Get Everything Done

I hadn't thought of that question:

What is more 𝑒𝑥𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 than x?

(For those using Chrome and possibly some other browsers, the missing word is "exciting")

Jesse:

There's only one way to find out which question is best (for you), and that is to try them out.

I've been using the "exciting" question for the last 22 hours and it's working like a dream. I really think the author of the article is on to something there.

Nico:

<< I just cannot see how "exciting" can work for me. I am the head bean counter (finance director) in the company and there is just too many tasks that I will never be able to frame as exciting. >

I find that theorizing about a question doesn't work. You have to experience it to know what the effects of it are.

That's why I said to Jesse earlier "There's only one way to find out which question is best (for you), and that is to try them out."

I'd also say that it's unnecessary to frame tasks as exciting. That sounds too much like rational thought.

Some of the things in the last 24 hours or so that I have found to be "the most exciting thing I could do now" are:

Doing the dishes
Checking my blood pressure
Dealing with these comments
Preparing for the Finance Committee meeting
Downloading my portable scanner
Repairing the toilet seat

What a sad life he leads, you may think!

But the truth is that if your life is in balance, everything you do is exciting.

In 1960 I walked across the mountains of Bosnia Herzogovina. There were no roads and a complete lack of modern conveniences. The inhabitants of the mountain villages were still living the way they'd lived for centuries. I imagine it's all changed now.

If I'd made a list of the tasks involved they would have included such gems as:

Walk
More walking
Yet more walking
Put up tent
Cook meal
Clean things
Repair things
Dig hole for refuse
etc.

Nothing exciting about any of those in the usual sense of the word, yet they formed part of one of the most memorable experiences I've ever had.

To be quite clear, my endorsement of "What is more exciting than x?" only refers to the question itself and not to any of the metaphysical theorizing behind it.

I'm still using the "exciting" question and I'm still finding it works really well.

Specifically:

1) I find it's easier to ask "What's more exciting than x?" rather than "What do I want to do more than x". It just flows better in the asking and the answers seem to come really easily.

2) The results seem better. This is of course a subjective matter, but I find that I'm totally satisfied with what I've done in the time available. In fact I've simply stopped worrying about whether what I'm doing is what I should have been doing.

I'll probably post another "day in the life of" on the blog in a few days. It will be interesting to see whether other people can spot any change in emphasis.

michael:

I think with this and with all questions of this type it is best to make no attempt to define consciously what is meant by the question.

Personally I would be more than happy to have a few "arousing", "thrilling" or "risky" answers to the question!

JulieBulie:

<< Has anyone experimented with the question, "What sounds more satisfying than x?" >>

Not as far as I know. Why don't you?

I think I'd want to phrase it "What would be more satisfying than x?"

I've been experimenting again!

This time I've been using FVP with no question at all.

This is how it works:

1) Dot the first task on the list, then scan through to the end of the list dotting any tasks that "stand out" on the way.

2) Work on the last dotted task. Cross it out when finished and re-enter if necessary.

3) Scan from the task which you have just crossed out to the end of the list, dotting any tasks that "stand out" on the way.

Repeat steps 2) and 3) ad infinitum.

Note that if no tasks "stand out" in step 3) the last dotted task will be located *before* the task you have just crossed out, not after it.

One big advantage of this method is that it is much faster to scan than when you are using a question.

I haven't been using it long enough to judge the quality of selection yet.

My list seems to have stabilized at about 55 items, which is lower than with other systems - where I have in the past got up to about 120.

I don't find I have any problem scanning with this. It's fast and effective, especially with the "no question" method.

I am as always using paper and pen. I can see though that with Andreas' web implementation a major effort is required in order to scan. I didn't pick that up initially because I tested his first version with a short artificial list of about 20 items. (I haven't tried any of his later versions).

I want to think a bit about why my list is remaining short. It's not through any conscious attempt to limit it, so the reason must lie within the system itself.


In the meantime a few suggestions/observations:

1) Have "Weed List" as a task.

2) I'm still inclining to my second thought that it's best not to re-prioritize the list, but instead to cross out and re-enter individual tasks that have significantly changed priority. I'm finding that works better, and if nothing else it saves making a mess of the dots!

3) I'm not sure that Chris's assertion that "FVP is a bubble sorting algorithm which means the work involved increases as the square of the items" is correct. It would be correct if the sort were on a closed list, but the list is not closed. The fact is that with an open list a long sort is a relatively rare event. Most of one's time is spent towards the end of the list and that being the case the length of the list is irrelevant most of the time. I'm not saying that it doesn't have an effect, just that it's not as pronounced as it would appear from what he says.

