FV and FVP Forum > FVP Question
"You're not really testing anything."
Incorrect. That's exactly what I'm doing, Christopher.
"31 variants of question is bonkers"
According to that reasoning, Mark must be the most bonkers of all with his non double-blind placebo controlled trials behind the scenes to create his books, articles, comments, blog posts, and systems! What's actually bonkers is your attraction to this community, Chris, and your inability to comprehend the thread that you're posting in. Have you even read what this thread is for? It's for testing and settling on a new question. This thread isn't about you and your general opinions, Chris.
"just another more pernicious form of system-hopping."
Incorrect. I am not involved in another more pernicious form of system hopping. I'm testing for a better question for FVP, as is the point of this thread. Be sure to read and understand the context before commenting.
Chris, I want you to concentrate on staying on topic in a thread and consistently controlling yourself from derailing the discussions.
I was agreeing with your comments recently and was surprised at the politeness, humbleness, and maturity I was seeing. You were becoming helpful. I thought perhaps you'd grown during your break from the forum. I was waiting to positively respond to those comments as I've seen your patterns here. I know in the past your comments have eventually dissolved back into immature, holier than thou, snide remarks and baiting, and I wasn't going to applaud your growth just to have you start baiting and mocking people again.
We're all looking forward to your social growth and your future polite and positive contributions here. I know Mark and I are also looking forward to your full, non-flippant answers to the questions he asked you before you left the forum and again upon your return. How about rolling up your sleeves and doing that, right now, Chris?
Incorrect. That's exactly what I'm doing, Christopher.
"31 variants of question is bonkers"
According to that reasoning, Mark must be the most bonkers of all with his non double-blind placebo controlled trials behind the scenes to create his books, articles, comments, blog posts, and systems! What's actually bonkers is your attraction to this community, Chris, and your inability to comprehend the thread that you're posting in. Have you even read what this thread is for? It's for testing and settling on a new question. This thread isn't about you and your general opinions, Chris.
"just another more pernicious form of system-hopping."
Incorrect. I am not involved in another more pernicious form of system hopping. I'm testing for a better question for FVP, as is the point of this thread. Be sure to read and understand the context before commenting.
Chris, I want you to concentrate on staying on topic in a thread and consistently controlling yourself from derailing the discussions.
I was agreeing with your comments recently and was surprised at the politeness, humbleness, and maturity I was seeing. You were becoming helpful. I thought perhaps you'd grown during your break from the forum. I was waiting to positively respond to those comments as I've seen your patterns here. I know in the past your comments have eventually dissolved back into immature, holier than thou, snide remarks and baiting, and I wasn't going to applaud your growth just to have you start baiting and mocking people again.
We're all looking forward to your social growth and your future polite and positive contributions here. I know Mark and I are also looking forward to your full, non-flippant answers to the questions he asked you before you left the forum and again upon your return. How about rolling up your sleeves and doing that, right now, Chris?
August 29, 2015 at 16:48 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
"According to that reasoning, Mark must be the most bonkers of all"
Except I'm talking to you with your 31 questions, not Mark. Mark doesn't have to justify himself. When he posts a new form of the question he tends to explain how he tested it, how he found it works in practice and why he feels it adds something compared with the previous question. And he doesn't do it lightly because lots of thought goes into the system and the specific wording of the question, a common theme in Mark's systems. You're not doing that at all. You're just banging out quantity and the noise is washing out the interesting nuances of what makes a question work and not work. That's my opinion and I post my opinions just like everyone else, a privilege you certainly availed yourself of in your reply. I'm straight to the point so if you post in this forum and you don't like that then you will need to ignore me.
"But right now I should..." "But now I should...". What's are the differences? Are there any practical differences? How are you testing those differences? How will you evaluate each question in an objective way? So I'm calling you on it, all these bland variants devalue FVP. So many similar variants gives you plenty of wiggle room to game FVP and round off the pointy bits that actually prick you, make you get up and get some awkward work done. And it adds very little for anyone else reading here without explaining what's different like Mark does. Don't like something? Change the question today and avoid it! Realise that that's what you're doing to yourself, just like when you tried all your previous productivity systems looking for The One? No chance!
