FV and FVP Forum > An observation
Unfortunately, no :(
June 29, 2015 at 3:19 |
nuntym
nuntym
Yes for me. Two reasons, I think. 1. The scan to the end let's me realize that there is nothing more urgent that needs to get done. And 2 I've already dotted and done all the easier tasks, so I know now is the time for me to take action on this one.
June 29, 2015 at 14:42 |
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones
Yes for me, but that's no mystery: if I'm resisting it, it doesn't get dotted. :-(
That's why I still lean more towards AF1 than FVP: The additional mechanism of pagewise selection keeps up the pressure on unloved tasks. There's still resistance, but it's counterbalanced by the thrill of completing a page. Whoopieeeeeeee!
But FVP is best when I'm just trying to get as many tasks done as possible, without regard to importance, urgency, fun, etc. That's where AF1 gets in the way. There are days when I'm just not up to doing something on every page. Sometimes it's better to spend an entire day doing easy/dull/routine things than to waste that same day paralyzed with frustration for not having the motivation to do the harder, more rewarding things.
That's why I still lean more towards AF1 than FVP: The additional mechanism of pagewise selection keeps up the pressure on unloved tasks. There's still resistance, but it's counterbalanced by the thrill of completing a page. Whoopieeeeeeee!
But FVP is best when I'm just trying to get as many tasks done as possible, without regard to importance, urgency, fun, etc. That's where AF1 gets in the way. There are days when I'm just not up to doing something on every page. Sometimes it's better to spend an entire day doing easy/dull/routine things than to waste that same day paralyzed with frustration for not having the motivation to do the harder, more rewarding things.
June 29, 2015 at 16:41 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
I've never experienced resistance at any stage while using No-Question FVP. I can't say that I've got everything done as quickly as I would have liked all the time, but that would actually be impossible unless I shortened my list more than I'm prepared to do. What I can say is that I've got *everything* done within a reasonably short time period.
One thing which FVP has proved excellent for is keeping going on something once I've started it. I think this might be one of the reasons why there's so little resistance for me. I know that if I have a big bad scary task, I only have to start doing the absolute minimum of work on it and it will melt away like magic under repeated hammering (sorry for the mixed metaphors!) The prospect of getting rid of this sort of task almost painlessly is so attractive that I don't find any problem getting going on them.
Remember that the way FVP should work is quite different from the way AF1 works. In AF1 the aim is to gradually increase the pressure on the more unattractive tasks so that they eventually get done - or at least started.
FVP on the other hand is aiming to do things in the best possible order. This means that there is no account taken of the difficulty of a task. Account is only taken of what order it should be done in for the overall best effect.
If FVP is working properly the first task on the list should not in principle be more difficult than any other task. It's not there because it's difficult. It's there because the optimum order for doing tasks hasn't reached it yet. That's why I said that you may never reach the first task - because if it's a task that doesn't really matter much, the optimum order may never include it because there are too many tasks coming in that do matter.
So if you find that the first tasks on your list tend to be a bunch of difficult tasks that you are resisting, then you are not doing FVP right. Remember: whether you are asking a question or not you should be directing your mind to find the best order to do the tasks in.
If your mind is going to find the best order to do tasks, then it's a good idea to have identified what your top three or four priorities are. This is purely to give your mind something to go on. It is not intended to be a rigid way of classifying individual tasks.
The order of your priorities is of the utmost importance. There is a huge difference between 1 Work, 2 Sport, 3 Family and 1 Sport, 2 Family, 3 Work.
In fact your priorities are probably going to be more specific than those. I currently have four:
Fitness
French
Charity PR
No Backlogs
They are all going well with the exception of Charity PR which needs more attention. I am therefore going to up it to first priority for the foreseeable future.
Charity PR
Fitness
French
No Backlogs
You'll notice that being a Time Management "guru" doesn't feature on the list!
One thing which FVP has proved excellent for is keeping going on something once I've started it. I think this might be one of the reasons why there's so little resistance for me. I know that if I have a big bad scary task, I only have to start doing the absolute minimum of work on it and it will melt away like magic under repeated hammering (sorry for the mixed metaphors!) The prospect of getting rid of this sort of task almost painlessly is so attractive that I don't find any problem getting going on them.
