FV and FVP Forum > Still using FV, but....
Marco:
I'm not clear in my mind how this works, particularly the selection of the "bottom task". Could I check with you that I've got it right?
Suppose there are 60 tasks in your list. You partition off Tasks 1-5. Then you go to Task 60 and ask yourself "Task 60 OR Task 59?"
If the answer is "Task 60", you then ask yourself "Task 60 OR Task 58?" If the answer is "Task 60" again, then the question is "Task 60 or Task 57?" If the answer then is "Task 57", the next question is "Task 57 or Task 56?"
You continue this way until you have considered every task back to and including Task 6. That whole process produces one selection only.
Then you chose one task from the partitioned-off Tasks 1-5 to give you a second selection.
You then do the two tasks in reverse order, i.e. the one nearest the end of the list first.
Have I got this right?
I'm not clear in my mind how this works, particularly the selection of the "bottom task". Could I check with you that I've got it right?
Suppose there are 60 tasks in your list. You partition off Tasks 1-5. Then you go to Task 60 and ask yourself "Task 60 OR Task 59?"
If the answer is "Task 60", you then ask yourself "Task 60 OR Task 58?" If the answer is "Task 60" again, then the question is "Task 60 or Task 57?" If the answer then is "Task 57", the next question is "Task 57 or Task 56?"
You continue this way until you have considered every task back to and including Task 6. That whole process produces one selection only.
Then you chose one task from the partitioned-off Tasks 1-5 to give you a second selection.
You then do the two tasks in reverse order, i.e. the one nearest the end of the list first.
Have I got this right?
May 29, 2013 at 20:42 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark. Yes that is correct. In practice, I find that I am rather quickly scanning the list asking the "or" question, so it really doesn't take too long.
I'm very excited about this as it has been keeping things moving very well. I see things moving up into the "top 5" group and finally being actioned (even if it's just a small start). Dismissials become obvious as I'll notice an item in the top group just staying there (being avoided). I find myself either just doing something (anything) on it to make it go back to the bottom of the list; or dismissing the item as I've finally realized it doesn't need to be done.
Also, I can even put daily/urgent items on the bottom because you're never very far away from being able to do that.
I'm very excited about this as it has been keeping things moving very well. I see things moving up into the "top 5" group and finally being actioned (even if it's just a small start). Dismissials become obvious as I'll notice an item in the top group just staying there (being avoided). I find myself either just doing something (anything) on it to make it go back to the bottom of the list; or dismissing the item as I've finally realized it doesn't need to be done.
Also, I can even put daily/urgent items on the bottom because you're never very far away from being able to do that.
May 29, 2013 at 23:28 |
Marco
Marco
Also: The reason I advocate asking "or" when selecting a task (as opposed to 'what do I want to do' or different question) is because of my belief that my brain knows how to judge the importance/priority/fun/desire/want/etc between tasks. Asking 'or' is vague enough, yet allows my brain to make the necessary comparison.
May 29, 2013 at 23:33 |
Marco
Marco
It sounds interesting. I can see how it would work. Must give a try sometime.
May 30, 2013 at 0:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Marco wrote:
> Asking, "(lower task) OR (higher task)" does take a bit of time
I wonder if you could simplify/speed-up this process by applying Colley's Rule i.e. choose the first task on the list from the bottom (not necessarily the bottom item) that you really want to do, but then ACTUALLY do the next task on the list (going upwards) that you want to do more than that one.
This would greatly reduce the "This or That" time while still retaining a high degree of probability that you have done the most appropriate task in that moment.
> Asking, "(lower task) OR (higher task)" does take a bit of time
I wonder if you could simplify/speed-up this process by applying Colley's Rule i.e. choose the first task on the list from the bottom (not necessarily the bottom item) that you really want to do, but then ACTUALLY do the next task on the list (going upwards) that you want to do more than that one.
This would greatly reduce the "This or That" time while still retaining a high degree of probability that you have done the most appropriate task in that moment.
March 24, 2014 at 11:52 |
Frank
Frank
Frank wrote:
<<I wonder if you could simplify/speed-up this process by applying Colley's Rule i.e. choose the first task on the list from the bottom (not necessarily the bottom item) that you really want to do, but then ACTUALLY do the next task on the list (going upwards) that you want to do more than that one.>>
In my quest for a one-task-at-a-time system that is otherwise similar to FV, I often tried to think of ways to use Colley's rule in a manner similar to this, in which one is picking the next item one would "rather" do, and then doing it, rather than a multiple-item list of things one wants to do "before" other items. However, I have not yet succeeded in finding a simple method that will work this way and still put adequate pressure on the top of the list. There also isn't a closed-list effect (nor is there a closed-list effect in my other one-task FV-like system), and I consider this a disadvantage. So I'm still thinking.
