FV and FVP Forum > Doing FVP right
My answer would depend on whether you mean standard FVP, or Questionless FVP.
Lately my assumption has been you are talking about Questionless - but then your post on the other thread about processing random numbers made me rethink. :-)
http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2518514#post2519043
Lately my assumption has been you are talking about Questionless - but then your post on the other thread about processing random numbers made me rethink. :-)
http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2518514#post2519043
June 30, 2015 at 16:30 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
After reading your explanation in "An observation" and Michael B's reply, it appears that the algorithm relies on the proposition that the value of a task is as objectively static as that of an integer. Thus, there really is one true "correct" order, and the order never changes (or changes very slowly).
I understand how priorities fit into this, but priorities cannot be the only factors that guide a selection. Transient things like "my hand hurts now" or "it's raining" upset the order, too. As do energy level, location, time of day...
After completing one task, I often feel differently about the remaining tasks. The "correct order" changes. I might as well start over at page 1. Sometimes there are items further down the list that stand out, but very often I find that something that didn't seem dotworthy two hours ago now seems far more dotworthy than several of the things that I did dot, further down the list. Not because of urgency, but because of "standing out" or the feeling that it's ready to be done. (I am not scanning where I shouldn't be, but I do know what's on my list. It didn't stand out before, but I'm remembering it now and wanting to do it.)
What am I missing? Am I still badly misunderstanding how this is supposed to work? It seems straightforward enough in theory, but in practice I just can't seem to cope with any system that sorts tasks.
Is there some fundamental difference in the way people are wired that makes FVP so tricky for some of us? Or are we putting particular types of tasks on our lists that don't work well for this system?
I'm content to stick with AF1 if that's the best system for me most of the time, but I'd still like to understand why our FVP experiences are so very different.
I understand how priorities fit into this, but priorities cannot be the only factors that guide a selection. Transient things like "my hand hurts now" or "it's raining" upset the order, too. As do energy level, location, time of day...
After completing one task, I often feel differently about the remaining tasks. The "correct order" changes. I might as well start over at page 1. Sometimes there are items further down the list that stand out, but very often I find that something that didn't seem dotworthy two hours ago now seems far more dotworthy than several of the things that I did dot, further down the list. Not because of urgency, but because of "standing out" or the feeling that it's ready to be done. (I am not scanning where I shouldn't be, but I do know what's on my list. It didn't stand out before, but I'm remembering it now and wanting to do it.)
What am I missing? Am I still badly misunderstanding how this is supposed to work? It seems straightforward enough in theory, but in practice I just can't seem to cope with any system that sorts tasks.
Is there some fundamental difference in the way people are wired that makes FVP so tricky for some of us? Or are we putting particular types of tasks on our lists that don't work well for this system?
I'm content to stick with AF1 if that's the best system for me most of the time, but I'd still like to understand why our FVP experiences are so very different.
June 30, 2015 at 17:12 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
Seraphim:
<< My answer would depend on whether you mean standard FVP, or Questionless FVP. >>
My answer would be the same for both. Questionless FVP is the equivalent of asking the question "What stands out more than x?"
<< My answer would depend on whether you mean standard FVP, or Questionless FVP. >>
My answer would be the same for both. Questionless FVP is the equivalent of asking the question "What stands out more than x?"
June 30, 2015 at 21:22 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Julie Bulie:
<< After reading your explanation in "An observation" and Michael B's reply, it appears that the algorithm relies on the proposition that the value of a task is as objectively static as that of an integer. Thus, there really is one true "correct" order, and the order never changes (or changes very slowly). >>
No, my example of the numbers was there merely in order to show you the way the algorithm works. In fact in real life as you say, there are many ways in which the order will change. Nevertheless the algorithm is sufficiently flexible to cope with them all.
<< I understand how priorities fit into this, but priorities cannot be the only factors that guide a selection. Transient things like "my hand hurts now" or "it's raining" upset the order, too. As do energy level, location, time of day...>>
Yes, you've got it. Exactly the same for me.
<< After completing one task, I often feel differently about the remaining tasks. The "correct order" changes. >>
There's no such thing as a "correct order". There is however an "optimal order" in the sense that if you do the tasks according to the algorithm you will do them in the best order commensurate with all the factors to be considered (including that your hand hurts or that it's raining).
