FV and FVP Forum > FVP: Has it been the "Perfect Time Management System" for you?
yes & no. And the 'no' is me turning the question into "what do I want to do *before* X" which doesn't feel as comfortable (not exactly the right word, but close enough I think) as when I can keep the question to "what do I want to do *more than* X"
A few times I've dotted my tasks per FPV but worked them in AF order (ata - which of the dotted tasks stand out). Not part of the rules, of course, but as long as the tasks are getting done, I'm not picky about HOW they're chosen :)
A few times I've dotted my tasks per FPV but worked them in AF order (ata - which of the dotted tasks stand out). Not part of the rules, of course, but as long as the tasks are getting done, I'm not picky about HOW they're chosen :)
August 14, 2015 at 18:26 |
Lillian
Lillian
FVP is not a COMPLETE time management system (which I'd consider a requirement for perfection), because most of us still need a calendar to schedule the time-sensitive tasks. In that sense, FVP is more about managing tasks than managing time. Maybe that's nitpicking, but I do see a big difference between what I need for my structured time vs what I need for my discretionary time.
FVP is no more the perfect time management system than a hammer is the perfect tool. DIT is still "perfect" for managing work at my job. And although I'm generally happy with FVP, I can see some opportunities for AF1 to shine. There is yet a fourth system that I use for a particular type of time-management challenge, but it's useless for normal occasions.
What's cool, though, is that my FVP list is a handy resource for all of these things. So, I think of the list and all of these time management systems as my toolkit. The FVP algorithm is the hammer. In a pinch, you can use a hammer to punch a hole through a wall or knock a rusty bolt loose; but it's good to have a drill or screwdriver when you need one, too.
FVP is no more the perfect time management system than a hammer is the perfect tool. DIT is still "perfect" for managing work at my job. And although I'm generally happy with FVP, I can see some opportunities for AF1 to shine. There is yet a fourth system that I use for a particular type of time-management challenge, but it's useless for normal occasions.
What's cool, though, is that my FVP list is a handy resource for all of these things. So, I think of the list and all of these time management systems as my toolkit. The FVP algorithm is the hammer. In a pinch, you can use a hammer to punch a hole through a wall or knock a rusty bolt loose; but it's good to have a drill or screwdriver when you need one, too.
August 14, 2015 at 19:37 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
Maybe a shorter way of saying all that would be, "FVP is the perfect hammer." It appears to be the most simple, efficient, and versatile system for managing tasks during unscheduled/discretionary time, which has always been my biggest time-management challenge. I just mean that it's not perfect for everything.
August 14, 2015 at 19:42 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
nuntym:
I'm still not totally satisfied with FVP, and the problem for me is that I don't think we've yet got the best wording of the question. I find it fascinating how much difference (in my experience at least) a small variation in the wording of the question can make to the final result.
Today I've started with a new question: "What am I resisting less than x?". I'll report back on the results!
I'm still not totally satisfied with FVP, and the problem for me is that I don't think we've yet got the best wording of the question. I find it fascinating how much difference (in my experience at least) a small variation in the wording of the question can make to the final result.
Today I've started with a new question: "What am I resisting less than x?". I'll report back on the results!
August 14, 2015 at 20:54 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark, does there really need to be only one question for all people and all circumstances? Maybe all that's needed are a few good examples, and guidelines for choosing the question that works best for you personally.
August 15, 2015 at 0:09 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
To nuntym's question, I've certainly found FVP to be the simplest and most effective of all TM systems I've tried. I haven't been tempted at all to try to find tweaks or workarounds to deal with "edge cases" that are poorly handled by the rules. I even find myself relying less and less on other supporting systems (such as using OneNote for universal capture when I'm working online, or making use of Outlook reminders) -- things I've relied on for years as supplements to whatever core system I'm trying to use. I've come to trust that if something is in FVP, I will see it in a timely manner and it will get the attention it needs.
August 15, 2015 at 0:16 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
@JulieBulie:
Yeah you're right, all of Mark Forster's AF systems were meant for discretionary time as said by him.
@Seraphim:
That is what I did tell Mark (or something like it) in the thread "Question Conundrum".
Are you still using Questionless FVP?
@Mark Forster:
Have you tried using "no question" again but this time encouraging to look at "x" instead of not doing that?
Personally I want to try the question "What will give more happiness than x?" I like this question because happiness is what makes life worthwhile. Indeed, man cannot live without happiness. But there are many types and levels of happiness. There is joy, delight, pleasure, security, contemplation, satisfaction, pride, ecstacy, etc. I have a hypothesis that we instinctively know what kind of happiness we need the most if we are honest to ourselves.
Yeah you're right, all of Mark Forster's AF systems were meant for discretionary time as said by him.
@Seraphim:
That is what I did tell Mark (or something like it) in the thread "Question Conundrum".
Are you still using Questionless FVP?
@Mark Forster:
Have you tried using "no question" again but this time encouraging to look at "x" instead of not doing that?
Personally I want to try the question "What will give more happiness than x?" I like this question because happiness is what makes life worthwhile. Indeed, man cannot live without happiness. But there are many types and levels of happiness. There is joy, delight, pleasure, security, contemplation, satisfaction, pride, ecstacy, etc. I have a hypothesis that we instinctively know what kind of happiness we need the most if we are honest to ourselves.
August 15, 2015 at 4:15 |
nuntym
nuntym
Anyone still trying "What is more exciting than x?"
August 15, 2015 at 4:51 |
Bernie
Bernie
nuntym wrote:
<< Are you still using Questionless FVP? >>
Yes. Sometimes I might ask myself a question at the beginning of a long scan, such as "what do I need to get done before lunch?". Or I will tell myself to "get serious" or "get focused" or "just get Project A finished". But these are all more like "nudges" than questions. I go with that theme, and just see what stands out.
I can't remember ever having stuck with a series of comparative questions. I just find it mentally exhausting, even if it takes the form of a quick scan. But reading the items and seeing which ones "stand out" is calming, reflective, grounding, almost therapeutic.
<< Are you still using Questionless FVP? >>
Yes. Sometimes I might ask myself a question at the beginning of a long scan, such as "what do I need to get done before lunch?". Or I will tell myself to "get serious" or "get focused" or "just get Project A finished". But these are all more like "nudges" than questions. I go with that theme, and just see what stands out.
I can't remember ever having stuck with a series of comparative questions. I just find it mentally exhausting, even if it takes the form of a quick scan. But reading the items and seeing which ones "stand out" is calming, reflective, grounding, almost therapeutic.
August 15, 2015 at 6:00 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Here is one key reason I think FVP is significantly more effective for me than any other system I have tried: I have not yet found any anxiety-producing edge cases that are poorly handled by the system's mechanics.
Ever since AF1, I have found the "standing out" method of selecting tasks to be calming and helping me to get grounded and focused. There is always this sense of "listening" to see which items elicit a "yes" from my own heart and conscience and intuition.
However, sometimes various conflicts and anxieties would arise and cloud the process. For example, with AF1, a task would not stand out, even when faced with dismissal. But if I dismissed the task, it could easily get lost in the mass of other dismissed tasks. For most dismissed items, that is OK, it's working as designed. But some items have more urgency or importance - just not enough to "stand out" right now. This situation would produce some anxiety and frustration. I could "cheat" and just skip the task without dismissing it, or cross it off and re-enter the task at the end of the list, or "take out the file". But this was all just some form of gaming the system, all to deal with this limitation of AF1 that it only knows three states for a task: active, dismissed, or done.
SuperFocus (SFv3), for all its virtues, also had a set of anxiety-producing edge cases which could overwhelm its effectiveness. For example, if I was facing a lot of competing priorities, my Second Column would quickly get overloaded with urgent and incomplete tasks that would be carried forward from page to page. This would eventually bring the whole system to a crawl, which would make it even more necessary to add urgent items to the Second Column, which would exacerbate the situation. Final Version had a similar problem, if the list grew beyond a manageable size.
In all these cases, the mechanics of the system could interfere with the standing-out process itself, and this would undermine the system's effectiveness. And these problems would feed on themselves, a vicious cycle growing to the point of being unmanageable and forcing me to "start over".
One of the things I really like about FVP is it doesn't have any of these problems (at least, I haven't run into it yet!). I have never felt any compulsion to select or take action on things merely to avoid some undesirable side effect of the system's algorithm. And this has led me to feel much more at peace just passing over items that "sort of" stand out - I know I will see them again quite soon.