So you see, I understand this thread far more deeply than you imagine I do. I suggest you focus on the topic, not me, and rather than posting questions 32 through 50 over the next fortnight, explain to everyone what you are looking for in a question, how you've arrived at these 31 variants, how you're testing the differences between them and what you're using as success criteria for a specific wording of the question to show its merits. And perhaps most importantly why is it objectively any better than the original, carefully thought through question that Mark used? If it's not really that different, or you cannot articulate why you feel it adds any value, then stop obsessing over trivial wording and just get on and use FVP.
Chris
Except I'm talking to you with your 31 questions, not Mark. Mark doesn't have to justify himself. When he posts a new form of the question he tends to explain how he tested it, how he found it works in practice and why he feels it adds something compared with the previous question. And he doesn't do it lightly because lots of thought goes into the system and the specific wording of the question, a common theme in Mark's systems. You're not doing that at all. You're just banging out quantity and the noise is washing out the interesting nuances of what makes a question work and not work. That's my opinion and I post my opinions just like everyone else, a privilege you certainly availed yourself of in your reply. I'm straight to the point so if you post in this forum and you don't like that then you will need to ignore me.
"But right now I should..." "But now I should...". What's are the differences? Are there any practical differences? How are you testing those differences? How will you evaluate each question in an objective way? So I'm calling you on it, all these bland variants devalue FVP. So many similar variants gives you plenty of wiggle room to game FVP and round off the pointy bits that actually prick you, make you get up and get some awkward work done. And it adds very little for anyone else reading here without explaining what's different like Mark does. Don't like something? Change the question today and avoid it! Realise that that's what you're doing to yourself, just like when you tried all your previous productivity systems looking for The One? No chance!
So you see, I understand this thread far more deeply than you imagine I do. I suggest you focus on the topic, not me, and rather than posting questions 32 through 50 over the next fortnight, explain to everyone what you are looking for in a question, how you've arrived at these 31 variants, how you're testing the differences between them and what you're using as success criteria for a specific wording of the question to show its merits. And perhaps most importantly why is it objectively any better than the original, carefully thought through question that Mark used? If it's not really that different, or you cannot articulate why you feel it adds any value, then stop obsessing over trivial wording and just get on and use FVP.
Chris
August 29, 2015 at 21:31 |
Chris
Chris
I love this place ;-)
August 30, 2015 at 0:55 |
Hayden Roberts
Hayden Roberts
Chris: " And it adds very little for anyone else reading here without explaining what's different like Mark does."
Please, speak for yourself.
Please, speak for yourself.
August 31, 2015 at 16:44 |
JulieBulie
JulieBulie
"Please, speak for yourself."
It wasn't an opinon, JulieBulie, it was a observation regarding missing data. And if you're concerned about people speaking for you, you might want to re-read what I was responding to and voice your concerns there.
Chris
It wasn't an opinon, JulieBulie, it was a observation regarding missing data. And if you're concerned about people speaking for you, you might want to re-read what I was responding to and voice your concerns there.
Chris
September 1, 2015 at 2:45 |
Chris
Chris
"Tactical Trolls: This is where the troller takes the game more seriously, creates a credible persona to gain confidence of others, and provokes strife in a subtle and invidious way."
— Netlingo
— Netlingo
September 1, 2015 at 13:55 |
Michael B.
Michael B.
Michael B, totally uncalled for, and totally untrue.
September 1, 2015 at 14:34 |
Chris
Chris
Michael B, Chris and everyone:
Enough. Could we just agree please not to make personal remarks about other commenters.
Enough. Could we just agree please not to make personal remarks about other commenters.
September 1, 2015 at 17:52 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
No problem here, I haven't made any, I'm only questioning the creation of so many practically identical FVP questions and wondering how they can be any more advantageous than the original question.
I'll explain myself. The original question is "What do I want to do more than x?" where the meaning of "want" is left undefined. Imagine three objectives which I want to get done soon and which will involve multiple steps, and that I have tasks for all these on an FVP list.
1. Research and buy a new car
2. Prepare a meal for 12 the day after tomorrow
3. Wash all the windows outside the house
Now imagine that the meal is 'on my mind' because it's coming up fast and there's little room for messing about. I look at my list and ask the question "What do I want to do more than x?". Because the meal is on my mind this sets a context for the question. Rewriting the question in each context you get:
1. What do I want to do more than x to help me research a car?
2. What do I want to do more than x to help me prepare a meal for 12?
3. What do I want to do more than x to help me wash all the windows?
Now imagine I've changed the question to "What should I do before x?" The use of the word "should" has imposed a context on the question. I might feel like researching cars but the use of the word "should" imposes the relative urgency of the meal tasks so they stand out more.