<< I might as well start over at page 1. >>
Then start over at page 1.
<< Sometimes there are items further down the list that stand out, but very often I find that something that didn't seem dotworthy two hours ago now seems far more dotworthy than several of the things that I did dot, further down the list. >>
You can always re-allocate the priority of something by crossing it out and adding it to the end of the list.
<< Not because of urgency, but because of "standing out" or the feeling that it's ready to be done. (I am not scanning where I shouldn't be, but I do know what's on my list. It didn't stand out before, but I'm remembering it now and wanting to do it.) >>
Put it at the end of the list and do it next. That's what I do.
<< What am I missing? Am I still badly misunderstanding how this is supposed to work? It seems straightforward enough in theory, but in practice I just can't seem to cope with any system that sorts tasks. >>
I think you are missing the fact that this is supposed to help you get your work done, rather than get in the way of it. If you feel strongly that you want to do things in a different order from what you have dotted then re-allocate the priorities. That is much easier to do if you don't dot too many tasks in the first place. Less is more!
<< Is there some fundamental difference in the way people are wired that makes FVP so tricky for some of us? Or are we putting particular types of tasks on our lists that don't work well for this system? >>
I don't think so.
<< I'm content to stick with AF1 if that's the best system for me most of the time, but I'd still like to understand why our FVP experiences are so very different. >>
If AF1 works better for you then stick with it.
<< After reading your explanation in "An observation" and Michael B's reply, it appears that the algorithm relies on the proposition that the value of a task is as objectively static as that of an integer. Thus, there really is one true "correct" order, and the order never changes (or changes very slowly). >>
No, my example of the numbers was there merely in order to show you the way the algorithm works. In fact in real life as you say, there are many ways in which the order will change. Nevertheless the algorithm is sufficiently flexible to cope with them all.
<< I understand how priorities fit into this, but priorities cannot be the only factors that guide a selection. Transient things like "my hand hurts now" or "it's raining" upset the order, too. As do energy level, location, time of day...>>
Yes, you've got it. Exactly the same for me.
<< After completing one task, I often feel differently about the remaining tasks. The "correct order" changes. >>
There's no such thing as a "correct order". There is however an "optimal order" in the sense that if you do the tasks according to the algorithm you will do them in the best order commensurate with all the factors to be considered (including that your hand hurts or that it's raining).
<< I might as well start over at page 1. >>
Then start over at page 1.
<< Sometimes there are items further down the list that stand out, but very often I find that something that didn't seem dotworthy two hours ago now seems far more dotworthy than several of the things that I did dot, further down the list. >>
You can always re-allocate the priority of something by crossing it out and adding it to the end of the list.
<< Not because of urgency, but because of "standing out" or the feeling that it's ready to be done. (I am not scanning where I shouldn't be, but I do know what's on my list. It didn't stand out before, but I'm remembering it now and wanting to do it.) >>
Put it at the end of the list and do it next. That's what I do.
<< What am I missing? Am I still badly misunderstanding how this is supposed to work? It seems straightforward enough in theory, but in practice I just can't seem to cope with any system that sorts tasks. >>
I think you are missing the fact that this is supposed to help you get your work done, rather than get in the way of it. If you feel strongly that you want to do things in a different order from what you have dotted then re-allocate the priorities. That is much easier to do if you don't dot too many tasks in the first place. Less is more!
<< Is there some fundamental difference in the way people are wired that makes FVP so tricky for some of us? Or are we putting particular types of tasks on our lists that don't work well for this system? >>
I don't think so.
<< I'm content to stick with AF1 if that's the best system for me most of the time, but I'd still like to understand why our FVP experiences are so very different. >>
If AF1 works better for you then stick with it.
June 30, 2015 at 21:35 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<< After completing one task, I often feel differently about the remaining tasks. The "correct order" changes. >>
"There's no such thing as a "correct order". There is however an "optimal order" in the sense that if you do the tasks according to the algorithm you will do them in the best order commensurate with all the factors to be considered (including that your hand hurts or that it's raining)."
Excellent answer. I was wondering about this.