Since there has never been any artificial pressure to select items that aren't really ready yet, I tend to select fewer items. This helps me stay much more focused, calm, and purposeful. This effect does not seem to diminish as my list continues to grow (currently about 300 items). It's a virtuous cycle that just keeps get better.
This also allows me to work on a series of tasks with interdependencies in the right sequence with ease - something which I could not easily do with AF1, SFv3, DWM, or FV. All those systems would interrupt me with other tasks disconnected from what I was currently working on, whereas with FVP I can easily sustain flow and focus on a series of related tasks, even if they are entered randomly scattered across the list, mixed with other things, with new related or unrelated tasks being added to the list all the time. All of this is easy with FVP.
Ever since AF1, I have found the "standing out" method of selecting tasks to be calming and helping me to get grounded and focused. There is always this sense of "listening" to see which items elicit a "yes" from my own heart and conscience and intuition.
However, sometimes various conflicts and anxieties would arise and cloud the process. For example, with AF1, a task would not stand out, even when faced with dismissal. But if I dismissed the task, it could easily get lost in the mass of other dismissed tasks. For most dismissed items, that is OK, it's working as designed. But some items have more urgency or importance - just not enough to "stand out" right now. This situation would produce some anxiety and frustration. I could "cheat" and just skip the task without dismissing it, or cross it off and re-enter the task at the end of the list, or "take out the file". But this was all just some form of gaming the system, all to deal with this limitation of AF1 that it only knows three states for a task: active, dismissed, or done.
SuperFocus (SFv3), for all its virtues, also had a set of anxiety-producing edge cases which could overwhelm its effectiveness. For example, if I was facing a lot of competing priorities, my Second Column would quickly get overloaded with urgent and incomplete tasks that would be carried forward from page to page. This would eventually bring the whole system to a crawl, which would make it even more necessary to add urgent items to the Second Column, which would exacerbate the situation. Final Version had a similar problem, if the list grew beyond a manageable size.
In all these cases, the mechanics of the system could interfere with the standing-out process itself, and this would undermine the system's effectiveness. And these problems would feed on themselves, a vicious cycle growing to the point of being unmanageable and forcing me to "start over".
One of the things I really like about FVP is it doesn't have any of these problems (at least, I haven't run into it yet!). I have never felt any compulsion to select or take action on things merely to avoid some undesirable side effect of the system's algorithm. And this has led me to feel much more at peace just passing over items that "sort of" stand out - I know I will see them again quite soon.
Since there has never been any artificial pressure to select items that aren't really ready yet, I tend to select fewer items. This helps me stay much more focused, calm, and purposeful. This effect does not seem to diminish as my list continues to grow (currently about 300 items). It's a virtuous cycle that just keeps get better.
This also allows me to work on a series of tasks with interdependencies in the right sequence with ease - something which I could not easily do with AF1, SFv3, DWM, or FV. All those systems would interrupt me with other tasks disconnected from what I was currently working on, whereas with FVP I can easily sustain flow and focus on a series of related tasks, even if they are entered randomly scattered across the list, mixed with other things, with new related or unrelated tasks being added to the list all the time. All of this is easy with FVP.
August 15, 2015 at 6:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< does there really need to be only one question for all people and all circumstances? >>
No, but I think it's important that I test all the various ways of working this. Doing that is after all how I developed FVP in the first place.
<< Maybe all that's needed are a few good examples, and guidelines for choosing the question that works best for you personally. >>
Again, I can only do that if I have tested out a wide range of questions.
<< does there really need to be only one question for all people and all circumstances? >>
No, but I think it's important that I test all the various ways of working this. Doing that is after all how I developed FVP in the first place.
<< Maybe all that's needed are a few good examples, and guidelines for choosing the question that works best for you personally. >>
Again, I can only do that if I have tested out a wide range of questions.
August 15, 2015 at 11:34 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym:
<< Have you tried using "no question" again but this time encouraging to look at "x" instead of not doing that? >>
Yes. Wasn't it me who recommended it?
<< Personally I want to try the question "What will give more happiness than x?" >>
Do you mean "What will give more happiness to me than x?" or "What will give more happiness to the world at large than x?"
<< I have a hypothesis that we instinctively know what kind of happiness we need the most if we are honest to ourselves. >>
And my hypothesis is that we instinctively resist things that will prevent that happiness and do not resist things that will bring it. I think it's easier to identify when we are feeling resistance than to answer a question like what will give more happiness.
<< Have you tried using "no question" again but this time encouraging to look at "x" instead of not doing that? >>
Yes. Wasn't it me who recommended it?
<< Personally I want to try the question "What will give more happiness than x?" >>
Do you mean "What will give more happiness to me than x?" or "What will give more happiness to the world at large than x?"
<< I have a hypothesis that we instinctively know what kind of happiness we need the most if we are honest to ourselves. >>
And my hypothesis is that we instinctively resist things that will prevent that happiness and do not resist things that will bring it. I think it's easier to identify when we are feeling resistance than to answer a question like what will give more happiness.
August 15, 2015 at 11:37 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< I can't remember ever having stuck with a series of comparative questions. I just find it mentally exhausting, even if it takes the form of a quick scan. But reading the items and seeing which ones "stand out" is calming, reflective, grounding, almost therapeutic. >>
I don't go down the list asking myself the question at each item "Am I resisting this less than x?". That would be really mentally exhausting as you say.
What I do is much more like what you have described that you do. I will say something like "What am I resisting less than Comments?" and scan down the list until something stands out. In this case nothing did which is why I'm answering your comment now!
Yes, calming, reflective, almost therapeutic, describes it very well.
<< I can't remember ever having stuck with a series of comparative questions. I just find it mentally exhausting, even if it takes the form of a quick scan. But reading the items and seeing which ones "stand out" is calming, reflective, grounding, almost therapeutic. >>
I don't go down the list asking myself the question at each item "Am I resisting this less than x?". That would be really mentally exhausting as you say.
What I do is much more like what you have described that you do. I will say something like "What am I resisting less than Comments?" and scan down the list until something stands out. In this case nothing did which is why I'm answering your comment now!
Yes, calming, reflective, almost therapeutic, describes it very well.
August 15, 2015 at 11:51 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<< All of this is easy with FVP. >>
Agreed. You've summed up very well exactly the experience I'm having as well.
<< All of this is easy with FVP. >>
Agreed. You've summed up very well exactly the experience I'm having as well.
August 15, 2015 at 11:56 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
JulieBulie:
<< FVP is not a COMPLETE time management system (which I'd consider a requirement for perfection), because most of us still need a calendar to schedule the time-sensitive tasks. In that sense, FVP is more about managing tasks than managing time. Maybe that's nitpicking, but I do see a big difference between what I need for my structured time vs what I need for my discretionary time. >>
What you say is true, but rather misses the point. To use your analogy, if FVP is your hammer, your calendar is a screw-driver, your filing system is a wrench and so on, then a COMPLETE filing system would be your tool box with contents.
If you are going to have a complete box of tools, then there are two ways of doing it:
1) You buy one ready filled with tools. In that case all your tools are part of a set which may or may not be exactly tailored to your requirements. Most people who buy one of these pre-filled tool boxes find that they use one or two of the tools a lot, a few occasionally, and most of them never.
2) You buy an empty box and fill it with the tools you actually need. You can find the best tools for yourself regardless of which manufacturer they come from. In this case you are far more likely to use all the tools.
FVP is designed to be a hammer which is not part of a set, and therefore can be used with any screwdriver or wrench and whatever other tools you need. It is much better that way because you can use whatever diary, schedule, planning materials, filing system, reminders etc that you want. You can therefore assemble the best for you and your circumstances.
<< FVP is not a COMPLETE time management system (which I'd consider a requirement for perfection), because most of us still need a calendar to schedule the time-sensitive tasks. In that sense, FVP is more about managing tasks than managing time. Maybe that's nitpicking, but I do see a big difference between what I need for my structured time vs what I need for my discretionary time. >>
What you say is true, but rather misses the point. To use your analogy, if FVP is your hammer, your calendar is a screw-driver, your filing system is a wrench and so on, then a COMPLETE filing system would be your tool box with contents.
