FV and FVP Forum > Generating frivolous tasks to avoid the hard stuff
I think the theory is that because FVP coddles you by feeding tasks you like, you build up a reserve of willpower to actually begin tackling the substantive items you want but don't like. You don't feel the same need to add more dessert to your list because you already are eating enough dessert to satisfy.
May 29, 2015 at 13:04 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I wouldn't underestimate the power of the FVP algorithm. What you will find if you continue using it is that it works its way back inexorably to the beginning of the list. And once you've started on a project it's like having a watchdog get it's teeth into your ankle. It won't let up until you're done.
May 29, 2015 at 13:10 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
What I "got" from FVP is what Mark said: do not underestimate the algorithm. In my case, it is specifically the question that "got" me.
I realized that I have different levels of "want" in my heart. In the first few days I kept on hearing the "lower wants", those urges from my heart that want to be comfortable. But in the subsequent days I realized that I had been neglecting that part of me that wants to be successful, a "higher want", as well as another want, a "fearful want" that oscillates between the lower and higher want depending on which want is being threatened. It is when I started to actively listen to ALL of these wants that I started to "get" FVP.
I have a feeling that some of the problems people are having with FVP stems from this, an excessive sensitivity to one type of want to the neglect of the others. An over commitment to the "lower want" would lead to procrastination, an over commitment to the "higher want" would lead to burning out, and an over commitment to the "fearful want" would lead to both.
I realized that I have different levels of "want" in my heart. In the first few days I kept on hearing the "lower wants", those urges from my heart that want to be comfortable. But in the subsequent days I realized that I had been neglecting that part of me that wants to be successful, a "higher want", as well as another want, a "fearful want" that oscillates between the lower and higher want depending on which want is being threatened. It is when I started to actively listen to ALL of these wants that I started to "get" FVP.
I have a feeling that some of the problems people are having with FVP stems from this, an excessive sensitivity to one type of want to the neglect of the others. An over commitment to the "lower want" would lead to procrastination, an over commitment to the "higher want" would lead to burning out, and an over commitment to the "fearful want" would lead to both.
May 29, 2015 at 14:12 |
nuntym
nuntym
Interesting insight, nuntym. I've spent a lot of time trying to placate the "lower want" (or the "fearful want") because I'm afraid of the destruction that is unleashed when I neglect it for too long... but on the other hand, indulging those wants is destructive in its own way, so I should I give in to their extortion attempts? (Oh right... it's because they're part of me, and we are our own most powerful extortionists!)
Chris, what do you think of setting up a sort of quarantine for new, non-urgent tasks? Like a rule that says you can't act on this new bunch of tasks (tasks added after you began your current/most recent task) until tomorrow, or until you've done two more of the tasks that were already on your list?
Possibly that would complicate things too much; or maybe it's a rule that would be too easy to ignore. But if you're more disciplined than I am, maybe it would curb the impact of frivolous tasks by making you jump through a few more productive hoops first. Perhaps with that very slight delay, the urge to follow through on whatever random idea happened to pop into your head when you were resisting a task will have time to evaporate.
In any case, I'm quite willing to try FVP without any tweaks, maybe as soon as tonight. My attitude changed earlier today when I realized that in just two weeks I'd already begun to stray from the AF1 rules, and the way in which I was straying was suspiciously FVP-like. So I'm already sort-of doing FVP now; I might as well do it correctly.
Chris, what do you think of setting up a sort of quarantine for new, non-urgent tasks? Like a rule that says you can't act on this new bunch of tasks (tasks added after you began your current/most recent task) until tomorrow, or until you've done two more of the tasks that were already on your list?
Possibly that would complicate things too much; or maybe it's a rule that would be too easy to ignore. But if you're more disciplined than I am, maybe it would curb the impact of frivolous tasks by making you jump through a few more productive hoops first. Perhaps with that very slight delay, the urge to follow through on whatever random idea happened to pop into your head when you were resisting a task will have time to evaporate.
In any case, I'm quite willing to try FVP without any tweaks, maybe as soon as tonight. My attitude changed earlier today when I realized that in just two weeks I'd already begun to stray from the AF1 rules, and the way in which I was straying was suspiciously FVP-like. So I'm already sort-of doing FVP now; I might as well do it correctly.