Chris:

I'm sure you're right, but since I'm not having any problem with the sort as it is I don't see much point for myself in investing the time necessary to develop a more efficient algorithm. But it would be advantageous for those who are using an app like Andreas's.

Perhaps you'd like to have a go?

I'm still trying to understand Chris's mathematics because they seem to contradict my own experience of working the list.

As I understand it he is claiming that in the FVP sort the number of comparisons is the square of the items. This seems to me to be greatly overstating the effort required.

For instance if we had a list of 10 items this would require 10 squared, i.e. 100 comparisons. But I can't imagine any circumstances in which this would be the case.

In the best case the list would be already in the correct order. In this case, it would take 9 comparisons using the FVP algorithm to confirm this. All one would do is go down the list dotting every item.

In the worst case the list would be in reverse order. I reckon this would take 45 comparisons to order correctly. The reason for this is that as each task is identified it is done, thus reducing the number of further comparisons.

The conclusion is that the nearer the list is to the correct order, the less the number of comparisons required. Now consider the composition of the list. The new, exciting items and the projects which are already under way will tend to congregate towards the end of the list. At the beginning of the list will be the less exciting items and projects which haven't yet got going. In other words the list is already half-way towards being in the correct order.

Ryan Freckleton:

<< There are ways to use a more advanced algorithm (e.g. a heap) if you want to keep track of partially sorted order. I may post about that later >>

Don't forget that whatever algorithm you come up with has got to satisfy the following criteria:

1) It has to be able to deal with new tasks constantly being added.

2) It has to be able to deal with priorities constantly changing.

3) It has to be capable of being operated by humans armed with nothing but paper and pen.

The method of speeding up the sort by sorting a subset of the full list is basically the philosophy behind AF1. The upside is that selection is faster. The downside is that it's nothing like so sensitive to changing priorities and circumstances as FVP.

I think my latest blog post (FVP Statistics) is relevant to this discussion.

Another factor that mitigates against too long a selection is that when I am scanning from the earlier items on the list list I tend to skim or even entirely omit the scan. This reason is this that I've already worked the latter part of the list pretty hard and therefore I know that there's nothing I need to go there for at the moment.

Of course this only works if you are using a method which allows you to skim the tasks. Paper and pen is ideal!

Chris:

<< They're purely academic musings out of interest >>

Thank you for your academic musings.

I must remember that phrase in case it comes in handy.

Ryan:

So the upshot of your and Chris's discussion is that we're not going to see a more efficient algorithm any time soon?

Chris:

I put lunch on because I tend to forget it, and tea for the opposite reason - to stop me drinking too much. It doesn't take any time to sort something at the end of the list. The algorithm handles that sort of trivial task extremely efficiently - as well as more weighty matters.

Ryan:

<< The FVP algorithm is the best you're able to do on this type of problem. >>

I think I knew that.

Chris:

People put on their list what they need to put on their list. If I find it helps me to put Lunch and Make Tea on my list then why do you find it necessary to tell me I shouldn't?

<< I'm struggling to see how you can justify the admin of adding these menial routine non-tasks to a list >>

Why do I need to justify it?

<< And then to claim it's a productive day because dozens of these things got done. >>

I don't recollect claiming it was a productive day. It was just a sample day. People can judge for themselves what they think about it.

<< By your criteria I get about 3x as much work as you do done every day without using any system. >>

You are very welcome to post what you get done in a day.

<< What else should go on the list? Brush teeth? Go to the toilet? Inhale air? >>

People can put on the list what they find helpful to have on the list. What those things are will be specific to the individual person.

<< Sorry but this is bonkers, a system which 'solves' the problems of doing things that ordinary people just do without a second thought >>

No, it is attempting to solve people's problems with things they are not doing as efficiently as they would like. What those things are will vary from person to person.

<< a system which massively over-analyses the routine>>

Have you actually tried it yet?

<< and then markets that as efficient accomplishment. >>

I was under the impression I was giving it away for free, so I'm not quite sure where the idea that I'm "marketing" it comes from. People can judge for themselves whether it makes them more efficient.

------------------------

Chris, I have to say that given your views I can't understand why you keep coming back to this site. It seems very odd to me that someone who doesn't need any system should spend quite a bit of time hanging around a website which is dedicated in a large part to systems.

We are of course always delighted to have you, but I'm wondering what it is that you are getting out of it?

Chris:

See http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2015/6/7/the-productive-day-challenge.html

You might find that it goes some way toward answering your concerns.