<< After completing one task, I often feel differently about the remaining tasks. The "correct order" changes. >>
"There's no such thing as a "correct order". There is however an "optimal order" in the sense that if you do the tasks according to the algorithm you will do them in the best order commensurate with all the factors to be considered (including that your hand hurts or that it's raining)."
Excellent answer. I was wondering about this.
June 30, 2015 at 23:00 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Argh, lightbulb moment. I haven't been rewriting tasks lately because of my injured hand. (I can handle a pen, but I'm doing that as sparingly as possible.) It seems I've grossly underestimated the importance of repositioning tasks.
Rather than drive myself any crazier, I'll wait till my hand is healed before I seriouisly try FVP again. There's less rewriting in AF1, and I should stick with it for a while longer anyway for the sake of my unscientific ink color tests.
Rather than drive myself any crazier, I'll wait till my hand is healed before I seriouisly try FVP again. There's less rewriting in AF1, and I should stick with it for a while longer anyway for the sake of my unscientific ink color tests.
June 30, 2015 at 23:15 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
JulieBulie:
"very often I find that something that didn't seem dotworthy two hours ago now seems far more dotworthy than several of the things that I did dot, further down the list. Not because of urgency, but because of "standing out" or the feeling that it's ready to be done."
In your comment you describe an item above your dotted tasks that wasn't dotworthy before, but has now become so, and not because of urgency. The answer to this dilemma is a new definition of urgency you may already be familiar with.
The tasks you described are now urgent. They are ready to be done now, before the other tasks, and as such, are urgent. They are your current priority regardless of anything else on your list—dotted or undotted. This is a very good thing. They have shouted out "We're VIPs! We need to go to the front of the line!"—in this case the front of the list. That is the key. Strike them through and send them to the front of the list with a dot for a VIP badge, and then do them first.
"very often I find that something that didn't seem dotworthy two hours ago now seems far more dotworthy than several of the things that I did dot, further down the list. Not because of urgency, but because of "standing out" or the feeling that it's ready to be done."
In your comment you describe an item above your dotted tasks that wasn't dotworthy before, but has now become so, and not because of urgency. The answer to this dilemma is a new definition of urgency you may already be familiar with.
The tasks you described are now urgent. They are ready to be done now, before the other tasks, and as such, are urgent. They are your current priority regardless of anything else on your list—dotted or undotted. This is a very good thing. They have shouted out "We're VIPs! We need to go to the front of the line!"—in this case the front of the list. That is the key. Strike them through and send them to the front of the list with a dot for a VIP badge, and then do them first.
June 30, 2015 at 23:36 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Mark Forster:
"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."
Sure. But then my mind has been working on a different paradigm for the past few months, sorry >,<
"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."
Sure. But then my mind has been working on a different paradigm for the past few months, sorry >,<
July 1, 2015 at 4:12 |
nuntym
nuntym
Here are the ways I was doing no question FVP incorrectly:
• I was rapidly skimming for tasks that stand out. Slowing down my passes through the list and using my pen to either point at the current task I'm passing over or to cover up tasks directly above the current task in my pass seems to have remedied this.
• I wasn't looking back at the dotted task higher up the list from the one I just completed before scanning to the end of the list.
• I had not firmly kept in mind while doing a scan that the tasks must be done in reverse order when finished. Of course, I know this intellectually, but was completely dropping the concept from my mind when dotting tasks. Slowing down my scans seems to have allowed my intuition to remember and naturally I've been about to dot something and my hand will pause above the task, reminding me "you can dot this during your next pass, but not now".
• As Mark had identified, I was forcing the standing out process. The revelation to me, was that it's not at all intellectual and in reality not many things were truly standing out, though I was dotting a lot of tasks that seemed to be. If you pass over a task and get a sense that the task seems interesting or stops your eyes for a moment and you read it briefly and think, "This seems to stand out", then it does not stand out. You are thinking. Don't think. Do.
If, however, you are scanning your list and your hand jumps out to dot a task as you pass over it, almost too enthusiastically or immediately—that task stood out.
And if you think to yourself, "Hmm. I wonder if that task is standing out. Is it ready to be done and that's why I'm looking at longer than usual? It must be ready to do", then that task does not stand out.
In my case, if my hand doesn't jump out to dot something, then it doesn't stand out.