If you are going to have a complete box of tools, then there are two ways of doing it:
1) You buy one ready filled with tools. In that case all your tools are part of a set which may or may not be exactly tailored to your requirements. Most people who buy one of these pre-filled tool boxes find that they use one or two of the tools a lot, a few occasionally, and most of them never.
2) You buy an empty box and fill it with the tools you actually need. You can find the best tools for yourself regardless of which manufacturer they come from. In this case you are far more likely to use all the tools.
FVP is designed to be a hammer which is not part of a set, and therefore can be used with any screwdriver or wrench and whatever other tools you need. It is much better that way because you can use whatever diary, schedule, planning materials, filing system, reminders etc that you want. You can therefore assemble the best for you and your circumstances.
August 15, 2015 at 14:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
@Mark Forster:
<<Yes. Wasn't it me who recommended it?>>
Uhm I honestly don't know. All I know is that you mentioned it is not necessary compare "x" anymore when using Questionless FVP, and then that was when you reported that it would be better to go back to vanilla FVP because you had problems accomplishing your goals for a day.
<<Do you mean "What will give more happiness to me than x?" or "What will give more happiness to the world at large than x?">>
The first one. I think it is impossible, or, if it is, simply tragic, to make others happy when I myself am not. Happiness is simply contagious, and it is something that, it seems, one must have before he can give it to others. Besides, one can become happy by also giving it to others.
<<And my hypothesis is that we instinctively resist things that will prevent that happiness and do not resist things that will bring it. I think it's easier to identify when we are feeling resistance than to answer a question like what will give more happiness. >>
Let's test them then!
@Seraphim and Mark Forster:
Seraphim: <<But reading the items and seeing which ones "stand out" is calming, reflective, grounding, almost therapeutic. >>
Mark Forster: <<Yes, calming, reflective, almost therapeutic, describes it very well. >>
Seraphim: << All of this is easy with FVP. >>
Mark Forster: <<Agreed. You've summed up very well exactly the experience I'm having as well.>>
Very interesting. You two are reporting the same experiences even though you two are doing different ways of doing FVP. Yet apparently it shouldn't be so.
Seraphim is, if I am not mistaken, using Questionless FVP without comparison of "x" as described in http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2511021#post2511030 . Mark Forster, on the other hand, is using vanilla FVP albeit with an experimental question. As was explained, the two approaches are quite different in practice (http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2530058#post2530875 ).
So what could account for the similarity in experiences?
<<Yes. Wasn't it me who recommended it?>>
Uhm I honestly don't know. All I know is that you mentioned it is not necessary compare "x" anymore when using Questionless FVP, and then that was when you reported that it would be better to go back to vanilla FVP because you had problems accomplishing your goals for a day.
<<Do you mean "What will give more happiness to me than x?" or "What will give more happiness to the world at large than x?">>
The first one. I think it is impossible, or, if it is, simply tragic, to make others happy when I myself am not. Happiness is simply contagious, and it is something that, it seems, one must have before he can give it to others. Besides, one can become happy by also giving it to others.
<<And my hypothesis is that we instinctively resist things that will prevent that happiness and do not resist things that will bring it. I think it's easier to identify when we are feeling resistance than to answer a question like what will give more happiness. >>
Let's test them then!
@Seraphim and Mark Forster:
Seraphim: <<But reading the items and seeing which ones "stand out" is calming, reflective, grounding, almost therapeutic. >>
Mark Forster: <<Yes, calming, reflective, almost therapeutic, describes it very well. >>
Seraphim: << All of this is easy with FVP. >>
Mark Forster: <<Agreed. You've summed up very well exactly the experience I'm having as well.>>
Very interesting. You two are reporting the same experiences even though you two are doing different ways of doing FVP. Yet apparently it shouldn't be so.
Seraphim is, if I am not mistaken, using Questionless FVP without comparison of "x" as described in http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2511021#post2511030 . Mark Forster, on the other hand, is using vanilla FVP albeit with an experimental question. As was explained, the two approaches are quite different in practice (http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2530058#post2530875 ).
So what could account for the similarity in experiences?
August 15, 2015 at 15:08 |
nuntym
nuntym
@Bernie: <<Anyone still trying "What is more exciting than x?" >>
Seems no one is. Are you? What's your experience with it?
Seems no one is. Are you? What's your experience with it?
August 15, 2015 at 15:12 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
<< So what could account for the similarity in experiences? >>
I think you're exaggerating the difference in the methods. Seraphim and I are both going for what stands out. The difference is that I am asking a specific question and then seeing what stands out as a result, and Seraphim is not asking a question (most of the time) and sees what stands out. Both of these would contrast with someone asking a question and then comparing each task in the light of the question.
As I've said before, this is still a work in progress for me so don't expect complete consistency in what I say!
On the "exciting" question, it suffers in my opinion from the same problem as the "happiness" question, i.e. it's easier to identify a feeling you have (resistance) which you are actually experiencing, rather than forecasting a feeling which you are not yet experiencing.
<< So what could account for the similarity in experiences? >>
I think you're exaggerating the difference in the methods. Seraphim and I are both going for what stands out. The difference is that I am asking a specific question and then seeing what stands out as a result, and Seraphim is not asking a question (most of the time) and sees what stands out. Both of these would contrast with someone asking a question and then comparing each task in the light of the question.
As I've said before, this is still a work in progress for me so don't expect complete consistency in what I say!
On the "exciting" question, it suffers in my opinion from the same problem as the "happiness" question, i.e. it's easier to identify a feeling you have (resistance) which you are actually experiencing, rather than forecasting a feeling which you are not yet experiencing.
August 15, 2015 at 19:37 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym:
You're not a proponent then of Jeremy Bentham's "fundamental axiom":
"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.".
You're not a proponent then of Jeremy Bentham's "fundamental axiom":
"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.".
August 15, 2015 at 20:11 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
@Mark Forster:
<<As I've said before, this is still a work in progress for me so don't expect complete consistency in what I say!>>
Ah, I see. It is however, nice to see how we understand FVP evolves the longer we use it.
<<On the "exciting" question, it suffers in my opinion from the same problem as the "happiness" question, i.e. it's easier to identify a feeling you have (resistance) which you are actually experiencing, rather than forecasting a feeling which you are not yet experiencing. >>
Ah, I see what you were trying to say now about. And you are right, "happiness" is something that is supposed to happen during or after the task. You'd have to forecast it, and yes it might be harder to use for the question.
<<You're not a proponent then of Jeremy Bentham's "fundamental axiom":
"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.">>
No I do not. The Christian martyrs attest against that.
What I am a proponent of, when it comes to happiness, is, of course, the Christian, especially the Catholic axiom: "You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."
-----
On another note, it is while I was learning on coursera.org that I thought of another question. It was a lesson on procrastination. The lesson said that procrastination happens because we come to associate trying to reach a certain goal to the pain centers on our brain. Therefore, to defeat procrastination, you have to look not at the product, but at the process. Once you know your goal, you have to then focus on doing it for repeated small periods of time and not on achieving the final product.
Sounds a lot like "little and often", right? The difference though is focusing on the process, not the end goal.
Now that made me think about the blog articles leading to the original FV release, about urgency. These articles start from here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/26/urgency-the-natural-way-to-prioritize.html
I think the articles are still true: urgency <is> the natural way of prioritizing. But, what the articles point is that urgency is all about when to <start>, not when to end. And focusing on starting is focusing on the <process>, not the <product>, which is what the lesson is saying as the way to defeat procrastination.
So probably this question might work better than the others: "What do I want to start more than x?"
Although now I want to use this concept on Questionless FVP, in that I put "starting" in my mind when I look on the list.
<<As I've said before, this is still a work in progress for me so don't expect complete consistency in what I say!>>
Ah, I see. It is however, nice to see how we understand FVP evolves the longer we use it.
<<On the "exciting" question, it suffers in my opinion from the same problem as the "happiness" question, i.e. it's easier to identify a feeling you have (resistance) which you are actually experiencing, rather than forecasting a feeling which you are not yet experiencing. >>
Ah, I see what you were trying to say now about. And you are right, "happiness" is something that is supposed to happen during or after the task. You'd have to forecast it, and yes it might be harder to use for the question.
<<You're not a proponent then of Jeremy Bentham's "fundamental axiom":
"It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.">>
No I do not. The Christian martyrs attest against that.
