Discussion Forum > Common Sense vs Chaos
This is indeed a challenge, for me too. My suggestion: when chaos arrives, do what you have to when you have to. As soon as there's no "have to", immediately go back to the system.
March 2, 2011 at 3:20 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
<<As soon as there's no "have to", immediately go back to the system. >>
If I understand SF correctly, column 2 was designed to do just that i.e. "have to". My problem is simple: If I get stuff done sans system, I think to myself: "Feh, I got stuff done without gtd/af/gsd/SF/7 Habits.... and I'm back to square 1 (that being, oscillating between Quad 1 and Quad 2 activity).
If I understand SF correctly, column 2 was designed to do just that i.e. "have to". My problem is simple: If I get stuff done sans system, I think to myself: "Feh, I got stuff done without gtd/af/gsd/SF/7 Habits.... and I'm back to square 1 (that being, oscillating between Quad 1 and Quad 2 activity).
March 2, 2011 at 3:25 |
avrum
avrum
"Feh, I got stuff done without "
maybe I'm too simplistic, but I suggest your problem is precisely thinking that. It seems you know it yourself too. The solution then is, don't think that :-)
Sure you got away with it an hour or a day, but you need turn back to the "path" before you get lost.
maybe I'm too simplistic, but I suggest your problem is precisely thinking that. It seems you know it yourself too. The solution then is, don't think that :-)
Sure you got away with it an hour or a day, but you need turn back to the "path" before you get lost.
March 2, 2011 at 4:31 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan wrote:
<< As soon as there's no "have to", immediately go back to the system. >>
That's the problem. It starts to build resistance. It's not so easy to "immediately go back".
When I'm working off-system, I am chasing the most urgent thing. After awhile, I chase whatever happens to be moving the fastest or has the brightest colors, masquerading as urgent. I get tired and fuzzy-minded and don't WANT to go back to a system. Just can't handle it. The chaos has worn me out, the cherry-picking has broken all my intuition and I am just NOT anywhere near "the zone" or the "mind like water". Trying to figure out what task is "standing out" just seems too hard -- my mind puts up resistance to it.
And that resistance grows. Making it harder to get back into the system. Especially when I know the system isn't as reliable as I'd like it to be. I want to TRUST it. But when I have to invoke the "common sense" rule too many times, what does that mean, but that I can't really trust the system? It needs so many "common sense" overrides to make it work when the road becomes difficult.
This is why I keep asking about the rules and how they apply in a particular situation. They might seem like edge-cases to some, but for me they are real situations. I need to know I can trust the system, that I can follow its rules and it will work just fine in these situations, 99% of the time.
<< As soon as there's no "have to", immediately go back to the system. >>
That's the problem. It starts to build resistance. It's not so easy to "immediately go back".
When I'm working off-system, I am chasing the most urgent thing. After awhile, I chase whatever happens to be moving the fastest or has the brightest colors, masquerading as urgent. I get tired and fuzzy-minded and don't WANT to go back to a system. Just can't handle it. The chaos has worn me out, the cherry-picking has broken all my intuition and I am just NOT anywhere near "the zone" or the "mind like water". Trying to figure out what task is "standing out" just seems too hard -- my mind puts up resistance to it.
And that resistance grows. Making it harder to get back into the system. Especially when I know the system isn't as reliable as I'd like it to be. I want to TRUST it. But when I have to invoke the "common sense" rule too many times, what does that mean, but that I can't really trust the system? It needs so many "common sense" overrides to make it work when the road becomes difficult.
This is why I keep asking about the rules and how they apply in a particular situation. They might seem like edge-cases to some, but for me they are real situations. I need to know I can trust the system, that I can follow its rules and it will work just fine in these situations, 99% of the time.
March 2, 2011 at 6:01 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim, I'd really be interested with a concrete example of how you work the system... Some scans of your pages or a Skype conversation. I found the rules really clear and self reliant. I encountered the least resistance to tasks with SF3. I honestly have a hard time seeing how it can be so difficult in any environment. Could you share some insight from your perspective with actual concrete examples?
March 2, 2011 at 7:04 |
Erik
Erik
Hi Erik,
The rules are clear. My problem is always the volume of tasks I am dealing with. In Autofocus I typically had over 1200 tasks across 30+ pages. In DWM I also leveled off at about 1200 tasks. (DWM worked pretty well with this actually...) With SF it's stayed smaller, longer, but it still hasn't leveled off. Part of this is being overcommitted both at home and at work. Part of it is I like to explore and still imagine that the Internet is finite. :-) (Mark's systems have cured me of quite a lot of these problems already, but the tendency is still there!)