• I read that it's best to "re-prioritize daily". I did not read an elaboration on this so took it to mean that you look through your list in the morning, cross out anything still dotted, rewrite them at the end, and then build a new initial preselected list—every morning. I'm actually still not sure what "re-prioritize daily" means, but Mark has said that the initial preselection—from the root task down to the end of the list—is done when starting FVP for the first time, but not much after that, if at all.
• I was rapidly skimming for tasks that stand out. Slowing down my passes through the list and using my pen to either point at the current task I'm passing over or to cover up tasks directly above the current task in my pass seems to have remedied this.
• I wasn't looking back at the dotted task higher up the list from the one I just completed before scanning to the end of the list.
• I had not firmly kept in mind while doing a scan that the tasks must be done in reverse order when finished. Of course, I know this intellectually, but was completely dropping the concept from my mind when dotting tasks. Slowing down my scans seems to have allowed my intuition to remember and naturally I've been about to dot something and my hand will pause above the task, reminding me "you can dot this during your next pass, but not now".
• As Mark had identified, I was forcing the standing out process. The revelation to me, was that it's not at all intellectual and in reality not many things were truly standing out, though I was dotting a lot of tasks that seemed to be. If you pass over a task and get a sense that the task seems interesting or stops your eyes for a moment and you read it briefly and think, "This seems to stand out", then it does not stand out. You are thinking. Don't think. Do.
If, however, you are scanning your list and your hand jumps out to dot a task as you pass over it, almost too enthusiastically or immediately—that task stood out.
And if you think to yourself, "Hmm. I wonder if that task is standing out. Is it ready to be done and that's why I'm looking at longer than usual? It must be ready to do", then that task does not stand out.
In my case, if my hand doesn't jump out to dot something, then it doesn't stand out.
• I read that it's best to "re-prioritize daily". I did not read an elaboration on this so took it to mean that you look through your list in the morning, cross out anything still dotted, rewrite them at the end, and then build a new initial preselected list—every morning. I'm actually still not sure what "re-prioritize daily" means, but Mark has said that the initial preselection—from the root task down to the end of the list—is done when starting FVP for the first time, but not much after that, if at all.
July 1, 2015 at 21:55 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B:
<< I'm actually still not sure what "re-prioritize daily" means >>
In fact somewhere in the comments I said that I had changed my mind about this and it was best not to re-prioritize daily. If something had become urgent it could be moved to the end of the list, but that was all the re-prioritizing necessary.
I need to amend the instructions to reflect this. Thanks for reminding me.
<< I'm actually still not sure what "re-prioritize daily" means >>
In fact somewhere in the comments I said that I had changed my mind about this and it was best not to re-prioritize daily. If something had become urgent it could be moved to the end of the list, but that was all the re-prioritizing necessary.
I need to amend the instructions to reflect this. Thanks for reminding me.
July 1, 2015 at 22:39 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
Thanks for clearing that up for me. All is well today on the good ship FVP.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. All is well today on the good ship FVP.
July 1, 2015 at 23:26 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
<I need to amend the instructions to reflect this. Thanks for reminding me. >
Mark, could you please let us know when you do this (add a note on the original post, or something)?
Thanks.
Mark, could you please let us know when you do this (add a note on the original post, or something)?
Thanks.
July 3, 2015 at 4:43 |
Maureen
Maureen
Maureen:
Done.
Done.
July 3, 2015 at 11:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
tl;dr (Short Version)
Mark, do you think limiting the number of tasks in one's FVP list makes sense? If so, what to do with all the stuff that does not make it into the list?
Long Version
Sorry both if this is an (unintentional) double post and if this has been discussed elsewhere (I could not find any discussion specifically about this using the search function of this website).
First of all - thank you, Mark, for coming up with this system and sharing it with us. It is the single time management system I have enjoyed the most so far, and I have tried quite a few (as well as come up with several of my own).
Now to my question:
I am wondering what you, Mark, think as to the sensible max number of entries in FVP.
On the one hand, I would expect there to be no limit, since FVP is a one-stop universal list to capture everything. I also believe I read one of your initial comments saying that it could theoretically support any size.