Now imagine the question is "What could I do before x?". The question now feels more like it's acknowledging what's on my mind, but that I want to do something more amenable before it. So now I'd feel that the car related stuff is standing out because I could do that before I do the meal stuff. I shouldn't, but I could.
When I look at these variants:
6. What will I start first?
7. What should be done first?
8. What needs doing first?
9. What needs starting first?
10. What is in my best interests first?
there might be explicit grammatical differences between them but for me the feeling is the same in each case, they're leading me to the stuff that has a sense of urgency and immovability to it, the meal tasks in this case. So if I was paring down these question changes I'd identify a difference between should and could but not between 9 and 10. Then I could articulate that, as I've just done.
Questionless FVP is interesting because it allows what's on your mind to essentially set the unspoken question. If the meal is on my mind then the sense of urgency will drive different comparisons to the more relaxed state of the car being on my mind. In all cases the same base question "What do I want to do more than x" is present with the "[to help me to do y]?" being implied by the unspoken context.
In otherwords I think FVP works well either in questionless form, in which case contextual meaning in the moment drives the selections, or else a specific type of question which forces a type of selection, but if the specific type of question is itself in response to contextual meaning in the moment, then the original question is quite simply adequate, since everything else derives from the way "want" is interpreted in the moment with whatever is pressing on your mind.
Which is a roundabout analysis to show that the original question suffices, questionless FVP drives the correct selection, and specific questions have very specific uses if selected carefully to change the feel of the selection, not just the wording. You summed up the consequence of this with "What exactly is meant by “want” in this context is deliberately left undefined. There may be a whole variety of reasons why you might want to do one thing more than another thing and all of them are valid."
So I can understand a difference between "What do I want to do before x?" and "What would bring me more stillness than x?" but I don't see any difference between "But right now I should" and "But now I should", two examples I've asked about.
I hope that explains my interest in this thread and my thoughts on question-creep.
Chris
I'll explain myself. The original question is "What do I want to do more than x?" where the meaning of "want" is left undefined. Imagine three objectives which I want to get done soon and which will involve multiple steps, and that I have tasks for all these on an FVP list.
1. Research and buy a new car
2. Prepare a meal for 12 the day after tomorrow
3. Wash all the windows outside the house
Now imagine that the meal is 'on my mind' because it's coming up fast and there's little room for messing about. I look at my list and ask the question "What do I want to do more than x?". Because the meal is on my mind this sets a context for the question. Rewriting the question in each context you get:
1. What do I want to do more than x to help me research a car?
2. What do I want to do more than x to help me prepare a meal for 12?
3. What do I want to do more than x to help me wash all the windows?
Now imagine I've changed the question to "What should I do before x?" The use of the word "should" has imposed a context on the question. I might feel like researching cars but the use of the word "should" imposes the relative urgency of the meal tasks so they stand out more.
Now imagine the question is "What could I do before x?". The question now feels more like it's acknowledging what's on my mind, but that I want to do something more amenable before it. So now I'd feel that the car related stuff is standing out because I could do that before I do the meal stuff. I shouldn't, but I could.
When I look at these variants:
6. What will I start first?
7. What should be done first?
8. What needs doing first?
9. What needs starting first?
10. What is in my best interests first?
there might be explicit grammatical differences between them but for me the feeling is the same in each case, they're leading me to the stuff that has a sense of urgency and immovability to it, the meal tasks in this case. So if I was paring down these question changes I'd identify a difference between should and could but not between 9 and 10. Then I could articulate that, as I've just done.
Questionless FVP is interesting because it allows what's on your mind to essentially set the unspoken question. If the meal is on my mind then the sense of urgency will drive different comparisons to the more relaxed state of the car being on my mind. In all cases the same base question "What do I want to do more than x" is present with the "[to help me to do y]?" being implied by the unspoken context.
In otherwords I think FVP works well either in questionless form, in which case contextual meaning in the moment drives the selections, or else a specific type of question which forces a type of selection, but if the specific type of question is itself in response to contextual meaning in the moment, then the original question is quite simply adequate, since everything else derives from the way "want" is interpreted in the moment with whatever is pressing on your mind.