Remember that the way FVP should work is quite different from the way AF1 works. In AF1 the aim is to gradually increase the pressure on the more unattractive tasks so that they eventually get done - or at least started.
FVP on the other hand is aiming to do things in the best possible order. This means that there is no account taken of the difficulty of a task. Account is only taken of what order it should be done in for the overall best effect.
If FVP is working properly the first task on the list should not in principle be more difficult than any other task. It's not there because it's difficult. It's there because the optimum order for doing tasks hasn't reached it yet. That's why I said that you may never reach the first task - because if it's a task that doesn't really matter much, the optimum order may never include it because there are too many tasks coming in that do matter.
So if you find that the first tasks on your list tend to be a bunch of difficult tasks that you are resisting, then you are not doing FVP right. Remember: whether you are asking a question or not you should be directing your mind to find the best order to do the tasks in.
If your mind is going to find the best order to do tasks, then it's a good idea to have identified what your top three or four priorities are. This is purely to give your mind something to go on. It is not intended to be a rigid way of classifying individual tasks.
The order of your priorities is of the utmost importance. There is a huge difference between 1 Work, 2 Sport, 3 Family and 1 Sport, 2 Family, 3 Work.
In fact your priorities are probably going to be more specific than those. I currently have four:
Fitness
French
Charity PR
No Backlogs
They are all going well with the exception of Charity PR which needs more attention. I am therefore going to up it to first priority for the foreseeable future.
Charity PR
Fitness
French
No Backlogs
You'll notice that being a Time Management "guru" doesn't feature on the list!
June 29, 2015 at 23:01 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thanks, Mark - that explains a lot. I do know what my priorities are, but trying to put (or do) tasks in the optimal/proper order (not including real prerequisites, which by definition can't be done out of order) has always been a big stumbling block for me. No matter how carefully I make the selection, whether it seems benign or even brilliant, I am rarely able to get through more than half of a chain according to the rules. Not the FV rules, not the FVP rules, not even the Las Vegas rules.
My mood changes, and I decide to redo the entire selection. Or I skip past one of my deliberately chosen dots. Or I decide that now would be the perfect time to work on something higher up on the list that I didn't dot before because I didn't think I wanted to do it today.
It's irritating, and it's obviously not the right way to do FVP. It's more like Joe Slobb's aimless bouncing around on a to-do list, which you specifically warn against in DIT. But that's just for the days when I can't seem to get motivated any other way. It's not the most effective way to work the list, but it's still a reliable way to get a solid day's work out of myself when nothing else seems to help.
I'm really not sure why I can't seem to do FVP properly even on a good day. I seem to have a serious problem with doing things in a predetermined order if they don't truly need to be done in that order. The fact that I chose them in that order myself doesn't seem to matter at all.
Though, thinking about it, maybe I just need to start with fewer dots. I've been selecting around six at a time. Maybe four would be more reasonable, or even three. If it still doesn't work, I may have to accept that my mind just doesn't work that way.
"Melt away like magic under repeated hammering" is not as mixed a metaphor as you may think - it reminds me of a game we had when I was a kid called "Don't Break the Ice" in which we would hammer (with little mallets) cubes of plastic "ice" that were held together by tension within a frame. At age 3 or 4, that did seem like magic! The object was to avoid collapsing the area where the game piece sat. (Apparently, the game piece is a bear now. In the comparatively indelicate 1970s, it was a shivering man!)
My mood changes, and I decide to redo the entire selection. Or I skip past one of my deliberately chosen dots. Or I decide that now would be the perfect time to work on something higher up on the list that I didn't dot before because I didn't think I wanted to do it today.
It's irritating, and it's obviously not the right way to do FVP. It's more like Joe Slobb's aimless bouncing around on a to-do list, which you specifically warn against in DIT. But that's just for the days when I can't seem to get motivated any other way. It's not the most effective way to work the list, but it's still a reliable way to get a solid day's work out of myself when nothing else seems to help.
I'm really not sure why I can't seem to do FVP properly even on a good day. I seem to have a serious problem with doing things in a predetermined order if they don't truly need to be done in that order. The fact that I chose them in that order myself doesn't seem to matter at all.