At the same time, I remember you sharing recently that you are trying to keep your list at around 80 entries or less, and reading something to the effect that you do not seem to think it useful to have lists of 200+ entries.
This seems like a contradiction to me, at least on the surface. If FVP truly is supposed to be a universal capture system, isn't any entry limit opposed to this? At the same time, I can see how limiting the length of your list makes a psychological and practical positive difference.
I could also imagine that purposefully limiting the number of entries could provide a framework to support not taking on too much at any given time, although the list does not take into account whether a task is large or small.
Mark - how do you deal with this? Does this ever pose any challenge to you? I would guess so, recalling you mentioning you would "ruthlessly" weed your list.
Do you keep any other list besides FVP for things that (a) you do not want to forget, and (b) do not want in your FVP list right now?
I would love to hear your input on this.
If this has already been discussed, any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance!
Mark, do you think limiting the number of tasks in one's FVP list makes sense? If so, what to do with all the stuff that does not make it into the list?
Long Version
Sorry both if this is an (unintentional) double post and if this has been discussed elsewhere (I could not find any discussion specifically about this using the search function of this website).
First of all - thank you, Mark, for coming up with this system and sharing it with us. It is the single time management system I have enjoyed the most so far, and I have tried quite a few (as well as come up with several of my own).
Now to my question:
I am wondering what you, Mark, think as to the sensible max number of entries in FVP.
On the one hand, I would expect there to be no limit, since FVP is a one-stop universal list to capture everything. I also believe I read one of your initial comments saying that it could theoretically support any size.
At the same time, I remember you sharing recently that you are trying to keep your list at around 80 entries or less, and reading something to the effect that you do not seem to think it useful to have lists of 200+ entries.
This seems like a contradiction to me, at least on the surface. If FVP truly is supposed to be a universal capture system, isn't any entry limit opposed to this? At the same time, I can see how limiting the length of your list makes a psychological and practical positive difference.
I could also imagine that purposefully limiting the number of entries could provide a framework to support not taking on too much at any given time, although the list does not take into account whether a task is large or small.
Mark - how do you deal with this? Does this ever pose any challenge to you? I would guess so, recalling you mentioning you would "ruthlessly" weed your list.
Do you keep any other list besides FVP for things that (a) you do not want to forget, and (b) do not want in your FVP list right now?
I would love to hear your input on this.
If this has already been discussed, any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance!
July 31, 2015 at 14:06 |
AdamW
AdamW
AdamW:
Thanks for this. You raise some very good points.
The problem comes when someone has a huge list and wants to do all of them. That is just never going to happen whatever time management system they use. And frankly it makes little difference whether they have a reserve list or not. They are never going to get through it all. So they would be best off deciding what they really want to get done and tearing up the rest - or if they can't bring themselves to do that writing a reserve list and putting it in a deep dark drawer which they never look at again.
FVP can handle any length of list, provided the user appreciates that not everything on the list will get done. In fact for a very long list a lot of things won't get done - maybe even the majority.
The way it will work is the FVP will select the best things that can go in the time you have available and leave the rest. How this physically manifests itself is that you will end up with a lot of pages but only the ones near the end of the list will see any action. The earlier pages will have stuff in them which the system has rejected. It's worthwhile checking them each now and then to see if there's anything which has changed priority, but otherwise you can forget about them.
Although this will happen automatically, it's also worthwhile weeding the list because giving a project or task a definite "no" releases mental energy.
Thanks for this. You raise some very good points.
The problem comes when someone has a huge list and wants to do all of them. That is just never going to happen whatever time management system they use. And frankly it makes little difference whether they have a reserve list or not. They are never going to get through it all. So they would be best off deciding what they really want to get done and tearing up the rest - or if they can't bring themselves to do that writing a reserve list and putting it in a deep dark drawer which they never look at again.
FVP can handle any length of list, provided the user appreciates that not everything on the list will get done. In fact for a very long list a lot of things won't get done - maybe even the majority.
The way it will work is the FVP will select the best things that can go in the time you have available and leave the rest. How this physically manifests itself is that you will end up with a lot of pages but only the ones near the end of the list will see any action. The earlier pages will have stuff in them which the system has rejected. It's worthwhile checking them each now and then to see if there's anything which has changed priority, but otherwise you can forget about them.