What I am a proponent of, when it comes to happiness, is, of course, the Christian, especially the Catholic axiom: "You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."
-----
On another note, it is while I was learning on coursera.org that I thought of another question. It was a lesson on procrastination. The lesson said that procrastination happens because we come to associate trying to reach a certain goal to the pain centers on our brain. Therefore, to defeat procrastination, you have to look not at the product, but at the process. Once you know your goal, you have to then focus on doing it for repeated small periods of time and not on achieving the final product.
Sounds a lot like "little and often", right? The difference though is focusing on the process, not the end goal.
Now that made me think about the blog articles leading to the original FV release, about urgency. These articles start from here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/26/urgency-the-natural-way-to-prioritize.html
I think the articles are still true: urgency <is> the natural way of prioritizing. But, what the articles point is that urgency is all about when to <start>, not when to end. And focusing on starting is focusing on the <process>, not the <product>, which is what the lesson is saying as the way to defeat procrastination.
So probably this question might work better than the others: "What do I want to start more than x?"
Although now I want to use this concept on Questionless FVP, in that I put "starting" in my mind when I look on the list.
August 15, 2015 at 22:39 |
nuntym
nuntym
Seraphim: "a virtuous cycle" - I've never heard that expression before. I like it!
Mark, Nuntym:
I don't think I missed the point at all on the toolbox analogy. Nuntym asked if FVP was the perfect time management system. I said that FVP is the perfect hammer for my time management toolbox. Because of it, discretionary time is no longer my biggest challenge. (My biggest challenge is now the significantly lesser annoyance of keeping my personal calendar synced with my work calendar, but that's barely a blip on the radar compared to the discretionary time problem.)
So, okay - if we specifically mean "the perfect time management system for discretionary time," then yes. But that wasn't how the question was worded! (And I still reserve the right to occasionally use a different kind of hammer. Maybe AF1 is a tack hammer, for instance. I have a "perfect" or at least "the best imaginable" all-occasion hammer in my actual toolbox, but I still use the tack hammer when I'm thinking "Hulk tap" rather than "Hulk smash.")
Mark:
<<On the "exciting" question, it suffers in my opinion from the same problem as the "happiness" question, i.e. it's easier to identify a feeling you have (resistance) which you are actually experiencing, rather than forecasting a feeling which you are not yet experiencing.>>
Can't a sensation of excitement be just as immediate as a sensation of resistance? Sometimes, when I'm feeling enthusiastic, "what's more exciting than X" is the unverbalized question as I scan down the list and say "I'll do that one! Wait, no, this one's even better! Oh wait, did I really not do this one yet? I'll do it right now!!"
I realize that you probably mean that we might not find it as exciting when it's actually time to do it. However, I've found that the same is sometimes true of resistance. That is, I may resist something when I read it on the list, but don't resist it at all when I'm standing right in front of it. (Another "surprise lesson learned" in this personal saga of learning to manage my personal time!)
Also, regarding questions: All my babbling last week about selecting by using a filter that describes the circumstances of the day really boils down to a simple question: "What's the best task for *today*?" You don't need it if there's nothing special about today. But if you're going to spend the day out of town, or outdoors, or indoors, or with certain people, or with your neighbor's very loud gas-powered leafblower outside your window for the next four hours, I promise you: "What's better than X for today?" is a helpful question.
Other than that, I'm not getting much difference out of using one question over another, probably because if there's nothing special about the moment, the question doesn't stick and I'm back to "standing out." But even a weak/random list is fine to work with. If I don't like it, I just scrap it and start over. It's rough on my notebook (especially since I hate pencils and erasers), but it's easy on my brain and stuff gets done. I don't think any other system is as flexible.
Mark, Nuntym:
I don't think I missed the point at all on the toolbox analogy. Nuntym asked if FVP was the perfect time management system. I said that FVP is the perfect hammer for my time management toolbox. Because of it, discretionary time is no longer my biggest challenge. (My biggest challenge is now the significantly lesser annoyance of keeping my personal calendar synced with my work calendar, but that's barely a blip on the radar compared to the discretionary time problem.)
So, okay - if we specifically mean "the perfect time management system for discretionary time," then yes. But that wasn't how the question was worded! (And I still reserve the right to occasionally use a different kind of hammer. Maybe AF1 is a tack hammer, for instance. I have a "perfect" or at least "the best imaginable" all-occasion hammer in my actual toolbox, but I still use the tack hammer when I'm thinking "Hulk tap" rather than "Hulk smash.")
Mark:
<<On the "exciting" question, it suffers in my opinion from the same problem as the "happiness" question, i.e. it's easier to identify a feeling you have (resistance) which you are actually experiencing, rather than forecasting a feeling which you are not yet experiencing.>>
Can't a sensation of excitement be just as immediate as a sensation of resistance? Sometimes, when I'm feeling enthusiastic, "what's more exciting than X" is the unverbalized question as I scan down the list and say "I'll do that one! Wait, no, this one's even better! Oh wait, did I really not do this one yet? I'll do it right now!!"
I realize that you probably mean that we might not find it as exciting when it's actually time to do it. However, I've found that the same is sometimes true of resistance. That is, I may resist something when I read it on the list, but don't resist it at all when I'm standing right in front of it. (Another "surprise lesson learned" in this personal saga of learning to manage my personal time!)
Also, regarding questions: All my babbling last week about selecting by using a filter that describes the circumstances of the day really boils down to a simple question: "What's the best task for *today*?" You don't need it if there's nothing special about today. But if you're going to spend the day out of town, or outdoors, or indoors, or with certain people, or with your neighbor's very loud gas-powered leafblower outside your window for the next four hours, I promise you: "What's better than X for today?" is a helpful question.
Other than that, I'm not getting much difference out of using one question over another, probably because if there's nothing special about the moment, the question doesn't stick and I'm back to "standing out." But even a weak/random list is fine to work with. If I don't like it, I just scrap it and start over. It's rough on my notebook (especially since I hate pencils and erasers), but it's easy on my brain and stuff gets done. I don't think any other system is as flexible.
August 15, 2015 at 22:59 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
JulieBulie:
<< My biggest challenge is now the significantly lesser annoyance of keeping my personal calendar synced with my work calendar >>
Well, I have that challenge too and I handle it by having a "Sync Diaries" task on FVP.
<< My biggest challenge is now the significantly lesser annoyance of keeping my personal calendar synced with my work calendar >>
Well, I have that challenge too and I handle it by having a "Sync Diaries" task on FVP.
August 16, 2015 at 0:09 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster wrote:
<< Again, I can only do that if I have tested out a wide range of questions >>
Makes sense!
<< What I do is much more like what you have described that you do. I will say something like "What am I resisting less than Comments?" and scan down the list until something stands out. >>
It seems like we are using pretty much the same approach then, just describing it a little differently.
<< Again, I can only do that if I have tested out a wide range of questions >>
Makes sense!
<< What I do is much more like what you have described that you do. I will say something like "What am I resisting less than Comments?" and scan down the list until something stands out. >>
It seems like we are using pretty much the same approach then, just describing it a little differently.
August 16, 2015 at 2:18 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark Forster wrote:
<< Seraphim and I are both going for what stands out. The difference is that I am asking a specific question and then seeing what stands out as a result, and Seraphim is not asking a question (most of the time) and sees what stands out. Both of these would contrast with someone asking a question and then comparing each task in the light of the question. >>
Yes, this makes sense. It does stand in contrast to how I was originally doing FVP, using Andreas Maurer's handy little iPhone app ( http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2506783 ). The app made it easy to actually perform an exhaustive comparison, but it still got to be tiring, and scanning a written page to find whatever jumps out is a lot faster and easier, for me at least.
<< Seraphim and I are both going for what stands out. The difference is that I am asking a specific question and then seeing what stands out as a result, and Seraphim is not asking a question (most of the time) and sees what stands out. Both of these would contrast with someone asking a question and then comparing each task in the light of the question. >>
Yes, this makes sense. It does stand in contrast to how I was originally doing FVP, using Andreas Maurer's handy little iPhone app ( http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2506783 ). The app made it easy to actually perform an exhaustive comparison, but it still got to be tiring, and scanning a written page to find whatever jumps out is a lot faster and easier, for me at least.