<<I wonder if you could simplify/speed-up this process by applying Colley's Rule i.e. choose the first task on the list from the bottom (not necessarily the bottom item) that you really want to do, but then ACTUALLY do the next task on the list (going upwards) that you want to do more than that one.>>
In my quest for a one-task-at-a-time system that is otherwise similar to FV, I often tried to think of ways to use Colley's rule in a manner similar to this, in which one is picking the next item one would "rather" do, and then doing it, rather than a multiple-item list of things one wants to do "before" other items. However, I have not yet succeeded in finding a simple method that will work this way and still put adequate pressure on the top of the list. There also isn't a closed-list effect (nor is there a closed-list effect in my other one-task FV-like system), and I consider this a disadvantage. So I'm still thinking.
March 25, 2014 at 16:28 |
Austin
Austin
Frank and Austin:
I'm not sure whether I have ever written about this before, but some time ago I did invent quite an effective method for using Colley's rule on a list. It works best on a closed list.
Use the first task as your benchmark and then do the first task after that which you are resisting more than the benchmark. When you've done that task, use the task after the one you've just done as your benchmark, and do the first task after that which you are resisting more. When you reach the end of the list, loop back to the beginning. Continue this way until the whole list is done.
If you manage to circle back to your current benchmark without finding a task that you are resisting more, then do the benchmark task.
I'm not sure whether I have ever written about this before, but some time ago I did invent quite an effective method for using Colley's rule on a list. It works best on a closed list.
Use the first task as your benchmark and then do the first task after that which you are resisting more than the benchmark. When you've done that task, use the task after the one you've just done as your benchmark, and do the first task after that which you are resisting more. When you reach the end of the list, loop back to the beginning. Continue this way until the whole list is done.
If you manage to circle back to your current benchmark without finding a task that you are resisting more, then do the benchmark task.
March 27, 2014 at 14:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Mark,
I've actually recently thought of using that very method to process UTMS, only with the question, "What would I rather do right now than X?" rather than, "What am I resisting more than X?"
In your suggested method, how would you handle incoming items? Also, is there a reason you chose resistance rather than psychological readiness?
Thank you,
I've actually recently thought of using that very method to process UTMS, only with the question, "What would I rather do right now than X?" rather than, "What am I resisting more than X?"
In your suggested method, how would you handle incoming items? Also, is there a reason you chose resistance rather than psychological readiness?
Thank you,
March 27, 2014 at 16:57 |
Austin
Austin
Austin:
<< In your suggested method, how would you handle incoming items? >>
Like I said, it works best with a closed list. And closed lists by definition don't have incoming items.
<< Also, is there a reason you chose resistance rather than psychological readiness? >>
Yes, the aim with a closed list is to get all the items on the list done within a fairly short time, such as a day list.
If you use psychological readiness, you will tend to be doing the easiest tasks first and leaving the most difficult tasks till last. The result is that you will be working towards ever more difficult tasks. I used to liken this to cycling uphill.
If you use resistance, you will tend to do the opposite. I used to liken this to cycling downhill.
Cycling downhill is far faster and more efficient than cycling uphill (even as a metaphor).
One other important point is that using resistance as your criterion if you don't succeed in finishing your day list in time the tasks that will be left undone at the end of the day will tend to be easy trivial tasks. With psychological readiness the tasks left undone will tend to be the harder, more significant ones.
<< In your suggested method, how would you handle incoming items? >>
Like I said, it works best with a closed list. And closed lists by definition don't have incoming items.
<< Also, is there a reason you chose resistance rather than psychological readiness? >>
Yes, the aim with a closed list is to get all the items on the list done within a fairly short time, such as a day list.
If you use psychological readiness, you will tend to be doing the easiest tasks first and leaving the most difficult tasks till last. The result is that you will be working towards ever more difficult tasks. I used to liken this to cycling uphill.
If you use resistance, you will tend to do the opposite. I used to liken this to cycling downhill.
Cycling downhill is far faster and more efficient than cycling uphill (even as a metaphor).
One other important point is that using resistance as your criterion if you don't succeed in finishing your day list in time the tasks that will be left undone at the end of the day will tend to be easy trivial tasks. With psychological readiness the tasks left undone will tend to be the harder, more significant ones.
March 27, 2014 at 17:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thank you for taking the time to explain. I have indeed encountered the problem with the FV of sometimes feeling like quitting as I approach the higher-resistance tasks. Indeed, funnily enough, I interrupted an FV chain I don't feel like continuing on to check this website. Maybe it was for the best. My only concern is that resistance comes from more than just, "I should really be getting work done on this now, but I'm dreading it," although that may be the biggest source. It also comes from, "This is really not quite ready to be done," or "Now is really not the best time to do this; my energy's low for it," etc. You talk about this a bit in "How to Make your Dreams Come True." How do I account for that sort of thing when using resistance as the criterion?