Although this will happen automatically, it's also worthwhile weeding the list because giving a project or task a definite "no" releases mental energy.
July 31, 2015 at 14:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
Thank you very much for your quick and very helpful reply! What you say makes perfect sense.
I could fill my list with lots and lots of entries, but because of time constraints alone these things will either never all get done or only after a very long time, provided the list does not keep getting filled up.
So the more I can keep off my list by deciding against it even before entering it the better, since a shorter list (a) feels more doable (for me), therefore supporting my motivation to keep working at it, (b) having made the decision clears up mental and emotional space now available for the tasks at hand, (c) and whatever I decided against would not have gotten done in the first place anyway.
I find this approach to be a great excercise in making clear decisions early on and working against a tendency to overcommit.
Thank you, Mark, this helps me a lot!
Thank you very much for your quick and very helpful reply! What you say makes perfect sense.
I could fill my list with lots and lots of entries, but because of time constraints alone these things will either never all get done or only after a very long time, provided the list does not keep getting filled up.
So the more I can keep off my list by deciding against it even before entering it the better, since a shorter list (a) feels more doable (for me), therefore supporting my motivation to keep working at it, (b) having made the decision clears up mental and emotional space now available for the tasks at hand, (c) and whatever I decided against would not have gotten done in the first place anyway.
I find this approach to be a great excercise in making clear decisions early on and working against a tendency to overcommit.
Thank you, Mark, this helps me a lot!
July 31, 2015 at 15:15 |
AdamW
AdamW
I counted, and I have 346 items on my AF list, that are not dismissed. This is 12 days worth. When is too much, too much. Some of these are reminders, that take only a few seconds to do. Others are items to be transfered to other lists, calendar. Is FVP different? Does it require fewer items? I did try FVP with this list, and I got decision fatigue.
July 31, 2015 at 15:33 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark F:
My "deep dark drawer" was once a folder labeled "WISH." It's now a box of index cards. (It could just as accurately be called "MORGUE," but then I'd never want to put anything in it.)
When I review my wish items, sometimes I'll find one that is now reasonable (even though it wasn't when I originally thought of it), and I add it to my list. But the unrealistic ones always seem so compelling. Whenever I'm tempted to reinstate one of those, I ask myself if it will provide more value than the current to-do items that I'd have to defer in order to make time for my wish. The wish always goes back into the box!
Mark H:
I may be talking out of turn, but I don't think I'd ever process items that go onto other lists as part of an FVP selection. I might use the "weed list" task to take care of those and transfer them elsewhere, or more likely I'd transfer them as soon as I got the chance, outside of the FVP algorithm altogether, because they're just cluttering my list.
For the ones that take only a few seconds apiece, can you do a special FVP selection to round them all up and do them right away? You could make the roundup a companion to the "weed list" task. Maybe even make a game of it by using a timer. That ought to take a bite out of your list pretty fast.
My "deep dark drawer" was once a folder labeled "WISH." It's now a box of index cards. (It could just as accurately be called "MORGUE," but then I'd never want to put anything in it.)
When I review my wish items, sometimes I'll find one that is now reasonable (even though it wasn't when I originally thought of it), and I add it to my list. But the unrealistic ones always seem so compelling. Whenever I'm tempted to reinstate one of those, I ask myself if it will provide more value than the current to-do items that I'd have to defer in order to make time for my wish. The wish always goes back into the box!
Mark H:
I may be talking out of turn, but I don't think I'd ever process items that go onto other lists as part of an FVP selection. I might use the "weed list" task to take care of those and transfer them elsewhere, or more likely I'd transfer them as soon as I got the chance, outside of the FVP algorithm altogether, because they're just cluttering my list.
For the ones that take only a few seconds apiece, can you do a special FVP selection to round them all up and do them right away? You could make the roundup a companion to the "weed list" task. Maybe even make a game of it by using a timer. That ought to take a bite out of your list pretty fast.
July 31, 2015 at 17:00 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
Mark H. wrote:
<< Is FVP different? Does it require fewer items? I did try FVP with this list, and I got decision fatigue. >>
I am rather infamous here for my excruciatingly long lists... (which typically would reach over 800 or 1000 items or more). Whenever I start up a new system, I generally get to well over 100 tasks within a day or two. (I just have a lot going on all the time!)