August 16, 2015 at 2:18 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark wrote and nuntym replied:
<< <<You're not a proponent then of Jeremy Bentham's "fundamental axiom": "It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.">>
No I do not. The Christian martyrs attest against that. >>
I think the Beatitudes are the best portrayal of the Christian vision of happiness. "Μακάριος" is the word most often translated "Blessed", but it could also be translated "Happy". And this includes the Martyrs (Matthew 5:10-11).
As much as I love this vision and want to live by it, I would find it hard to apply it directly to FVP's "Question". In practice, I suppose I do something more in line with Saint Augustine's saying, "Pray and do what you will." I ask the Lord for help in finding my way through the day, maybe say the Jesus Prayer ("Lord Jesus Chris, have mercy on me!") and cross myself a few times, and then think about what I need to be doing. If a clear focus comes to mind, then I nudge myself in that direction, perhaps with a question, perhaps just using "Dotting Power". Then I just start going through the list and see what stands out! And to me, as I wrote earlier, this is more of a listening process than actively choosing things. I listen to what my heart, conscience, and intuition say, and generally just go with that.
<< <<You're not a proponent then of Jeremy Bentham's "fundamental axiom": "It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.">>
No I do not. The Christian martyrs attest against that. >>
I think the Beatitudes are the best portrayal of the Christian vision of happiness. "Μακάριος" is the word most often translated "Blessed", but it could also be translated "Happy". And this includes the Martyrs (Matthew 5:10-11).
As much as I love this vision and want to live by it, I would find it hard to apply it directly to FVP's "Question". In practice, I suppose I do something more in line with Saint Augustine's saying, "Pray and do what you will." I ask the Lord for help in finding my way through the day, maybe say the Jesus Prayer ("Lord Jesus Chris, have mercy on me!") and cross myself a few times, and then think about what I need to be doing. If a clear focus comes to mind, then I nudge myself in that direction, perhaps with a question, perhaps just using "Dotting Power". Then I just start going through the list and see what stands out! And to me, as I wrote earlier, this is more of a listening process than actively choosing things. I listen to what my heart, conscience, and intuition say, and generally just go with that.
August 16, 2015 at 2:18 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
nuntym,
<<@Bernie: <<Anyone still trying "What is more exciting than x?" >>
Seems no one is. Are you? What's your experience with it? >>
I have only tried FVP a little bit, and only part of that with the "exciting" question. I think I liked it, but it was too brief for any conclusions.
Seraphim's glowing reviews of FVP are getting my attention now, because his inclinations and challenges seem to be similar to mine. I am thinking about trying FVP again to see if I can get ahold of some of the Nirvana Seraphim is reporting, and I was just wondering about anyone's experience with "exciting," since that was appealing to me before.
<<@Bernie: <<Anyone still trying "What is more exciting than x?" >>
Seems no one is. Are you? What's your experience with it? >>
I have only tried FVP a little bit, and only part of that with the "exciting" question. I think I liked it, but it was too brief for any conclusions.
Seraphim's glowing reviews of FVP are getting my attention now, because his inclinations and challenges seem to be similar to mine. I am thinking about trying FVP again to see if I can get ahold of some of the Nirvana Seraphim is reporting, and I was just wondering about anyone's experience with "exciting," since that was appealing to me before.
August 16, 2015 at 6:40 |
Bernie
Bernie
Seraphim: "Lord Jesus Chris, have mercy on me!"
Please, just Chris is fine!
Please, just Chris is fine!
August 16, 2015 at 12:54 |
Chris
Chris
@JulieBulie:
<<I don't think I missed the point at all on the toolbox analogy. Nuntym asked if FVP was the perfect time management system. I said that FVP is the perfect hammer for my time management toolbox.>>
Oh don't worry I read your first comment carefully and I agreed. Since FVP's use is primarily for discretionary time and poorly fitted for scheduled time I agreed with your opinion that it cannot be the "Perfect Time Management System". Sorry if it was not clear with my previous responses.
@Mark Forster:
<<Both of these would contrast with someone asking a question and then comparing each task in the light of the question. >>
I just noted this statement now. That sounds rather inefficient. Does anybody even do that? I have always, since the beginning, took note of the last dotted task, ask the question, scan down, and dot what seems to "leap out," then rinse and repeat.
@Seraphim:
<<In practice, I suppose I do something more in line with Saint Augustine's saying, "Pray and do what you will.">>
It is actually, "Love, and do what you will." St. Augustine's reasoning for this is: "A bad person can have the name of Christ and be called a Christian...But to have love and be a bad person is impossible." It is one of my favorite sermons of his. An excerpt can be read here:
https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/augustine/
and the whole sermon can be read here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/170207.htm
<<I don't think I missed the point at all on the toolbox analogy. Nuntym asked if FVP was the perfect time management system. I said that FVP is the perfect hammer for my time management toolbox.>>
Oh don't worry I read your first comment carefully and I agreed. Since FVP's use is primarily for discretionary time and poorly fitted for scheduled time I agreed with your opinion that it cannot be the "Perfect Time Management System". Sorry if it was not clear with my previous responses.
@Mark Forster:
<<Both of these would contrast with someone asking a question and then comparing each task in the light of the question. >>
I just noted this statement now. That sounds rather inefficient. Does anybody even do that? I have always, since the beginning, took note of the last dotted task, ask the question, scan down, and dot what seems to "leap out," then rinse and repeat.
@Seraphim:
<<In practice, I suppose I do something more in line with Saint Augustine's saying, "Pray and do what you will.">>
It is actually, "Love, and do what you will." St. Augustine's reasoning for this is: "A bad person can have the name of Christ and be called a Christian...But to have love and be a bad person is impossible." It is one of my favorite sermons of his. An excerpt can be read here:
https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/augustine/
and the whole sermon can be read here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/170207.htm
August 17, 2015 at 11:06 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
<< Since FVP's use is primarily for discretionary time and poorly fitted for scheduled time I agreed with your opinion that it cannot be the "Perfect Time Management System". >>
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "poorly fitted for scheduled time". I can and do use FVP to control my scheduled time and it works perfectly well.
<< Since FVP's use is primarily for discretionary time and poorly fitted for scheduled time I agreed with your opinion that it cannot be the "Perfect Time Management System". >>
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "poorly fitted for scheduled time". I can and do use FVP to control my scheduled time and it works perfectly well.
August 17, 2015 at 11:44 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym:
<< "Love, and do what you will." >>
Note that the word translated "love" is "dilige", which means more on the lines of "have a high regard for (people you are going to discipline)". It does not have the meaning of an abstract "love".
Note that in the same paragraph Augustine talks about how a father disciplines his son, while a pedophile caresses him. Who has the real love?
See http://liberlocorumcommunium.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/dilige-et-quod-uis-fac-love-and-do-what.html
<< "Love, and do what you will." >>
Note that the word translated "love" is "dilige", which means more on the lines of "have a high regard for (people you are going to discipline)". It does not have the meaning of an abstract "love".
Note that in the same paragraph Augustine talks about how a father disciplines his son, while a pedophile caresses him. Who has the real love?
See http://liberlocorumcommunium.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/dilige-et-quod-uis-fac-love-and-do-what.html
August 17, 2015 at 11:46 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym:
<< I just noted this statement now. That sounds rather inefficient. Does anybody even do that? >>
It's the basis of Andreas' FVP app.
<< I just noted this statement now. That sounds rather inefficient. Does anybody even do that? >>
It's the basis of Andreas' FVP app.
August 17, 2015 at 12:24 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
@Mark Forster:
<<I'm not quite sure what you mean by "poorly fitted for scheduled time". I can and do use FVP to control my scheduled time and it works perfectly well. >>
Really, you do not use a calendar and alarms anymore, only FVP?
<<Note that the word translated "love" is "dilige", which means more on the lines of "have a high regard for (people you are going to discipline)". It does not have the meaning of an abstract "love".>>
An abstract "love" actually never entered my thoughts even when I first encountered the reading years ago. Even now that I read what you posted, I found no difference in my understanding then or now that I have been enlightened by it. St. Augustine's love is caritas, or charity (see the use of this word in the homily), and charity is the First and Second Greatest Commandments. There is nothing abstract about that.