May 29, 2015 at 23:17 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
Mark: "And once you've started on a project it's like having a watchdog get its teeth into your ankle."
That is certainly true of the kinds of projects that I can finish in one day. For the bigger ones, though, it's very tricky to get that same watchdog on my ankle again. I've got a huge collection of watchdog puppies running around in my brain and in every corner of my life. I can easily put aside most of them temporarily while I focus on just one or two at a time; but then something new and fascinating will attract my attention and next thing I know, there's a whole new litter of watchdog puppies competing for my ankles.
I am lucky that I have enough free time to even think about new projects, new hobbies, etc. even if I don't have enough time to pursue any of them to my heart's content. But it would be nice to be able to focus on just one interest at a time.
This is why I'm nervous about FVP. But it occurs to me that if it works the way it should, maybe it will break me out of that bad pattern. Thinking about it rationally, I doubt that the algorithm can make my pattern any worse.
That is certainly true of the kinds of projects that I can finish in one day. For the bigger ones, though, it's very tricky to get that same watchdog on my ankle again. I've got a huge collection of watchdog puppies running around in my brain and in every corner of my life. I can easily put aside most of them temporarily while I focus on just one or two at a time; but then something new and fascinating will attract my attention and next thing I know, there's a whole new litter of watchdog puppies competing for my ankles.
I am lucky that I have enough free time to even think about new projects, new hobbies, etc. even if I don't have enough time to pursue any of them to my heart's content. But it would be nice to be able to focus on just one interest at a time.
This is why I'm nervous about FVP. But it occurs to me that if it works the way it should, maybe it will break me out of that bad pattern. Thinking about it rationally, I doubt that the algorithm can make my pattern any worse.
May 29, 2015 at 23:48 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
@JulieBulie:
"I've spent a lot of time trying to placate the "lower want" (or the "fearful want") because I'm afraid of the destruction that is unleashed when I neglect it for too long... but on the other hand, indulging those wants is destructive in its own way, so I should I give in to their extortion attempts? (Oh right... it's because they're part of me, and we are our own most powerful extortionists!)"
That is a rather pessimistic way looking at things, but I have a feeling such a view is common.
On this subject my view is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, which is largely based on Aristotle's philosophy. The three "wants" are based on the "appetitive powers" of Thomistic philosophy. The appetitive powers are the drives of a human being to do things. The "lower want" is the concupiscible appetite: this is the drive to maintain our body and propagate our species. The "fearful want" is the irascible appetite: this is the drive to keep ourselves and our wants safe. Finally, the "higher want" is the rational appetite: this is our drive to be part of the human race and not to live on the level of an animal. The concupiscible and the irascible appetites are together called the sensitive appetite because we acutely feel them. But there is another appetite, the highest of them all, which is called free will, and it is called free because in can act for or against any or (if you are really stupid) all of the other appetites, and will because this is the root of all human action.
The Thomistic view is that all the appetites work together so that man can be truly happy. That is the true drive of humanity: to be happy. Therefore, all the appetites have their own version of happiness. For the concupiscible appetite, it is pleasure; for the irascible appetite, security; for the rational appetite, contemplation; for the free will, joy.
Joy is therefore the highest form of happiness, and you become joyful by being truly free. If you are not free, then the other forms of happiness will take over. "Man cannot live without joy. That is why one deprived of spiritual joys goes over to carnal pleasures," as St. Thomas Aquinas himself wrote. But freedom is not license: freedom is not the "freedom" to do anything you want. A train is not free to be without rails; a triangle is not free to remove one of its sides. Rather, freedom is to be the best person you are meant to be.
Therefore, joy is dependent on pleasure, security, and contemplation, in that one should not supplant over the other but in that they should help joy. You use your need for pleasure, security, and contemplation to be more joyful, and the first step to do this is to realize that pleasure, security, and contemplation are NOT joy. The second step is to realize that to be free is to be limited, because to be free is to make choices. In other words, the greatest act of freedom is to give it away. When you choose to go to the library, you are not free anymore to go to the mall. When you choose to fast, you are not anymore free to eat. When you choose to get married, you are not free anymore to be romantically inclined to anybody else. That is why joy is something many people are not acquainted with, since its price is so high.