The main issue is when I find I am processing pages more slowly than I am adding new ones. The last page gets further and further away.
Here's how a typical page works for me. Let's say I have 2 or 3 unfinished tasks I am trying to move forward. One major one, one or two medium ones. Then I get hit with 5 or 6 urgent tasks that must be done within the next few hours (phone call from boss, coworkers, urgent meeting that generated urgent action items, wife needs help with picking up the kids or something, Outlook reminder reminds me to do this or that daily recurring task, etc.). The last page is about 4 or 5 pages away -- well outside the range I could expect to reach in a few hours. Thus almost all those tasks all go in Column 2, current page.
So I keep cycling through my current page, following the "standing out" rules. I take action on the urgent tasks, finishing most in one go, but one or two need to be moved along to the next page. Meanwhile I have a phone meeting or two (there goes an hour or more!); then I often need to take the minutes for these and send them out, which also become urgent tasks.
Many C1 tasks get actioned along the way, since I am cycling through and working on whatever stands out. When I first came to this page, almost none of those items stood out. But I find that the more urgent tasks I add, the more time I spend on the page, cycling through. And that repeated cycling breaks down resistance to the C1 tasks -- "get it done already!" So, many of these get actioned, many completed, maybe 1 or 2 passed along to the next page.
LOTS of work is getting done. But I spend lots of time on each page. Combined with the meetings, going through this one page can easily take 2-4 hours.
So, I finally come to the next page. There's already half a dozen items in C2 -- many still urgent and relatively small, plus some larger items, and usually only 1 really large item. I follow the rules: quickly read through the whole list, then start back at the beginning and take action on whatever stands out. Usually there are at least 1 or 2 C1 items that are already completed -- I just cross them out (which happens to save the whole page from dismissal). The other C1 items usually don't draw any of my attention -- it's the C2 items that do. So, I work on them, one after another, usually finishing many of them, but maybe some of them getting moved along to the next page. (I just follow the rule, "work as long as you want to".)
Then, there's another meeting. And another urgent reminder. (Some of the urgent things are Outlook reminders of tasks that need to be done daily -- and I really LOVE how SF handles them!) And then an urgent request from someone at work, or maybe from my wife.
On a typical visit to a page, C2 usually already has 4-6 urgent tasks that resulted from Outlook reminders, and another 1-3 urgent tasks that come up while processing the page, and then 1-3 unfinished carry over items.
Overall I love how it flows, I love how much I get done, and I am happy to keep working my list from when I get up till way past the time I should be in bed. It really does keep you "in the zone" -- by definition, actually.
Again, the main issue is when I find I am processing pages more slowly than I am adding new ones. The last page gets further and further away. I start to lose track of what's in my list -- especially older pages that I visited several days ago. I don't know when this process will end -- will my list of tasks grow indefinitely? Or will it reach an equilibrium?
DWM *forces* an equilibrium -- and that worked great for me. I really got a sense of the size of my total workload, and whether it was getting to be too much, or whether it was OK for me to take on something new.
AF never did that. And so far, I don't see SF doing that. It just keeps growing.
Ideally, I'd want to see pages being completed faster than they are added -- this means I am clearing backlogs -- and then eventually I'd want to see an equilibrium established, where the total number of open pages stays about the same from day to day. I think I could do that, if I could move more quickly through the pages.
That's why I am trying (starting tomorrow) to enter urgent items on NEXT page, C2 -- Mark said this made it go too fast for him. But that's exactly what I need right now.
The rules are clear. My problem is always the volume of tasks I am dealing with. In Autofocus I typically had over 1200 tasks across 30+ pages. In DWM I also leveled off at about 1200 tasks. (DWM worked pretty well with this actually...) With SF it's stayed smaller, longer, but it still hasn't leveled off. Part of this is being overcommitted both at home and at work. Part of it is I like to explore and still imagine that the Internet is finite. :-) (Mark's systems have cured me of quite a lot of these problems already, but the tendency is still there!)
The main issue is when I find I am processing pages more slowly than I am adding new ones. The last page gets further and further away.