Which is a roundabout analysis to show that the original question suffices, questionless FVP drives the correct selection, and specific questions have very specific uses if selected carefully to change the feel of the selection, not just the wording. You summed up the consequence of this with "What exactly is meant by “want” in this context is deliberately left undefined. There may be a whole variety of reasons why you might want to do one thing more than another thing and all of them are valid."
So I can understand a difference between "What do I want to do before x?" and "What would bring me more stillness than x?" but I don't see any difference between "But right now I should" and "But now I should", two examples I've asked about.
I hope that explains my interest in this thread and my thoughts on question-creep.
Chris
September 1, 2015 at 19:13 |
Chris
Chris
Chris - your comments make sense in theory, but in practice a small variation in "the question" can have a surprisingly large effect. I don't pretend to have an explanation for this phenomenon. It is merely an observation shared by many!
September 2, 2015 at 3:32 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Just chiming in to say that I really appreciate Chris' perspective because he works the same way that I do at work - make a list (not even all the time but sometimes to organize thoughts/list steps) and "just get 'er done".
I tried FVP and didn't take to it. Not sure why. Still use AF1 at home quite regularly on a 2 week closed list plus open portion that I try not to go into (it becomes the next 2 week closed list after a review to ensure everything on it is still relevant - ie. pre-dismissal). I don't think of it as a time management system as much as an anti-procrastination system. Maybe they are the same thing, I don't know.
Work is easy because I resist very little and my current work is well-defined. Home is harder because I'm often tired (from work) and feel somewhat overwhelmed at all the options of things I "could/should" do - and too many things I don't really like doing. Playing the closing game helps.
I did an experiment some years ago while working with AF with some contract work I was just dreading and a statement/question that I found on a CBT site. It was stating 'I choose to...' Somehow it triggered a desire in me to do these things and to realize that truly, I did have a choice of whether or not to do them that day or ever. I can't fathom doing that multiple times a day though. I feel it would lose its effectiveness and seems more of a "big gun" approach.
Anyhoo, back to your previously scheduled question discussion... which seems a little... interesting from an outsider/non-user's perspective but whatever floats the boat.
I tried FVP and didn't take to it. Not sure why. Still use AF1 at home quite regularly on a 2 week closed list plus open portion that I try not to go into (it becomes the next 2 week closed list after a review to ensure everything on it is still relevant - ie. pre-dismissal). I don't think of it as a time management system as much as an anti-procrastination system. Maybe they are the same thing, I don't know.
Work is easy because I resist very little and my current work is well-defined. Home is harder because I'm often tired (from work) and feel somewhat overwhelmed at all the options of things I "could/should" do - and too many things I don't really like doing. Playing the closing game helps.
I did an experiment some years ago while working with AF with some contract work I was just dreading and a statement/question that I found on a CBT site. It was stating 'I choose to...' Somehow it triggered a desire in me to do these things and to realize that truly, I did have a choice of whether or not to do them that day or ever. I can't fathom doing that multiple times a day though. I feel it would lose its effectiveness and seems more of a "big gun" approach.
Anyhoo, back to your previously scheduled question discussion... which seems a little... interesting from an outsider/non-user's perspective but whatever floats the boat.
September 2, 2015 at 4:34 |
Jacqueline
Jacqueline
A look back of the past six months gave me an inkling of the possible reasons for the phenomenon we've been seeing here, of the large effect a small change in the question can have on FVP.
When I started using FVP I had been reporting problems using it. In hindsight, it could have been the question. You see, Mark Forster did say that the question "What do I want more than x?" was made deliberately vague so that it can adapt to any situation and context as we needed it. The problem arises, though, when we don't know what we want, or specifically [[why]] we want something.
This was the time when I went home from the US, giving up my job, to my home country because my father got sick. My father eventually passed away last June, and I just came back the end of August. Understandably this was the time I was feeling lost, and of course that reflected on my use of FVP. "Want" was too vague to be of any use to me at that time, and the first task was no help either. Questionless FVP was no different.
Changing the question alleviated some of the difficulties. Including "joy", "love", and "start" in the question gave direction to the "want": what do I want that would give me joy, or let me love more, or let me start something?
Looking back, it seems knowing [[why]] you want something is one of the most important factors for making FVP work, and I think that is what is being affected by the changing of the question.
That also could be the reason why some users such as Chris and Seraphim have no problems using FVP. They know what they want: not get swamped in their work. In such an environment not only do they have a clear goal, but they cannot afford to doubt on why they want.