See this excerpt from paragraph seven:
"There was a " traditio" (delivering up) by the Father; there was a " traditio" by the Son; there was a " traditio" by Judas: the thing done is the same, but what is it that distinguishes the Father delivering up the Son, the Son delivering up Himself, and Judas the disciple delivering up his Master? This: that the Father and the Son did it in love, but Judas did this in treacherous betrayal. You see that not what the man does is the thing to be considered; but with what mind and will he does it. We find God the Father in the same deed in which we find Judas; the Father we bless, Judas we detest. Why do we bless the Father, and detest Judas? We bless charity, detest iniquity. How great a good was conferred upon mankind by the delivering up of Christ! Had Judas this in his thoughts, that therefore he delivered Him up? God had in His thoughts our salvation by which we were redeemed; Judas had in his thoughts the price for which he sold the Lord. The Son Himself had in His thoughts the price He gave for us, Judas in his the price he received to sell Him. The diverse intention therefore makes the things done diverse. Though the thing be one, yet if we measure it by the diverse intentions, we find the one a thing to be loved, the other to be condemned; the one we find a thing to be glorified, the other to be detested. Such is the force of charity. See that it alone discriminates, it alone distinguishes the doings of men."
From this, we can rightfully say "Have charity and do what you will."
<<Note that in the same paragraph Augustine talks about how a father disciplines his son, while a pedophile caresses him. Who has the real love?>>
If considering that the love we are talking about is charity, then there is no question which action loves God above everything and loves others as neighbor.
Charity is the reason why St. Louis of France said: “A Christian should argue with a blasphemer only by running his sword through his bowels as far as it will go.”
Charity is the reason St. Nicholas (yes, Santa Claus) punched Arius in the face in front of the Roman emperor and other bishops.
<<It's the basis of Andreas' FVP app. >>
Oh.
<<I'm not quite sure what you mean by "poorly fitted for scheduled time". I can and do use FVP to control my scheduled time and it works perfectly well. >>
Really, you do not use a calendar and alarms anymore, only FVP?
<<Note that the word translated "love" is "dilige", which means more on the lines of "have a high regard for (people you are going to discipline)". It does not have the meaning of an abstract "love".>>
An abstract "love" actually never entered my thoughts even when I first encountered the reading years ago. Even now that I read what you posted, I found no difference in my understanding then or now that I have been enlightened by it. St. Augustine's love is caritas, or charity (see the use of this word in the homily), and charity is the First and Second Greatest Commandments. There is nothing abstract about that.
See this excerpt from paragraph seven:
"There was a " traditio" (delivering up) by the Father; there was a " traditio" by the Son; there was a " traditio" by Judas: the thing done is the same, but what is it that distinguishes the Father delivering up the Son, the Son delivering up Himself, and Judas the disciple delivering up his Master? This: that the Father and the Son did it in love, but Judas did this in treacherous betrayal. You see that not what the man does is the thing to be considered; but with what mind and will he does it. We find God the Father in the same deed in which we find Judas; the Father we bless, Judas we detest. Why do we bless the Father, and detest Judas? We bless charity, detest iniquity. How great a good was conferred upon mankind by the delivering up of Christ! Had Judas this in his thoughts, that therefore he delivered Him up? God had in His thoughts our salvation by which we were redeemed; Judas had in his thoughts the price for which he sold the Lord. The Son Himself had in His thoughts the price He gave for us, Judas in his the price he received to sell Him. The diverse intention therefore makes the things done diverse. Though the thing be one, yet if we measure it by the diverse intentions, we find the one a thing to be loved, the other to be condemned; the one we find a thing to be glorified, the other to be detested. Such is the force of charity. See that it alone discriminates, it alone distinguishes the doings of men."
From this, we can rightfully say "Have charity and do what you will."
<<Note that in the same paragraph Augustine talks about how a father disciplines his son, while a pedophile caresses him. Who has the real love?>>
If considering that the love we are talking about is charity, then there is no question which action loves God above everything and loves others as neighbor.
Charity is the reason why St. Louis of France said: “A Christian should argue with a blasphemer only by running his sword through his bowels as far as it will go.”
Charity is the reason St. Nicholas (yes, Santa Claus) punched Arius in the face in front of the Roman emperor and other bishops.
<<It's the basis of Andreas' FVP app. >>
Oh.
August 17, 2015 at 14:20 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
I agree with what you say. I was trying to clarify your previous post for the sake of those who are not as qualified in Christian theology as you and Seraphim, ie. love does not mean a sort of vague benevolent cloud, and "do as you will" is not intended to advocate moral laxity. Quite the contrary - if you love someone you will reprove and/or discipline them if they fall from the right path.
I agree with what you say. I was trying to clarify your previous post for the sake of those who are not as qualified in Christian theology as you and Seraphim, ie. love does not mean a sort of vague benevolent cloud, and "do as you will" is not intended to advocate moral laxity. Quite the contrary - if you love someone you will reprove and/or discipline them if they fall from the right path.
August 17, 2015 at 14:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Ah I see. Alright.
BTW, sorry my answers have been a bit terse over the past days, having headaches recently.
BTW, sorry my answers have been a bit terse over the past days, having headaches recently.
August 17, 2015 at 14:40 |
nuntym
nuntym
nuntym:
<< Really, you do not use a calendar and alarms anymore, only FVP? >>
You might just as well ask if I use a computer and a lawn mower. They are all tools with which one does one's work. They are not part of a time management system.
I control my calendar with FVP by using tasks like:
Sync calendars
Check calendar for coming week
Enter holiday activities into calendar
Schedule dates for Project planning meetings
I control alarms in the same way:
Set alarm for 1000 call
Check reminders for next week are set correctly
Set oven timer
<< Really, you do not use a calendar and alarms anymore, only FVP? >>
You might just as well ask if I use a computer and a lawn mower. They are all tools with which one does one's work. They are not part of a time management system.
I control my calendar with FVP by using tasks like:
Sync calendars
Check calendar for coming week
Enter holiday activities into calendar
Schedule dates for Project planning meetings
I control alarms in the same way:
Set alarm for 1000 call
Check reminders for next week are set correctly
Set oven timer
August 17, 2015 at 14:46 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
nuntym wrote:
<< poorly fitted for scheduled time >>
Chiming in with Mark, I'm not sure I agree with that. :-) But I think I have a slightly different take on it.
If I schedule a time block for something specific, FVP helps me make the best use of that time. Let's say, I set aside 30 minutes to finish up preparations for a big meeting. I use a question that's focused on the purpose of the time block: "What should I do first to get ready for the meeting?" The time pressure tends to accentuate the standing-out process -- things really pop out with strong contrast, and irrelevant things completely fade to the background.
This doesn't mean FVP replaces my calendar, it just helps me make best use of time blocks.
<< poorly fitted for scheduled time >>
Chiming in with Mark, I'm not sure I agree with that. :-) But I think I have a slightly different take on it.
If I schedule a time block for something specific, FVP helps me make the best use of that time. Let's say, I set aside 30 minutes to finish up preparations for a big meeting. I use a question that's focused on the purpose of the time block: "What should I do first to get ready for the meeting?" The time pressure tends to accentuate the standing-out process -- things really pop out with strong contrast, and irrelevant things completely fade to the background.
This doesn't mean FVP replaces my calendar, it just helps me make best use of time blocks.
August 17, 2015 at 15:16 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
nuntym wrote:
<< It is actually, "Love, and do what you will." >>
Yes, you are right. I got his actual words mixed up with a theological discourse inspired by his words, which can be found in the wonderful little book about prayer, The Way of a Pilgrim: http://bit.ly/1UOcBBH There is a very profitable discussion there on the theme, "pray and do what you will."
In practice, I find this more doable than "have charity, and do what you will". The most charitable thing to do in a given situation is not always apparent. But one can always pray the Jesus Prayer.
<< It is actually, "Love, and do what you will." >>
Yes, you are right. I got his actual words mixed up with a theological discourse inspired by his words, which can be found in the wonderful little book about prayer, The Way of a Pilgrim: http://bit.ly/1UOcBBH There is a very profitable discussion there on the theme, "pray and do what you will."
In practice, I find this more doable than "have charity, and do what you will". The most charitable thing to do in a given situation is not always apparent. But one can always pray the Jesus Prayer.
August 17, 2015 at 15:20 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< Let's say, I set aside 30 minutes to finish up preparations for a big meeting. I use a question that's focused on the purpose of the time block: "What should I do first to get ready for the meeting?" >>
That's one way. Another is to write everything that needs doing for the meeting in any order at the end of the list. The algorithm will cause you to stay at the end of the list so that time spent scanning is kept to an absolute minimum - and everything for the meeting will get done in the best order.