Here's how a typical page works for me. Let's say I have 2 or 3 unfinished tasks I am trying to move forward. One major one, one or two medium ones. Then I get hit with 5 or 6 urgent tasks that must be done within the next few hours (phone call from boss, coworkers, urgent meeting that generated urgent action items, wife needs help with picking up the kids or something, Outlook reminder reminds me to do this or that daily recurring task, etc.). The last page is about 4 or 5 pages away -- well outside the range I could expect to reach in a few hours. Thus almost all those tasks all go in Column 2, current page.
So I keep cycling through my current page, following the "standing out" rules. I take action on the urgent tasks, finishing most in one go, but one or two need to be moved along to the next page. Meanwhile I have a phone meeting or two (there goes an hour or more!); then I often need to take the minutes for these and send them out, which also become urgent tasks.
Many C1 tasks get actioned along the way, since I am cycling through and working on whatever stands out. When I first came to this page, almost none of those items stood out. But I find that the more urgent tasks I add, the more time I spend on the page, cycling through. And that repeated cycling breaks down resistance to the C1 tasks -- "get it done already!" So, many of these get actioned, many completed, maybe 1 or 2 passed along to the next page.
LOTS of work is getting done. But I spend lots of time on each page. Combined with the meetings, going through this one page can easily take 2-4 hours.
So, I finally come to the next page. There's already half a dozen items in C2 -- many still urgent and relatively small, plus some larger items, and usually only 1 really large item. I follow the rules: quickly read through the whole list, then start back at the beginning and take action on whatever stands out. Usually there are at least 1 or 2 C1 items that are already completed -- I just cross them out (which happens to save the whole page from dismissal). The other C1 items usually don't draw any of my attention -- it's the C2 items that do. So, I work on them, one after another, usually finishing many of them, but maybe some of them getting moved along to the next page. (I just follow the rule, "work as long as you want to".)
Then, there's another meeting. And another urgent reminder. (Some of the urgent things are Outlook reminders of tasks that need to be done daily -- and I really LOVE how SF handles them!) And then an urgent request from someone at work, or maybe from my wife.
On a typical visit to a page, C2 usually already has 4-6 urgent tasks that resulted from Outlook reminders, and another 1-3 urgent tasks that come up while processing the page, and then 1-3 unfinished carry over items.
Overall I love how it flows, I love how much I get done, and I am happy to keep working my list from when I get up till way past the time I should be in bed. It really does keep you "in the zone" -- by definition, actually.
Again, the main issue is when I find I am processing pages more slowly than I am adding new ones. The last page gets further and further away. I start to lose track of what's in my list -- especially older pages that I visited several days ago. I don't know when this process will end -- will my list of tasks grow indefinitely? Or will it reach an equilibrium?
DWM *forces* an equilibrium -- and that worked great for me. I really got a sense of the size of my total workload, and whether it was getting to be too much, or whether it was OK for me to take on something new.
AF never did that. And so far, I don't see SF doing that. It just keeps growing.
Ideally, I'd want to see pages being completed faster than they are added -- this means I am clearing backlogs -- and then eventually I'd want to see an equilibrium established, where the total number of open pages stays about the same from day to day. I think I could do that, if I could move more quickly through the pages.
That's why I am trying (starting tomorrow) to enter urgent items on NEXT page, C2 -- Mark said this made it go too fast for him. But that's exactly what I need right now.
March 2, 2011 at 7:55 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I've been lurking a long time but ony just joined the forum. Ive read a lot of what you've been saying Seraphim and one thing struck me. I hope you wont mind me saying so.
Youve identified the problem yourself. Its nothing to do with SF3 or any other system. You can fiddle all you like with the system, but the systems not the problme.
Youre overcommitted. That's your problem. Not the system. Do you really expect a system to sort that out for you?
Go through your 1200 tasks and cut it down by 9/10. Remember what Mark says in DIT Don't cut tasks on their own. Cut commitments. And when you've done it don't let any new ones in without getting rid of an old one.
Youve identified the problem yourself. Its nothing to do with SF3 or any other system. You can fiddle all you like with the system, but the systems not the problme.
Youre overcommitted. That's your problem. Not the system. Do you really expect a system to sort that out for you?
Go through your 1200 tasks and cut it down by 9/10. Remember what Mark says in DIT Don't cut tasks on their own. Cut commitments. And when you've done it don't let any new ones in without getting rid of an old one.
March 2, 2011 at 8:59 |
Meryl
Meryl
@Seraphim: I agree with Meryl 100% (again, see another topic, great minds think alike, fools seldom . . . oops, Roger, stop the sarcasm NOW!)