However other people such as myself only use FVP at home, where the environment is more relaxed and the goals are less defined. There, the goals are what you decide on, and sometimes you need more guidance, hence the big effect of changing the question.
Finally, there is the effect of changing how I start chains. The tweak I am using starts chains with the task that stands out in the first page. This has made FVP much easier for me. I think the reason for this is that by analyzing all the tasks in the first page I give myself the time not only to know what I want but more importantly why, and that guides me in choosing the next tasks in the chain. This explains why it "seems to guide me on what kinds of tasks I choose next for the chain, sort of like how "Dotting Power" works but in a more subconscious way," as I posted earlier.
When I started using FVP I had been reporting problems using it. In hindsight, it could have been the question. You see, Mark Forster did say that the question "What do I want more than x?" was made deliberately vague so that it can adapt to any situation and context as we needed it. The problem arises, though, when we don't know what we want, or specifically [[why]] we want something.
This was the time when I went home from the US, giving up my job, to my home country because my father got sick. My father eventually passed away last June, and I just came back the end of August. Understandably this was the time I was feeling lost, and of course that reflected on my use of FVP. "Want" was too vague to be of any use to me at that time, and the first task was no help either. Questionless FVP was no different.
Changing the question alleviated some of the difficulties. Including "joy", "love", and "start" in the question gave direction to the "want": what do I want that would give me joy, or let me love more, or let me start something?
Looking back, it seems knowing [[why]] you want something is one of the most important factors for making FVP work, and I think that is what is being affected by the changing of the question.
That also could be the reason why some users such as Chris and Seraphim have no problems using FVP. They know what they want: not get swamped in their work. In such an environment not only do they have a clear goal, but they cannot afford to doubt on why they want.
However other people such as myself only use FVP at home, where the environment is more relaxed and the goals are less defined. There, the goals are what you decide on, and sometimes you need more guidance, hence the big effect of changing the question.
Finally, there is the effect of changing how I start chains. The tweak I am using starts chains with the task that stands out in the first page. This has made FVP much easier for me. I think the reason for this is that by analyzing all the tasks in the first page I give myself the time not only to know what I want but more importantly why, and that guides me in choosing the next tasks in the chain. This explains why it "seems to guide me on what kinds of tasks I choose next for the chain, sort of like how "Dotting Power" works but in a more subconscious way," as I posted earlier.
September 5, 2015 at 17:41 |
nuntym
nuntym
Sorry for my late response to this part of the thread!
Mark Forster wrote:
<< I happened to be reading Evagrios the Solitary in the Philokalia this afternoon (as one does) >>
LOL! I love your sense of humor Mark. :-)
By the way, there is a newer (and I think, better) translation of the Philokalia available - it's not complete, but does include Saint Evagrios. It was translated by the ever-memorable Dr. Constantine Cavarnos (who reposed as Monk Constantine a few years back here in Arizona). http://www.amazon.com/Philokalia-Love-Beautiful-Prof-Constantine-Cavarnos/dp/1884729797 I like this translation better than the one by His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos and colleagues -- the language is clearer, more accurate, less academic (though I also greatly admire Metropolitan Kallistos and his many works!)
<< and it struck me that a good question would be "What would bring me more stillness than x?" >>
The discussion seems to have faded away, but how did this work out for you? What were your conclusions?
I wrote a longer reply but am not really happy with it yet, so in the meantime I will give you my short version. To get my focus more in tune with the spiritual direction I want it to go in, I've found Greg McKeown's "most important hour of your life" exercise to be really useful. http://gregmckeown.com/blog/important-hour-life/
I haven't tried it with FVP yet, probably because I have been so driven by the tyranny of the urgent these past weeks. But it seems like it would work really well as an FVP question: "What would I do first if I only had one month to live?"
This really brings things into focus for me -- am I actually READY to die? Am I spiritually prepared? Have I at least confessed all my sins? Is there anyone with whom I need to be reconciled? Are my worldly affairs in order so that my wife and family would be OK? If not, why not? Don't I realize this could happen at any time, and the consequences are permanent and eternal?