March 27, 2014 at 17:53 |
Austin
Austin
<<Like I said, it works best with a closed list. And closed lists by definition don't have incoming items.>>
Closed lists don't, but I do. Where do they go and when do I get to them? Every one of your systems that I can think of has at least one open list in addition to whatever number of closed lists.
Closed lists don't, but I do. Where do they go and when do I get to them? Every one of your systems that I can think of has at least one open list in addition to whatever number of closed lists.
March 27, 2014 at 18:32 |
Austin
Austin
Austin:
<< My only concern is that resistance comes from more than just, "I should really be getting work done on this now, but I'm dreading it," although that may be the biggest source. It also comes from, "This is really not quite ready to be done," or "Now is really not the best time to do this; my energy's low for it," etc. You talk about this a bit in "How to Make your Dreams Come True." How do I account for that sort of thing when using resistance as the criterion? >>
If you have a good reason for not doing a task now, then the reason you don't select it is because you have a good reason not to do it now - not because you are resisting it. Of course you do have sometimes to ask yourself the question "If I don't intend to do it, why did I put it on the list?"
<< My only concern is that resistance comes from more than just, "I should really be getting work done on this now, but I'm dreading it," although that may be the biggest source. It also comes from, "This is really not quite ready to be done," or "Now is really not the best time to do this; my energy's low for it," etc. You talk about this a bit in "How to Make your Dreams Come True." How do I account for that sort of thing when using resistance as the criterion? >>
If you have a good reason for not doing a task now, then the reason you don't select it is because you have a good reason not to do it now - not because you are resisting it. Of course you do have sometimes to ask yourself the question "If I don't intend to do it, why did I put it on the list?"
March 27, 2014 at 22:35 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Austin:
<< Closed lists don't, but I do. Where do they go and when do I get to them? Every one of your systems that I can think of has at least one open list in addition to whatever number of closed lists. >>
This is not a system - it's a tool. You can make what use of it you like (or none).
One use might be to make a short list of things you intend to get done tomorrow, or tomorrow morning, or even in the first hour of working. If interruptions or emergencies come up then the closed list is what you fall back to when you've dealt with the interruption or emergency. You'd record new stuff on a separate list from which you'd select the tasks for the next short list.
That's only one suggestion. I'm sure there are many other ways it could be used.
<< Closed lists don't, but I do. Where do they go and when do I get to them? Every one of your systems that I can think of has at least one open list in addition to whatever number of closed lists. >>
This is not a system - it's a tool. You can make what use of it you like (or none).
One use might be to make a short list of things you intend to get done tomorrow, or tomorrow morning, or even in the first hour of working. If interruptions or emergencies come up then the closed list is what you fall back to when you've dealt with the interruption or emergency. You'd record new stuff on a separate list from which you'd select the tasks for the next short list.
That's only one suggestion. I'm sure there are many other ways it could be used.
March 27, 2014 at 22:39 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark wrote: "I'm not sure whether I have ever written about this before, but some time ago I did invent quite an effective method for using Colley's rule on a list. It works best on a closed list."
I believe you wrote about it in 2007 here:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2007/2/5/the-resistance-principle-and-colleys-rule.html
I'm endlessly fascinated by Colley's Rule. Such an elegant "real world" solution with so many applications. Am surprised it is not more widely known. I only know about it from this website.
I believe you wrote about it in 2007 here:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2007/2/5/the-resistance-principle-and-colleys-rule.html
I'm endlessly fascinated by Colley's Rule. Such an elegant "real world" solution with so many applications. Am surprised it is not more widely known. I only know about it from this website.
March 29, 2014 at 9:29 |
Frank
Frank
Thanks for the successful detective work, Frank.
March 29, 2014 at 18:20 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thanks, Mark. I understand now. I would try it, but I'm too busy getting started on your Spinning Plates method, which looks great.
March 31, 2014 at 17:19 |
Austin
Austin
-one big list
-I put a line marker to divide the top 5 items from the rest of the list
-Starting from the BOTTOM of the list I look at the last item, then ask myself, "(this item) OR (next higher item)". I keep doing this, working my way up the list. This way I always am only selecting ONE item.
-when I get to the dividing line (the top 5 items). I pick one task from those 5.
-Then I do the single item I picked from the bottom, followed by doing the single item I picked from the top 5.
-A new dividing line is drawn to separate the now current top 5.
-And repeat.
Basically it's derived from FV with a few exceptions.
-The 'top 5' catagory gives you a choice of tasks which you've probably been putting off. Makes it easier to finally get-on with something.
-Only selecting one item from the bottom list keeps things moving and keeps you familiar and "in" your list. A benifit I've found to this is that I can pretty much dump anything (big or small) in and it ends up being filtered.
-Asking, "(lower task) OR (higher task)" does take a bit of time, however I find it very effective at synthesizing priority/want/desire/urgency/etc...
I know we are all unique and this may not work at all for you. But I wanted to share because I have found this approach extreemely helpful.
Blessings!