Perhaps because I have found myself overwhelmed by the sheer volume of outstanding tasks sometimes, I empathise with you.
Perhaps you do need to set aside a quiet time and place on your own and go through the active tasks, maybe in blocks of 50.
For really dramatic effect, ask yourself what would happen to other people in your life if you were physically unable to do each task, due to context/illness/other reasons or death (!). If a task has a perceived nil or minimal effect, then dismiss or delete it.
For other that may have an impact or if you're unsure, transfer these to a separate list (I call mine 'LTBW' = 'Let The B*****d Wait'), then just put in eg LTBW in your active and now shorter task list and revisit this separate list from time to time, maybe as a 'break'.
It's similar to reviewing dismissed tasks, or a project with lots of individual tasks.
Perhaps because I have found myself overwhelmed by the sheer volume of outstanding tasks sometimes, I empathise with you.
Perhaps you do need to set aside a quiet time and place on your own and go through the active tasks, maybe in blocks of 50.
For really dramatic effect, ask yourself what would happen to other people in your life if you were physically unable to do each task, due to context/illness/other reasons or death (!). If a task has a perceived nil or minimal effect, then dismiss or delete it.
For other that may have an impact or if you're unsure, transfer these to a separate list (I call mine 'LTBW' = 'Let The B*****d Wait'), then just put in eg LTBW in your active and now shorter task list and revisit this separate list from time to time, maybe as a 'break'.
It's similar to reviewing dismissed tasks, or a project with lots of individual tasks.
March 2, 2011 at 11:35 |
Roger J
Roger J
You know, if you just get through the list a couple times, the pages are shorter and you'll pick up fewer things. But I see that 6 urgent items really messes up the whole flow. The system would be better if you ignored it to process those urgent items because there's so many.
As for resistance to returning, I feel that too, and my remedy is Mark's "I'll just take out the book". Then I "just" scan the active page. Scan again. And again. Now I'm in the mood for one thing, do it, carry on. And take it as a "must do" to take out the book.
As for resistance to returning, I feel that too, and my remedy is Mark's "I'll just take out the book". Then I "just" scan the active page. Scan again. And again. Now I'm in the mood for one thing, do it, carry on. And take it as a "must do" to take out the book.
March 2, 2011 at 13:31 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Hmmm, Meryl beat me to it.
You are DEFINITELY overcommitting but...
There is a solution that I have found in your use of the system.
I might take this out of context so excuse me for pointing it if it is but there are 3 things I think would help a lot and all of them are linked to dismissing. Taking tasks is ok, the system should filter out overcommitment easily by dismissing. That's why it's there for.
First: Learn or re-learn to dismiss. Dismissing doesn't mean you won't get to it at some point, it only means you have to re-assess your priorities and commitments (one thing done for overcommitting ;)
Second: You are probably using more common sense then rules then most people. Let me explain: If you get to a page and cross off C1 stuff because it was done earlier and simply work on C2 stuff then you HAVE to dismiss that entire page, period. You haven't worked on a C1 task on your pass of the page... Since you dismiss, you are relieving overcommitting again ;)
You are basically using your intuition to do that stuff that was crossed at a more opportune moment which is good but not using the "rules" of the system (hence my saying that you use more common sense then probably most people do). The system is there to balance the relative difficulties/commitments of the tasks by page increments allowing the alleviation of procrastination by comparing one task with another on that list/page. And to finally leave you with all the stuff you are not really committed to or haven't well defined and having to dismiss it... for now. You seem to often do stuff that is not even on the current page, using your better judgment on what the situation is at the moment. All good, but diluting the cycling through the pages.
Third: Often, some things on a page will stand out but you know theres more important stuff on a later page so my advice is that you do one task and move on. Later you'll come back and that stuff will be past due so not necessary to do anymore, guess what you just alleviated overcommitting again ;) If you don't have variation in task difficulties, everything will seem urgent. Give it 1 hour by putting it at the end of your list and you'll see the world won't stop turning.
It's simple, your pages should get dismissed as fast as you put stuff in.
Tell us what you think?
You are DEFINITELY overcommitting but...
There is a solution that I have found in your use of the system.
I might take this out of context so excuse me for pointing it if it is but there are 3 things I think would help a lot and all of them are linked to dismissing. Taking tasks is ok, the system should filter out overcommitment easily by dismissing. That's why it's there for.