Though, thinking about it, maybe I just need to start with fewer dots. I've been selecting around six at a time. Maybe four would be more reasonable, or even three. If it still doesn't work, I may have to accept that my mind just doesn't work that way.
"Melt away like magic under repeated hammering" is not as mixed a metaphor as you may think - it reminds me of a game we had when I was a kid called "Don't Break the Ice" in which we would hammer (with little mallets) cubes of plastic "ice" that were held together by tension within a frame. At age 3 or 4, that did seem like magic! The object was to avoid collapsing the area where the game piece sat. (Apparently, the game piece is a bear now. In the comparatively indelicate 1970s, it was a shivering man!)
June 30, 2015 at 1:04 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
JulieBulie:
<< Though, thinking about it, maybe I just need to start with fewer dots. I've been selecting around six at a time. Maybe four would be more reasonable, or even three. >>
The very fact that you are thinking in terms of selecting an six dots at a time (or four or three) shows that you are approaching this in the wrong way.
FVP is an algorithm for arranging tasks in the best order.
I've just taken this list of numbers off Randomizer.org:
4
88
96
22
49
62
5
28
59
15
30
76
63
86
82
94
43
53
89
68
34
24
33
9
31
99
38
26
21
79
84
70
27
36
50
85
13
19
7
64
48
It's a good exercise to print them out and arrange them in numerical order using the FVP algorithm. That will give you a much better idea of how it works. Note in particular that the number of dots you have to make at any one time will vary considerably. The closer the list is to the right order in the first place, the less dots you will need to make.
<< Though, thinking about it, maybe I just need to start with fewer dots. I've been selecting around six at a time. Maybe four would be more reasonable, or even three. >>
The very fact that you are thinking in terms of selecting an six dots at a time (or four or three) shows that you are approaching this in the wrong way.
FVP is an algorithm for arranging tasks in the best order.
I've just taken this list of numbers off Randomizer.org:
4
88
96
22
49
62
5
28
59
15
30
76
63
86
82
94
43
53
89
68
34
24
33
9
31
99
38
26
21
79
84
70
27
36
50
85
13
19
7
64
48
It's a good exercise to print them out and arrange them in numerical order using the FVP algorithm. That will give you a much better idea of how it works. Note in particular that the number of dots you have to make at any one time will vary considerably. The closer the list is to the right order in the first place, the less dots you will need to make.
June 30, 2015 at 11:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
"FVP is an algorithm for arranging tasks in the best order."
With a list of random numbers, the arrangement into best order depends on using the selection criteria "always choose a lower number than the previous number". This is quick and fatigue-free because they are numbers and your mind is not reading these "tasks" for anything other than "is this a lower number than the previous number". This random number exercise demonstrates the algorithm's superior ordering capability, but that is predicated upon using the best comparison criteria.
Three questions:
1. With a long list of tasks, say 175 and 15 plus pages, and a "no question" scan, are you using the standing out process like you demonstrated for the lovely and beautiful Taragh in her AutoFocus video? The one where you slowly pointed your pen briefly at each task and moved down the page until a task grabbed you.
2. Or, are you skimming the list rapidly—not even reading the words of the tasks—seeing a blur of sentences without any conscious comprehension of what you are scanning (like contexts, requirements, location, difficulty etc.) and only stopping to dot a task when your focus is suddenly broken for an indiscernible reason by a task—followed by dotting the task and briefly seeing its words for the first time before continuing your rapid skim down the list?
3. How does choosing the lower number from your example (which is using one factor for comparative selection) compare to no question FVP where there is one factor for dotting—does it stand out—but no conscious comparison between tasks? If there is a subconscious comparison happening, my subconscious needs training in what's really best to do right now.
"FVP is an algorithm for arranging tasks in the best order."
With a list of random numbers, the arrangement into best order depends on using the selection criteria "always choose a lower number than the previous number". This is quick and fatigue-free because they are numbers and your mind is not reading these "tasks" for anything other than "is this a lower number than the previous number". This random number exercise demonstrates the algorithm's superior ordering capability, but that is predicated upon using the best comparison criteria.