I've used this method many times, for getting focused on the things that really matter. But I've usually applied it by stepping away and thinking hard about the larger picture: commitments and larger questions. It has an incredible focusing effect, especially as you draw it out as he recommends, starting with a week, then a month, then a year, and so on. For example, if you have only a week to live, you probably aren't concerned with getting a paycheck. But if you have a year or more, maybe I would need a paycheck for a good portion of that period -- do I really want to try to live off savings all that time and take away from whatever funds my family will have to live on? and this puts work/job/career in a different kind of light.
It's a very worthwhile exercise, and very much in tune with another precept of the Desert Fathers (and the Gospel!), to frequently ponder our own death, to keep it always in mind, and to always be prepared.
Mark Forster wrote:
<< I happened to be reading Evagrios the Solitary in the Philokalia this afternoon (as one does) >>
LOL! I love your sense of humor Mark. :-)
By the way, there is a newer (and I think, better) translation of the Philokalia available - it's not complete, but does include Saint Evagrios. It was translated by the ever-memorable Dr. Constantine Cavarnos (who reposed as Monk Constantine a few years back here in Arizona). http://www.amazon.com/Philokalia-Love-Beautiful-Prof-Constantine-Cavarnos/dp/1884729797 I like this translation better than the one by His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos and colleagues -- the language is clearer, more accurate, less academic (though I also greatly admire Metropolitan Kallistos and his many works!)
<< and it struck me that a good question would be "What would bring me more stillness than x?" >>
The discussion seems to have faded away, but how did this work out for you? What were your conclusions?
I wrote a longer reply but am not really happy with it yet, so in the meantime I will give you my short version. To get my focus more in tune with the spiritual direction I want it to go in, I've found Greg McKeown's "most important hour of your life" exercise to be really useful. http://gregmckeown.com/blog/important-hour-life/
I haven't tried it with FVP yet, probably because I have been so driven by the tyranny of the urgent these past weeks. But it seems like it would work really well as an FVP question: "What would I do first if I only had one month to live?"
This really brings things into focus for me -- am I actually READY to die? Am I spiritually prepared? Have I at least confessed all my sins? Is there anyone with whom I need to be reconciled? Are my worldly affairs in order so that my wife and family would be OK? If not, why not? Don't I realize this could happen at any time, and the consequences are permanent and eternal?
I've used this method many times, for getting focused on the things that really matter. But I've usually applied it by stepping away and thinking hard about the larger picture: commitments and larger questions. It has an incredible focusing effect, especially as you draw it out as he recommends, starting with a week, then a month, then a year, and so on. For example, if you have only a week to live, you probably aren't concerned with getting a paycheck. But if you have a year or more, maybe I would need a paycheck for a good portion of that period -- do I really want to try to live off savings all that time and take away from whatever funds my family will have to live on? and this puts work/job/career in a different kind of light.
It's a very worthwhile exercise, and very much in tune with another precept of the Desert Fathers (and the Gospel!), to frequently ponder our own death, to keep it always in mind, and to always be prepared.
September 6, 2015 at 0:37 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
nuntym wrote:
<< That also could be the reason why some users such as Chris and Seraphim have no problems using FVP. They know what they want: not get swamped in their work. In such an environment not only do they have a clear goal, but they cannot afford to doubt on why they want. >>
Actually I'd put this a little differently. There is always more opportunity to do things than I could ever possibly do. And the goals are almost never really clear -- quite often I have to define them myself (which can be a blessing or a curse, I suppose).
When the environment gets really crazy, the situation transforms into far more demands on my time than I can possibly meet. And that's when two things become really important for me: (1) Lots of things must get dropped -- but don't drop anything that will have a big negative impact if it gets dropped. (2) Don't let the chaos take my attention away from the things that only I can do that will have the most impact in the long run (half the time I don't even know what they are).
In the midst of the storm, it's not easy to figure all this out. One day, something may seem super important, but the next day's meetings and conversations make that thing seem a lot less relevant. So sometimes the best strategy is to wait a bit and see which of the many items clamoring for attention actually have staying power. Some things just seem to take care of themselves -- the need goes away, or someone else takes care of it, and that's all fine.
FVP is really good at sorting this all out. Or rather, I should say, FVP is a good framework for allowing me to see the things that have real momentum and value, compared to the things that are simply making a lot of noise, and then to apply my own intuition and discrimination to do the right work with the right level of effort. Sometimes I am really surprised by how it all works out -- especially at how often I think something needs 2-3 hours of work but in the end I did a decent job getting the key elements completed in 10 or 15 minutes.