This is a good way to deal with any fixed time period, e.g. what points to raise during a meeting, who to network with, what exhibits to look at, etc. And since the algorithm will keep you at the end of the list where you have written the relevant tasks, you don't even need to take the rest of your list with you!
<< Let's say, I set aside 30 minutes to finish up preparations for a big meeting. I use a question that's focused on the purpose of the time block: "What should I do first to get ready for the meeting?" >>
That's one way. Another is to write everything that needs doing for the meeting in any order at the end of the list. The algorithm will cause you to stay at the end of the list so that time spent scanning is kept to an absolute minimum - and everything for the meeting will get done in the best order.
This is a good way to deal with any fixed time period, e.g. what points to raise during a meeting, who to network with, what exhibits to look at, etc. And since the algorithm will keep you at the end of the list where you have written the relevant tasks, you don't even need to take the rest of your list with you!
August 17, 2015 at 16:17 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster wrote:
<< That's one way. Another is to write everything that needs doing for the meeting in any order at the end of the list. >>
Yes, I totally agree with you. Problem is, sometimes I can't remember everything that needs doing, so I just scan the whole list, following the normal rules. When I am in this time-pressure mode, I find that it is almost always best to work on something as soon as it stands out -- at least, work on it a little bit, re-entering it at the end of the list if needed.
The end result is essentially the same as what you are proposing. After running through most of the list and taking action (even if briefly) on everything that stands out, all the pertinent tasks are gathered up at the end of the list, where it's easy to continue working on them. And having scanned through the whole list, I feel more confident that I didn't forget anything.
<< That's one way. Another is to write everything that needs doing for the meeting in any order at the end of the list. >>
Yes, I totally agree with you. Problem is, sometimes I can't remember everything that needs doing, so I just scan the whole list, following the normal rules. When I am in this time-pressure mode, I find that it is almost always best to work on something as soon as it stands out -- at least, work on it a little bit, re-entering it at the end of the list if needed.
The end result is essentially the same as what you are proposing. After running through most of the list and taking action (even if briefly) on everything that stands out, all the pertinent tasks are gathered up at the end of the list, where it's easy to continue working on them. And having scanned through the whole list, I feel more confident that I didn't forget anything.
August 18, 2015 at 2:11 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I tend to write the timebox tasks and then do a quick pass of the list to check I didn't miss anything, crossing out the first copy of anything I've duplicated.
August 18, 2015 at 10:01 |
Will
Will
Mostly yes.
This is "it".
FV was almost there, except that you had to pre-select more than one task. I never could work that way. It sucked. But other than that it's elegance was striking.
Now with FVP this problem is solved. Additionally FVP has a better algorythm that seems to sort the list - yeah - perfect. Or almost perfect, indistinguishable from perfect.
It also deals very good with urgencies.
It can be used for the whole day. Things that would have been better dealt with as scheduled routines now can be worked on via the list.
The format is simple: not to lists, not pages, various entry-points or anything like that. Just one list , some dotted items and pronto.
For me, this is the thing. It deserves the name.
The only thing I still can't get quite rigth with it are things that I have to do daily exactly once. I tend to work these straight out from the diary and not be able to focus as much on the FVP list as I want to, until those are dealt with.
This is "it".
FV was almost there, except that you had to pre-select more than one task. I never could work that way. It sucked. But other than that it's elegance was striking.
Now with FVP this problem is solved. Additionally FVP has a better algorythm that seems to sort the list - yeah - perfect. Or almost perfect, indistinguishable from perfect.
It also deals very good with urgencies.
It can be used for the whole day. Things that would have been better dealt with as scheduled routines now can be worked on via the list.
The format is simple: not to lists, not pages, various entry-points or anything like that. Just one list , some dotted items and pronto.
For me, this is the thing. It deserves the name.
The only thing I still can't get quite rigth with it are things that I have to do daily exactly once. I tend to work these straight out from the diary and not be able to focus as much on the FVP list as I want to, until those are dealt with.
August 19, 2015 at 2:32 |
Christopher
Christopher
<<The only thing I still can't get quite rigth with it are things that I have to do daily exactly once. I tend to work these straight out from the diary and not be able to focus as much on the FVP list as I want to, until those are dealt with.>>
As a long time DIT user these are the kinds of tasks that usually make me anxious about using a long list a la AF, FV etc. However, I'm finding that FVP (questionless) handles them well for me. When I get home from work and pick up my home list it's usually just these items that stand out. I finish them off and put them at the end of the list where I'll see them again tomorrow.
Why FVP is perfect for me:
- I never experience resistance when I get to the oldest item on the list (which I often felt with FV)
- Using the stand out method is teaching me that it's OK not to finish (or even start) everything I put on the list - and I'm finding that all of the important stuff is getting done anyway
- I'm finding FVP so much more relaxing than DIT
- Constantly scanning the end of the list means I'm less stressed about trusting the standing out selection ("it's ok if Project X doesn't stand out this time, I'll scan the end of the list very soon again anyway"). With AF1 I would get anxious about not selecting an important item and then having to leave that page.
- I'm finding that FVP generates less resistance for me than the randomizer, which I thought could never be beaten!
- Whenever I take a break from DIT to try a new system I usually come back to DIT very quickly. With FVP however I'm loving the lack of DIT's rigidity and I don't feel like going back to it.
- I can trust FVP a lot more than I can trust AF1 to get all my important items done.
- I find that high-resistance tasks get selected ("stand out") more often than with FV
- With DIT, I had so many daily items that would take a lot of time to complete each day. With FVP, most of these get done. However I'm not stressed at all about not completing those that don't stand out, which feels really great.
THANKS MARK!
As a long time DIT user these are the kinds of tasks that usually make me anxious about using a long list a la AF, FV etc. However, I'm finding that FVP (questionless) handles them well for me. When I get home from work and pick up my home list it's usually just these items that stand out. I finish them off and put them at the end of the list where I'll see them again tomorrow.
Why FVP is perfect for me:
- I never experience resistance when I get to the oldest item on the list (which I often felt with FV)
- Using the stand out method is teaching me that it's OK not to finish (or even start) everything I put on the list - and I'm finding that all of the important stuff is getting done anyway
- I'm finding FVP so much more relaxing than DIT
- Constantly scanning the end of the list means I'm less stressed about trusting the standing out selection ("it's ok if Project X doesn't stand out this time, I'll scan the end of the list very soon again anyway"). With AF1 I would get anxious about not selecting an important item and then having to leave that page.
- I'm finding that FVP generates less resistance for me than the randomizer, which I thought could never be beaten!
- Whenever I take a break from DIT to try a new system I usually come back to DIT very quickly. With FVP however I'm loving the lack of DIT's rigidity and I don't feel like going back to it.
- I can trust FVP a lot more than I can trust AF1 to get all my important items done.
- I find that high-resistance tasks get selected ("stand out") more often than with FV
- With DIT, I had so many daily items that would take a lot of time to complete each day. With FVP, most of these get done. However I'm not stressed at all about not completing those that don't stand out, which feels really great.
THANKS MARK!
August 19, 2015 at 3:53 |
joe
joe
Christopher wrote:
<< indistinguishable from perfect. >>
I love the way you phrased that. :-)
<< indistinguishable from perfect. >>
I love the way you phrased that. :-)
August 19, 2015 at 6:55 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Christopher wrote:
<< The only thing I still can't get quite rigth with it are things that I have to do daily exactly once. I tend to work these straight out from the diary and not be able to focus as much on the FVP list as I want to, until those are dealt with. >>
If that's working, I don't see why you would need to change it.
But I struggled with the same thing. I was using DIT with my daily will-do checklist and my task diary, just before switching to FVP. At first I wasn't sure how to handle that daily checklist, but with some trial and error I found a simple approach that works great for me: After I complete a recurring task that I don't want to see again till tomorrow, I enter it a page or two beyond the end of the list. Then I don't see it at all till I activate that page (which happens simply by filling up the page immediately previous).
This isn't perfect - I often activate that page before the day is done. But it gets those tasks off of my active list for a while, so I don't have to keep saying to myself, "ignore this until tomorrow". :-) It also tends to have the effect of grouping all such tasks at the top of that page, where I can ignore them for now, and where they will tend to jump out at me tomorrow morning. For me it is nice and simple, and achieves the purpose without requiring any extra checklists or reminders.