And I have found FVP (the "No Question" variant) deals with all this far better than AF (or any other system I've tried).
As Mark wrote, no system will allow you to accomplish everything on a long list. The best you can hope for is a system that will help you filter out the stuff that doesn't need to be done at all. (Actually, this is ALWAYS what I'm looking for in a system -- figuring out what stuff to say "NO" to, and getting everything else done efficiently and effectively)
FVP ("Questionless") does all this very effectively, with no pressure or need for gaming the system, which I was always running into with AF once my list got past a certain size.
Regarding the "decision fatigue" that you mention -- I had the same experience with the standard FVP rules as written ("what do I want to do more than..." or "what do I want to do before...") I would get mentally very tired, asking that question so many times.
"Questionless" is much easier -- "does it stand out?" In this sense, it flows just as easily (or even better than) AF1. It's also very easy to "tune" the standing-out process, as Mark wrote on his "Dotting Power" blog post: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2015/6/10/dotting-power.html
<< Is FVP different? Does it require fewer items? I did try FVP with this list, and I got decision fatigue. >>
I am rather infamous here for my excruciatingly long lists... (which typically would reach over 800 or 1000 items or more). Whenever I start up a new system, I generally get to well over 100 tasks within a day or two. (I just have a lot going on all the time!)
And I have found FVP (the "No Question" variant) deals with all this far better than AF (or any other system I've tried).
As Mark wrote, no system will allow you to accomplish everything on a long list. The best you can hope for is a system that will help you filter out the stuff that doesn't need to be done at all. (Actually, this is ALWAYS what I'm looking for in a system -- figuring out what stuff to say "NO" to, and getting everything else done efficiently and effectively)
FVP ("Questionless") does all this very effectively, with no pressure or need for gaming the system, which I was always running into with AF once my list got past a certain size.
Regarding the "decision fatigue" that you mention -- I had the same experience with the standard FVP rules as written ("what do I want to do more than..." or "what do I want to do before...") I would get mentally very tired, asking that question so many times.
"Questionless" is much easier -- "does it stand out?" In this sense, it flows just as easily (or even better than) AF1. It's also very easy to "tune" the standing-out process, as Mark wrote on his "Dotting Power" blog post: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2015/6/10/dotting-power.html
July 31, 2015 at 17:20 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark H:
<< I counted, and I have 346 items on my AF list, that are not dismissed. This is 12 days worth. When is too much, too much. Some of these are reminders, that take only a few seconds to do. Others are items to be transfered to other lists, calendar. Is FVP different? Does it require fewer items? >>
AF is different from FVP in that it is designed to get everything on the list done, deleted or dismissed eventually. Therefore you need to make full use of deletion and dismissal and not try to avoid them. Otherwise you will end up with your really important work being diluted. With FVP the size of the list matters much less (though I do recommend regular weeding).
<< I did try FVP with this list, and I got decision fatigue. >>
It's better to start FVP with a fresh list which you build up gradually. Otherwise as you've discovered you will be very vulnerable to decision fatigue.
<< I counted, and I have 346 items on my AF list, that are not dismissed. This is 12 days worth. When is too much, too much. Some of these are reminders, that take only a few seconds to do. Others are items to be transfered to other lists, calendar. Is FVP different? Does it require fewer items? >>
AF is different from FVP in that it is designed to get everything on the list done, deleted or dismissed eventually. Therefore you need to make full use of deletion and dismissal and not try to avoid them. Otherwise you will end up with your really important work being diluted. With FVP the size of the list matters much less (though I do recommend regular weeding).
<< I did try FVP with this list, and I got decision fatigue. >>
It's better to start FVP with a fresh list which you build up gradually. Otherwise as you've discovered you will be very vulnerable to decision fatigue.
July 31, 2015 at 17:51 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
One hack I have found very helpful is to just start with a completely fresh list every now and then (in my case when I reach the end of a notebook). It is perfectly fine to put in "Check old list" in the new one. I do have that in my current one, and it is the top element at the moment, so I might not even get to it.
August 5, 2015 at 12:14 |
Nenad Ristic
Nenad Ristic
"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."
Comments?