"I've spent a lot of time trying to placate the "lower want" (or the "fearful want") because I'm afraid of the destruction that is unleashed when I neglect it for too long... but on the other hand, indulging those wants is destructive in its own way, so I should I give in to their extortion attempts? (Oh right... it's because they're part of me, and we are our own most powerful extortionists!)"
That is a rather pessimistic way looking at things, but I have a feeling such a view is common.
On this subject my view is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, which is largely based on Aristotle's philosophy. The three "wants" are based on the "appetitive powers" of Thomistic philosophy. The appetitive powers are the drives of a human being to do things. The "lower want" is the concupiscible appetite: this is the drive to maintain our body and propagate our species. The "fearful want" is the irascible appetite: this is the drive to keep ourselves and our wants safe. Finally, the "higher want" is the rational appetite: this is our drive to be part of the human race and not to live on the level of an animal. The concupiscible and the irascible appetites are together called the sensitive appetite because we acutely feel them. But there is another appetite, the highest of them all, which is called free will, and it is called free because in can act for or against any or (if you are really stupid) all of the other appetites, and will because this is the root of all human action.
The Thomistic view is that all the appetites work together so that man can be truly happy. That is the true drive of humanity: to be happy. Therefore, all the appetites have their own version of happiness. For the concupiscible appetite, it is pleasure; for the irascible appetite, security; for the rational appetite, contemplation; for the free will, joy.
Joy is therefore the highest form of happiness, and you become joyful by being truly free. If you are not free, then the other forms of happiness will take over. "Man cannot live without joy. That is why one deprived of spiritual joys goes over to carnal pleasures," as St. Thomas Aquinas himself wrote. But freedom is not license: freedom is not the "freedom" to do anything you want. A train is not free to be without rails; a triangle is not free to remove one of its sides. Rather, freedom is to be the best person you are meant to be.
Therefore, joy is dependent on pleasure, security, and contemplation, in that one should not supplant over the other but in that they should help joy. You use your need for pleasure, security, and contemplation to be more joyful, and the first step to do this is to realize that pleasure, security, and contemplation are NOT joy. The second step is to realize that to be free is to be limited, because to be free is to make choices. In other words, the greatest act of freedom is to give it away. When you choose to go to the library, you are not free anymore to go to the mall. When you choose to fast, you are not anymore free to eat. When you choose to get married, you are not free anymore to be romantically inclined to anybody else. That is why joy is something many people are not acquainted with, since its price is so high.
May 30, 2015 at 2:43 |
nuntym
nuntym
Wow! Thanks for making St Thomas so accessible. What a gift you have. Making those issues so understandable and so attractive.
May 31, 2015 at 0:01 |
jim
jim
Yes, I was pretty impressed too!
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate."
"Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate."
May 31, 2015 at 0:47 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
>>
@JulieBulie:
"I have avoided FVP because I suspect that I'll put too many frivolous items (which suddenly seem very urgent and important and appealing) on the end of my list."
All I have to say is give FVP a chance. That is what exactly I was thinking when I started to use FVP, especially since I was already using a system that focused on doing tasks that I considered to be important and difficult. And I have to say, I was right for the first couple of days: I keep on adding easy, unimportant tasks at the end and I was skipping the more important tasks. But over the next couple of days I started to "get" how FVP works, and I found that FVP to be a great way of tackling even the important and hard tasks.
>>
That's great news from nuntym, and I'd be interested in any more detail on just how that happened.
But I haven't made the transition yet. It seems that when I've completed one task and am about to select the next, I can jot down at the end of the list a few congenial tasks that pop into my head, and then begin the comparison. And that penalizes things that are higher up the chain (that is, farther in the past, and less preferred in the various selection processes).
For example, I'm making this post right now because, when my next task would have been to write a certain email, I wrote in "visit mark Forster site". (That led to this post - without my writing "post to FVP forum" explicitly, which might be significant.)
Now writing this post might be the best use of my time right now. But high up in my list are tasks I'm procrastinating on (to do with income tax!). It seems I have to add something to the FVP algorithm to tackle those.
It's early days to judge this - but it's a worry.