Three questions:
1. With a long list of tasks, say 175 and 15 plus pages, and a "no question" scan, are you using the standing out process like you demonstrated for the lovely and beautiful Taragh in her AutoFocus video? The one where you slowly pointed your pen briefly at each task and moved down the page until a task grabbed you.
2. Or, are you skimming the list rapidly—not even reading the words of the tasks—seeing a blur of sentences without any conscious comprehension of what you are scanning (like contexts, requirements, location, difficulty etc.) and only stopping to dot a task when your focus is suddenly broken for an indiscernible reason by a task—followed by dotting the task and briefly seeing its words for the first time before continuing your rapid skim down the list?
3. How does choosing the lower number from your example (which is using one factor for comparative selection) compare to no question FVP where there is one factor for dotting—does it stand out—but no conscious comparison between tasks? If there is a subconscious comparison happening, my subconscious needs training in what's really best to do right now.
June 30, 2015 at 12:55 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B.
<< 1. With a long list of tasks, say 175 and 15 plus pages, and a "no question" scan, are you using the standing out process like you demonstrated for the lovely and beautiful Taragh in her AutoFocus video? The one where you slowly pointed your pen briefly at each task and moved down the page until a task grabbed you. >>
Basically yes.
<< 2. Or, are you skimming the list rapidly—not even reading the words of the tasks—seeing a blur of sentences without any conscious comprehension of what you are scanning (like contexts, requirements, location, difficulty etc.) and only stopping to dot a task when your focus is suddenly broken for an indiscernible reason by a task—followed by dotting the task and briefly seeing its words for the first time before continuing your rapid skim down the list? >>
Only when I know pretty well what's there (usually because I've already scanned it several times) and know that there's nothing there that I want to get in the way of doing the the next dotted task (i.e. the one before the one I've just done). In that case I can either skim the list just to be sure, or omit the scan altogether.
<< 3. How does choosing the lower number from your example (which is using one factor for comparative selection) compare to no question FVP where there is one factor for dotting—does it stand out—but no conscious comparison between tasks? If there is a subconscious comparison happening, my subconscious needs training in what's really best to do right now. >>
No Question FVP is the equivalent of asking "What stands out more than x?"
<< 1. With a long list of tasks, say 175 and 15 plus pages, and a "no question" scan, are you using the standing out process like you demonstrated for the lovely and beautiful Taragh in her AutoFocus video? The one where you slowly pointed your pen briefly at each task and moved down the page until a task grabbed you. >>
Basically yes.
<< 2. Or, are you skimming the list rapidly—not even reading the words of the tasks—seeing a blur of sentences without any conscious comprehension of what you are scanning (like contexts, requirements, location, difficulty etc.) and only stopping to dot a task when your focus is suddenly broken for an indiscernible reason by a task—followed by dotting the task and briefly seeing its words for the first time before continuing your rapid skim down the list? >>
Only when I know pretty well what's there (usually because I've already scanned it several times) and know that there's nothing there that I want to get in the way of doing the the next dotted task (i.e. the one before the one I've just done). In that case I can either skim the list just to be sure, or omit the scan altogether.
<< 3. How does choosing the lower number from your example (which is using one factor for comparative selection) compare to no question FVP where there is one factor for dotting—does it stand out—but no conscious comparison between tasks? If there is a subconscious comparison happening, my subconscious needs training in what's really best to do right now. >>
No Question FVP is the equivalent of asking "What stands out more than x?"
June 30, 2015 at 21:45 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
Thanks for your answers. The last one is a new concept for me:
"No Question FVP is the equivalent of asking "What stands out more than x?""
The way I've been doing it is to simply dot anything that stands out without conscious regard to the previously dotted task or any sense of order or priority. Just a binary decision: stands out or doesn't? So going forward, perhaps I should be looking for an escalating feeling of intensity with regard to how much something stands out as compared to the previously dotted task. And then do the same when crossing out a completed task—briefly looking back at the next dotted task to be done before scanning to the end of the list and dotting only tasks that feel like they stand out more than it.
Is this even remotely in the same universe as the one you're operating in? Or is the concept time-based. As in, "What stands out more than X to do right now?". Am I complicating this enough?
Speaking of time, this post was published at 0:00 and is the first reply of July. I win.