<< The only thing I still can't get quite rigth with it are things that I have to do daily exactly once. I tend to work these straight out from the diary and not be able to focus as much on the FVP list as I want to, until those are dealt with. >>
If that's working, I don't see why you would need to change it.
But I struggled with the same thing. I was using DIT with my daily will-do checklist and my task diary, just before switching to FVP. At first I wasn't sure how to handle that daily checklist, but with some trial and error I found a simple approach that works great for me: After I complete a recurring task that I don't want to see again till tomorrow, I enter it a page or two beyond the end of the list. Then I don't see it at all till I activate that page (which happens simply by filling up the page immediately previous).
This isn't perfect - I often activate that page before the day is done. But it gets those tasks off of my active list for a while, so I don't have to keep saying to myself, "ignore this until tomorrow". :-) It also tends to have the effect of grouping all such tasks at the top of that page, where I can ignore them for now, and where they will tend to jump out at me tomorrow morning. For me it is nice and simple, and achieves the purpose without requiring any extra checklists or reminders.
August 19, 2015 at 7:10 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Christopher: How many of these "exactly once a day" tasks do you have?
I have only three such items that need to be written down. I put them on a sticky note and move the note from page to page each day. I've been doing this for a few weeks. After I do an item, I put a mark next to it. I try to use a different mark each day until there's no more room on the note, and then I start again with a new one.
The obvious disadvantages are that it's messy; potentially gets in the way (I keep mine on the left pages where I don't write anything); isn't as fun as crossing things out; wouldn't work if I had more tasks than can fit on a single note; and it sort-of bypasses the algorithm since the sticky note "floats".
On the other hand, it does keep my daily tasks together, which encourages me to get them all done at once or at least think of all three as things I should do each day.
My "daily tasks" are things that I should be able to do automatically without writing them down, but haven't yet become habits (and won't ever, necessarily, even if they should). For example, "brush my teeth" doesn't get written down because I'll brush anyway, but "floss" is in writing because it's a miracle if I do it twice a week, even with a daily reminder, after decades of self-nagging.
If I had more than a handful of daily tasks, I'd probably make a checklist (which I would keep in my notebook, maybe taped to the back cover) and add as many columns as possible, one for each day, to check off each task. As a bonus, it's an automatic visual indicator of performance as the columns fill up. I've been trying to avoid getting too caught up in metrics, but this would be a very easy way to see whether I'm improving over time.
I realize this would take the daily tasks out of FVP completely, but you can add a "work checklist" task to the FVP list. This would NOT be an "exactly once per day" task; you'd cross it out and re-enter it as many times as necessary to get through that checklist each day. (And you could probably work the checklist itself with the FVP algorithm.)
It's just a thought. A lot of my ideas sound great in my head, but don't work so well in practice. But if you have a lot of daily items, and especially if you want to be able to track them from day to day, I would think it would be so much easier to maintain the checklist separately from (but physically attached to) the FVP list.
(I've tried Seraphim's way of entering "not yet" tasks on a later page, but it sort of bugs me, like having a blank row in an Excel spreadsheet.)
I have only three such items that need to be written down. I put them on a sticky note and move the note from page to page each day. I've been doing this for a few weeks. After I do an item, I put a mark next to it. I try to use a different mark each day until there's no more room on the note, and then I start again with a new one.
The obvious disadvantages are that it's messy; potentially gets in the way (I keep mine on the left pages where I don't write anything); isn't as fun as crossing things out; wouldn't work if I had more tasks than can fit on a single note; and it sort-of bypasses the algorithm since the sticky note "floats".
On the other hand, it does keep my daily tasks together, which encourages me to get them all done at once or at least think of all three as things I should do each day.
My "daily tasks" are things that I should be able to do automatically without writing them down, but haven't yet become habits (and won't ever, necessarily, even if they should). For example, "brush my teeth" doesn't get written down because I'll brush anyway, but "floss" is in writing because it's a miracle if I do it twice a week, even with a daily reminder, after decades of self-nagging.
If I had more than a handful of daily tasks, I'd probably make a checklist (which I would keep in my notebook, maybe taped to the back cover) and add as many columns as possible, one for each day, to check off each task. As a bonus, it's an automatic visual indicator of performance as the columns fill up. I've been trying to avoid getting too caught up in metrics, but this would be a very easy way to see whether I'm improving over time.
I realize this would take the daily tasks out of FVP completely, but you can add a "work checklist" task to the FVP list. This would NOT be an "exactly once per day" task; you'd cross it out and re-enter it as many times as necessary to get through that checklist each day. (And you could probably work the checklist itself with the FVP algorithm.)
It's just a thought. A lot of my ideas sound great in my head, but don't work so well in practice. But if you have a lot of daily items, and especially if you want to be able to track them from day to day, I would think it would be so much easier to maintain the checklist separately from (but physically attached to) the FVP list.
(I've tried Seraphim's way of entering "not yet" tasks on a later page, but it sort of bugs me, like having a blank row in an Excel spreadsheet.)
August 19, 2015 at 18:45 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
Christopher:
<< The only thing I still can't get quite rigth with it are things that I have to do daily exactly once. >>
This just shows how different people react differently to the same thing. For me, this type of task is the easiest to deal with in FVP.
<< The only thing I still can't get quite rigth with it are things that I have to do daily exactly once. >>
This just shows how different people react differently to the same thing. For me, this type of task is the easiest to deal with in FVP.
August 19, 2015 at 20:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi,
In answer to this question: Yes, FVP is the perfect time management system for me. I get more of the right things done and with less stress.
THings finally clicked when I did the following:
1) Really understand the rules
2) Move off Excel to paper
3) Move from a Moleskine like notebook to a looseleaf binder using wide ruled notebook pages and a pencil.
4) Start a new page in the AM and do a mind dump. I then go back to the last dotted task on the full FVP list and work from there, per the rules.
5) Print out daily routine tasks and add them to the FVP notebook binder. Treat them like any other task. Pull and trash these pages though at the end of the day regardless if I did them all or not.
6) Do the same thing with appointments in a table view. The appointments are triggers for me to dot when I am ready to prepare for them and a reminder to add a process notes from appointment meeting task as needed.
7) From my GTD days, keep a project list that is separate from FVP, one project per line and look at it once a week. If I think there is a project that does not have actions in the FVP list I add it to the end of the list.
8) Like Seraphim has mentioned, I don't have a weed (or even read) list task. With daily minddumps and weekly project review plus the FVP process itself, I trust I am not missing anything of importance.
Thanks (once again) Mark!
In answer to this question: Yes, FVP is the perfect time management system for me. I get more of the right things done and with less stress.
THings finally clicked when I did the following:
1) Really understand the rules
2) Move off Excel to paper
3) Move from a Moleskine like notebook to a looseleaf binder using wide ruled notebook pages and a pencil.
4) Start a new page in the AM and do a mind dump. I then go back to the last dotted task on the full FVP list and work from there, per the rules.
5) Print out daily routine tasks and add them to the FVP notebook binder. Treat them like any other task. Pull and trash these pages though at the end of the day regardless if I did them all or not.
6) Do the same thing with appointments in a table view. The appointments are triggers for me to dot when I am ready to prepare for them and a reminder to add a process notes from appointment meeting task as needed.
7) From my GTD days, keep a project list that is separate from FVP, one project per line and look at it once a week. If I think there is a project that does not have actions in the FVP list I add it to the end of the list.
8) Like Seraphim has mentioned, I don't have a weed (or even read) list task. With daily minddumps and weekly project review plus the FVP process itself, I trust I am not missing anything of importance.
Thanks (once again) Mark!
August 23, 2015 at 20:48 |
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones
Vegheadjones - I really like some of these ideas. You've almost got me convinced to switch to a 3-ring binder! I've been resisting the idea, for various theoretical reasons. I guess the thing to do is try it and see if it works!
August 24, 2015 at 1:52 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2015/5/8/the-perfect-time-management-system.html
Three months hence, could you say that all promises of FVP have been delivered to you? If not, why?
As for me, yes, almost all of the promises in that post have been delivered (the only one that did not was "It’s equally suitable for pen and paper or electronic means" because electronic means we're slower, but it's not that big of a deal) but only after clearing up all the misconceptions I had of the system after airing them out.