It can still be quite overwhelming and FVP is not a panacea. The overloaded calendars, conflicting objectives, overwhelming volume of email, etc., are all draining and stressful and unsustainable.
But FVP does allow me to find the best balance to get through this and establish some kind of strategy for attacking the root causes of this situation. For example, when the current storm passes, and I'm able to catch my breath a little, I can just apply some "dotting power" to step back and think, "OK how can we make sure THAT never happens again?", maybe write down a few ideas, then follow the algorithm, and see what stands out! This has helped me to find new ways to delegate large chunks of my work, get my manager to agree to deprioritize commitments, and so on. This gives me hope that a more reasonable and sustainable workload may be possible in the future. :-)
<< However other people such as myself only use FVP at home, where the environment is more relaxed and the goals are less defined. There, the goals are what you decide on, and sometimes you need more guidance, hence the big effect of changing the question. >>
LOL, my home life is pretty crazy, even more demanding than work: more diverse challenges, a broader range of things we are trying to accomplish, and (especially) more constraints on time.
Hm, this does lead me to think, maybe FVP really *thrives* on a challenging workload with changing priorities and objectives? Maybe if FVP isn't working for you, you need to add a couple hundred things to your list and see if that helps? Only half joking. LOL
<< That also could be the reason why some users such as Chris and Seraphim have no problems using FVP. They know what they want: not get swamped in their work. In such an environment not only do they have a clear goal, but they cannot afford to doubt on why they want. >>
Actually I'd put this a little differently. There is always more opportunity to do things than I could ever possibly do. And the goals are almost never really clear -- quite often I have to define them myself (which can be a blessing or a curse, I suppose).
When the environment gets really crazy, the situation transforms into far more demands on my time than I can possibly meet. And that's when two things become really important for me: (1) Lots of things must get dropped -- but don't drop anything that will have a big negative impact if it gets dropped. (2) Don't let the chaos take my attention away from the things that only I can do that will have the most impact in the long run (half the time I don't even know what they are).
In the midst of the storm, it's not easy to figure all this out. One day, something may seem super important, but the next day's meetings and conversations make that thing seem a lot less relevant. So sometimes the best strategy is to wait a bit and see which of the many items clamoring for attention actually have staying power. Some things just seem to take care of themselves -- the need goes away, or someone else takes care of it, and that's all fine.
FVP is really good at sorting this all out. Or rather, I should say, FVP is a good framework for allowing me to see the things that have real momentum and value, compared to the things that are simply making a lot of noise, and then to apply my own intuition and discrimination to do the right work with the right level of effort. Sometimes I am really surprised by how it all works out -- especially at how often I think something needs 2-3 hours of work but in the end I did a decent job getting the key elements completed in 10 or 15 minutes.
It can still be quite overwhelming and FVP is not a panacea. The overloaded calendars, conflicting objectives, overwhelming volume of email, etc., are all draining and stressful and unsustainable.
But FVP does allow me to find the best balance to get through this and establish some kind of strategy for attacking the root causes of this situation. For example, when the current storm passes, and I'm able to catch my breath a little, I can just apply some "dotting power" to step back and think, "OK how can we make sure THAT never happens again?", maybe write down a few ideas, then follow the algorithm, and see what stands out! This has helped me to find new ways to delegate large chunks of my work, get my manager to agree to deprioritize commitments, and so on. This gives me hope that a more reasonable and sustainable workload may be possible in the future. :-)
<< However other people such as myself only use FVP at home, where the environment is more relaxed and the goals are less defined. There, the goals are what you decide on, and sometimes you need more guidance, hence the big effect of changing the question. >>
LOL, my home life is pretty crazy, even more demanding than work: more diverse challenges, a broader range of things we are trying to accomplish, and (especially) more constraints on time.
Hm, this does lead me to think, maybe FVP really *thrives* on a challenging workload with changing priorities and objectives? Maybe if FVP isn't working for you, you need to add a couple hundred things to your list and see if that helps? Only half joking. LOL
September 6, 2015 at 1:40 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Speaking of home life, FVP is the only personal time management system of any kind I've ever made a serious effort to share with my family. My three oldest sons are now all getting started with it. One of them (in his first semester at University) is reporting that it's really helping him a lot! Great stuff!
September 6, 2015 at 1:47 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
In my humble, relaxed opinion.
Chris