Thanks for your answers. The last one is a new concept for me:
"No Question FVP is the equivalent of asking "What stands out more than x?""
The way I've been doing it is to simply dot anything that stands out without conscious regard to the previously dotted task or any sense of order or priority. Just a binary decision: stands out or doesn't? So going forward, perhaps I should be looking for an escalating feeling of intensity with regard to how much something stands out as compared to the previously dotted task. And then do the same when crossing out a completed task—briefly looking back at the next dotted task to be done before scanning to the end of the list and dotting only tasks that feel like they stand out more than it.
Is this even remotely in the same universe as the one you're operating in? Or is the concept time-based. As in, "What stands out more than X to do right now?". Am I complicating this enough?
Speaking of time, this post was published at 0:00 and is the first reply of July. I win.
July 1, 2015 at 0:00 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B:
<< The way I've been doing it is to simply dot anything that stands out without conscious regard to the previously dotted task or any sense of order or priority. >>
That's the way I do it too. What you have to bear in mind is that your mind is aware when it makes things stand out that the list is going to be done in reverse order. Therefore it is primed to do the "escalating feeling of intensity" without your needing to put any conscious input into its decisions.
<< briefly looking back at the next dotted task to be done before scanning to the end of the list and dotting only tasks that feel like they stand out more than it. >>
Yes, you should remind yourself of the next dotted task before beginning the scan (though in practice I often omit doing it). But leave the bit about "dotting only tasks that feel like they stand out more than it" up to your subconscious mind.
<< The way I've been doing it is to simply dot anything that stands out without conscious regard to the previously dotted task or any sense of order or priority. >>
That's the way I do it too. What you have to bear in mind is that your mind is aware when it makes things stand out that the list is going to be done in reverse order. Therefore it is primed to do the "escalating feeling of intensity" without your needing to put any conscious input into its decisions.
<< briefly looking back at the next dotted task to be done before scanning to the end of the list and dotting only tasks that feel like they stand out more than it. >>
Yes, you should remind yourself of the next dotted task before beginning the scan (though in practice I often omit doing it). But leave the bit about "dotting only tasks that feel like they stand out more than it" up to your subconscious mind.
July 1, 2015 at 9:37 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
Thank you. Simple and intuitive then.
Thank you. Simple and intuitive then.
July 1, 2015 at 20:20 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
I find FVP's algorithm - especially with Questionless - much less stressful than with FV. With FV, many more items would get preselected - a result of the anxiety of not getting through the whole selection quickly enough to deal with items that needed more urgent attention. With FVP, fewer things really stand out. I feel ok just selecting a small number, knowing that I will have another chance, very soon, to review the freshest things on the list. This greatly eases the anxiety associated with the overall system. And for me, that tends to keep resistance away in general. My biggest source of resistance is usually "general overwhelm" but I just don't feel this nearly so much with FVP.
July 5, 2015 at 4:15 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
Thank you for putting things so clearly. What you've said has given me an idea. Can one obtain the same effect without the list?
Hmm...
Thank you for putting things so clearly. What you've said has given me an idea. Can one obtain the same effect without the list?
Hmm...
July 5, 2015 at 12:06 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
The answer appears to be "yes".
"No List" FVP !
"No List" FVP !
July 6, 2015 at 0:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Now I am curious, Mark.
July 6, 2015 at 10:19 |
Adam W.
Adam W.
No list? Whoopieeeee!! Let's all go to the shredder!!!
I am curious too.
Sometimes I just do whatever's on my mind (things that I know are already on the list), and then cross them off at the end of the day. Is that a sort of no-list FVP? Often I am surprised at how many things I've done. It's very productive and resistance-free, but obviously it doesn't work so well if I forget to do something important. "Not forgetting" is why I need the list!
I am curious too.
Sometimes I just do whatever's on my mind (things that I know are already on the list), and then cross them off at the end of the day. Is that a sort of no-list FVP? Often I am surprised at how many things I've done. It's very productive and resistance-free, but obviously it doesn't work so well if I forget to do something important. "Not forgetting" is why I need the list!
July 6, 2015 at 18:20 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
Looking forward to the blog post, Mark! :-)
July 7, 2015 at 5:53 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I suspect Julie's is the closest guess to "No List" FVP.
