I'll grant you it's a fun way to procrastinate.
September 5, 2012 at 0:23 |
Chris
Chris
Well, I read your suggestion as two lists, the FV part may prove surplus, the commitment thinking is essential for keeping the long list reasonable.
It's definitely a fun way to procrastinate, but unlike the previous 23 variations, this one will last forever :-)
It's definitely a fun way to procrastinate, but unlike the previous 23 variations, this one will last forever :-)
September 5, 2012 at 0:38 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I don't want "the true system" that will "last forever", as Alan facetiously wrote. I want to establish good habits to get my work done. It's also helpful to learn how to make sure I'm doing the RIGHT work, towards the BEST goals, using my time to the best effect, finding ways to stay "in the zone" and be more focused and productive, and avoid the common traps of procrastination and distraction.
For people with more common sense who don't overthink things like I do, maybe none of this is necessary. My wife is like that. But I'm not. I *do* overthink things, I *do* overcommit and get stressed out about it, and I *do* like to explore new ideas and innovations and projects.
Chris - that Zen Habits blog post was pretty good, and had some helpful ideas. That sense of being "done for the day" is fantastic - I get the same thing from my use of DIT. But I can immediately see a problem I would run into: what about all the stuff I *don't* want to do this week? What about stuff I *need* to do this month or this quarter, but NOT this week? What about recurring things that need to be done every 2 weeks? I can't rely on my memory for those things. I've got lots of things like that. The basic principle is simple and can be effective, but it is really NOT enough to handle my typical work. It's not necessarily hard to answer any of these questions, but my point is that they do need to be systematically addressed, unless they just don't apply to your situation.
For people with more common sense who don't overthink things like I do, maybe none of this is necessary. My wife is like that. But I'm not. I *do* overthink things, I *do* overcommit and get stressed out about it, and I *do* like to explore new ideas and innovations and projects.
Chris - that Zen Habits blog post was pretty good, and had some helpful ideas. That sense of being "done for the day" is fantastic - I get the same thing from my use of DIT. But I can immediately see a problem I would run into: what about all the stuff I *don't* want to do this week? What about stuff I *need* to do this month or this quarter, but NOT this week? What about recurring things that need to be done every 2 weeks? I can't rely on my memory for those things. I've got lots of things like that. The basic principle is simple and can be effective, but it is really NOT enough to handle my typical work. It's not necessarily hard to answer any of these questions, but my point is that they do need to be systematically addressed, unless they just don't apply to your situation.
September 6, 2012 at 22:37 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Chris was asking - why should Alan use FV to process his main list? It just adds complexity.
Personally I still do use FV to process my main list, most of the time, because it's very simple and it adds a lot of value. It helps me focus on tasks appropriate to my current time situation and energy level. But it's just a tool. Like Alan said, it's helpful but may prove surplus. It's useful. It's practical.
If someone wants to take it beyond that and make it one's rule of life, that's way beyond where I want to go with a TM tool or system. But that doesn't mean one has to abandon its use altogether.
Personally I still do use FV to process my main list, most of the time, because it's very simple and it adds a lot of value. It helps me focus on tasks appropriate to my current time situation and energy level. But it's just a tool. Like Alan said, it's helpful but may prove surplus. It's useful. It's practical.
If someone wants to take it beyond that and make it one's rule of life, that's way beyond where I want to go with a TM tool or system. But that doesn't mean one has to abandon its use altogether.
September 6, 2012 at 22:43 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
... - and then don't allow anything which doesn't relate to your commitments onto your list.
(http://www.markforster.net/fv-forum/post/1920136)
If we could really achieve this impossible accomplishment of pre-censorship, it would never be necessary to weed the list, as Mark tells us we should constantly be doing. And it would go against everything he's ever said about throwing everything that comes to mind into the list. I mentally rewrite the above to read:
… and then don't allow anything which doesn't relate to your commitments to remain on the list.
But even this doesn't work unless "commitments" is stretched unnaturally. If you do unstructured things for relaxation and entertainment, such as reading at random and watching some TV every day, it would be crazy to call such activity a "commitment". Permitting isn't committing. But such items belong on the FV list and appear on every sample AF and FV list of Mark's that I've ever seen.
Can we be clear that anything can go onto the list, and that even after weeding, the list will contain things you're not committed to, but may or may not feel like doing?