I was guessing, dotting only 1 item during preselection step in FVP. One item is not a list, right?
I was guessing, dotting only 1 item during preselection step in FVP. One item is not a list, right?
July 7, 2015 at 9:05 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
I think "no list" refers to not maintaining a list of tasks you carry forward. Instead, you create small lists the moment before action, like with SMEMA. SMEMA is a no list system.
July 7, 2015 at 10:00 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
sabre23 - I suppose you could do something like this:
(1) Dot the first item
(2) Scan forward for the first thing that stands out. Dot it and do it.
(3) Repeat (2) but starting from the item you just completed.
(4) If nothing stands out during the scan in (2), then do the first item and start again at (1).
This itself isn't listless, but it suggests an approach that could be. Perhaps:
(1) Think of something to do.
(2) Think of everything else you could do until you think of something you want to do more than (1). Do it. Then start over at (1).
(3) If you can't think of anything you want to do more than (1), then do (1). Then start over at (1).
(I am treating the "standing out" approach as interchangeable / functionally equivalent to the "want to do more than" question)
(1) Dot the first item
(2) Scan forward for the first thing that stands out. Dot it and do it.
(3) Repeat (2) but starting from the item you just completed.
(4) If nothing stands out during the scan in (2), then do the first item and start again at (1).
This itself isn't listless, but it suggests an approach that could be. Perhaps:
(1) Think of something to do.
(2) Think of everything else you could do until you think of something you want to do more than (1). Do it. Then start over at (1).
(3) If you can't think of anything you want to do more than (1), then do (1). Then start over at (1).
(I am treating the "standing out" approach as interchangeable / functionally equivalent to the "want to do more than" question)
July 8, 2015 at 1:28 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
(I suppose this could be the heart of a working system, which you could supplement as needed with lists, reminders, etc., just as FVP and AF and DIT can all be supplemented with project lists and notes. Thus the central system is as simple as possible and adds only enough extra complexity as really needed.)
July 8, 2015 at 1:43 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I've been on holiday for the last week, so haven't been able to test out the system at all. I'll give it a few days' trial this week and then write some more about it.
July 13, 2015 at 0:25 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
(See here for Mark's No List FVP: http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2523093 )
July 13, 2015 at 22:26 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Looks like the "No List" FVP (NTLIYHBTLIWTS-FVP) is a list of "should do today" tasks.
It is no longer a "catch all tasks lists" like FV/FVP. I like using my FVP as my "grass catcher list". Looks like I am holding off from trying "NoList"FVP for now. Might change my mind later. ;-)
It is no longer a "catch all tasks lists" like FV/FVP. I like using my FVP as my "grass catcher list". Looks like I am holding off from trying "NoList"FVP for now. Might change my mind later. ;-)
July 16, 2015 at 6:57 |
sabre23t
sabre23t
sabre23t:
<< Looks like I am holding off from trying "NoList"FVP for now. Might change my mind later. >>
There is absolutely no reason why you should feel you ought to try out "No List" FVP, especially if you like having a grass catcher list.
For myself, I'm already back on standard "No Question" FVP.
<< Looks like I am holding off from trying "NoList"FVP for now. Might change my mind later. >>
There is absolutely no reason why you should feel you ought to try out "No List" FVP, especially if you like having a grass catcher list.
For myself, I'm already back on standard "No Question" FVP.
July 16, 2015 at 10:50 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I haven't tested the List-free method properly, but I would guess that it can be used optionally alongside FVP at times when there are deadlines or other pressing tasks that make the whole list seem irrelevant or oppressive.
Just write the succession of mini-lists beneath the main list, ignoring the main list and its previously selected tasks. When the panic is over, just treat any left-over tasks in your mini-list as belonging to the whole list and process the whole in the normal FVP way.
It's essentially FVP with one's attention strictly confined to the most recent entries, a la Mark's "Dotting power" blog post.
Random tasks that come to mind during the crisis would need to be stored separately, though.
Chris
Just write the succession of mini-lists beneath the main list, ignoring the main list and its previously selected tasks. When the panic is over, just treat any left-over tasks in your mini-list as belonging to the whole list and process the whole in the normal FVP way.
It's essentially FVP with one's attention strictly confined to the most recent entries, a la Mark's "Dotting power" blog post.
Random tasks that come to mind during the crisis would need to be stored separately, though.
Chris
July 16, 2015 at 12:52 |
Chris Cooper
Chris Cooper
Chris Cooper:
<< times when there are deadlines or other pressing tasks that make the whole list seem irrelevant or oppressive. >>
Actually FVP is pretty good at dealing with a crisis. The reason is that it selects the optimal path whatever the situation. There's no need to write special lists - just stick with the one.
<< times when there are deadlines or other pressing tasks that make the whole list seem irrelevant or oppressive. >>
Actually FVP is pretty good at dealing with a crisis. The reason is that it selects the optimal path whatever the situation. There's no need to write special lists - just stick with the one.
July 16, 2015 at 13:35 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Chris,
If you have a set of tasks at the bottom of the list which relate to the crisis, and all the crisis tasks stood out, under normal FVP, you'd only ever go up to a previous task when you'd done all the crisis tasks.
If you have a set of tasks at the bottom of the list which relate to the crisis, and all the crisis tasks stood out, under normal FVP, you'd only ever go up to a previous task when you'd done all the crisis tasks.
July 16, 2015 at 17:48 |
Will
Will
@Mark Forster
> For myself, I'm already back on standard "No Question" FVP.
> Actually FVP is pretty good at dealing with a crisis.
I'd be interested to know your final thoughts on the merits and demerits of the list-free method, Mark.
Chris
> For myself, I'm already back on standard "No Question" FVP.
> Actually FVP is pretty good at dealing with a crisis.
I'd be interested to know your final thoughts on the merits and demerits of the list-free method, Mark.
Chris
July 17, 2015 at 12:32 |
Chris Cooper
Chris Cooper
Chris Cooper:
The main point of a "no list" method is to stop one from building up those enormous lists that the "grasscatcher" method so easily produces. Instead the "no list" method makes you take the time to consider what is really important to you in the present. The theory is that if something is important then it will be on your mind. If it's not on your mind it's not that important!
The main disadvantage of a "no list" method is one that Seraphim identified - the longer the list you have the more work you get done. This is just a fact of human nature. However there's no guarantee with a long list that the work you do is actually the important stuff. You may just be processing trivia or going off on side-shows.
Standard FVP has the advantage that it can find the optimal path through a long list. That means that you are both getting a lot of work done and the work you do is the work you should be doing.
That seems to me to be such an overwhelming advantage that "no list" FVP really doesn't match up.
The main point of a "no list" method is to stop one from building up those enormous lists that the "grasscatcher" method so easily produces. Instead the "no list" method makes you take the time to consider what is really important to you in the present. The theory is that if something is important then it will be on your mind. If it's not on your mind it's not that important!
The main disadvantage of a "no list" method is one that Seraphim identified - the longer the list you have the more work you get done. This is just a fact of human nature. However there's no guarantee with a long list that the work you do is actually the important stuff. You may just be processing trivia or going off on side-shows.
Standard FVP has the advantage that it can find the optimal path through a long list. That means that you are both getting a lot of work done and the work you do is the work you should be doing.
That seems to me to be such an overwhelming advantage that "no list" FVP really doesn't match up.
July 17, 2015 at 13:06 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Thanks for the quick reply, Mark.
I haven't really been tempted by the no-list method. My current list contains about 160 items, which would come down by at least a fifth if given a through weeding, I reckon. I rarely do the weeding though.
It's rather like the drawers and bookshelves and attic in my house - full of stuff that's quite fascinating when I take the trouble to delve into it, but most of which, most of the time, goes untouched.
Chris
I haven't really been tempted by the no-list method. My current list contains about 160 items, which would come down by at least a fifth if given a through weeding, I reckon. I rarely do the weeding though.
It's rather like the drawers and bookshelves and attic in my house - full of stuff that's quite fascinating when I take the trouble to delve into it, but most of which, most of the time, goes untouched.
Chris
July 18, 2015 at 10:34 |
Chris Cooper
Chris Cooper
My observation is that there is almost never any resistance to doing this item! It's the same kind of experience that the Random method was able to produce.
Has anyone else experienced this?