First: Learn or re-learn to dismiss. Dismissing doesn't mean you won't get to it at some point, it only means you have to re-assess your priorities and commitments (one thing done for overcommitting ;)
Second: You are probably using more common sense then rules then most people. Let me explain: If you get to a page and cross off C1 stuff because it was done earlier and simply work on C2 stuff then you HAVE to dismiss that entire page, period. You haven't worked on a C1 task on your pass of the page... Since you dismiss, you are relieving overcommitting again ;)
You are basically using your intuition to do that stuff that was crossed at a more opportune moment which is good but not using the "rules" of the system (hence my saying that you use more common sense then probably most people do). The system is there to balance the relative difficulties/commitments of the tasks by page increments allowing the alleviation of procrastination by comparing one task with another on that list/page. And to finally leave you with all the stuff you are not really committed to or haven't well defined and having to dismiss it... for now. You seem to often do stuff that is not even on the current page, using your better judgment on what the situation is at the moment. All good, but diluting the cycling through the pages.
Third: Often, some things on a page will stand out but you know theres more important stuff on a later page so my advice is that you do one task and move on. Later you'll come back and that stuff will be past due so not necessary to do anymore, guess what you just alleviated overcommitting again ;) If you don't have variation in task difficulties, everything will seem urgent. Give it 1 hour by putting it at the end of your list and you'll see the world won't stop turning.
It's simple, your pages should get dismissed as fast as you put stuff in.
Tell us what you think?
March 2, 2011 at 13:43 |
Erik
Erik
Seraphim - you said - DWM *forces* an equilibrium -- and that worked great for me. I really got a sense of the size of my total workload, and whether it was getting to be too much, or whether it was OK for me to take on something new.
It sounds to me like DWM worked better for you than SF is. Why not go back to DWM?
It sounds to me like DWM worked better for you than SF is. Why not go back to DWM?
March 2, 2011 at 14:23 |
Lillian
Lillian
But this is ridiculous. If the solution to Seraphims problem is to dismiss half of what he puts in his list, then u have to ask why he's putting so much on his list that he doesnt need to do. And the same with DWM. Whats all this stuff that hes puting on his list that gets dismissed? Why's it a good thing it gets dismissed? Because he didnt need to do it in the first place thats why.
What he wants is a system that will allow him to put even more on the list so even more can get dismissed. Well to my mind thats just crazy. No offense intended.
What he wants is a system that will allow him to put even more on the list so even more can get dismissed. Well to my mind thats just crazy. No offense intended.
March 2, 2011 at 15:10 |
Meryl
Meryl
@Lillian: Good question. DWM is a good answer to the ever expanding list. Mine is a steady 50 to 90 tasks long. I follow the SF threads and have tried it a couple of times but keep going back to DWM.
March 2, 2011 at 15:20 |
Laurence
Laurence
@Meryl
Me thinks it's a personality thing. Some people just NEED to have the freedom to think they can try to do any and everything they think about, or else they just feel too limited and get frustrated with their life, which can lead to impaired creativity, and maybe even loss of joie de vivre, and depression ?
Yes, everybody SHOULD be a realist, but not everybody is able to (without eventually feeling alienated).
So maybe, for creative / idealist types, DWM would be the better system by letting them "dream on" while still keeping them honest, vs SF which would inflict the dreaded "column 2 pain" as "punishment" for being such an "irresponsible" person (which would end up making them feel miserable) ?
These are just thoughts that popped out without much consideration, I haven't even tryed either system yet...
Me thinks it's a personality thing. Some people just NEED to have the freedom to think they can try to do any and everything they think about, or else they just feel too limited and get frustrated with their life, which can lead to impaired creativity, and maybe even loss of joie de vivre, and depression ?
Yes, everybody SHOULD be a realist, but not everybody is able to (without eventually feeling alienated).
So maybe, for creative / idealist types, DWM would be the better system by letting them "dream on" while still keeping them honest, vs SF which would inflict the dreaded "column 2 pain" as "punishment" for being such an "irresponsible" person (which would end up making them feel miserable) ?
These are just thoughts that popped out without much consideration, I haven't even tryed either system yet...
March 2, 2011 at 15:26 |
Daouda
Daouda
Well if youll excuse me saying so Daouda if hes got to put down every thing he thinks about and its so important for his creative whatnots, then what does it really matter what he does? I mean he could just do anything or nothing couldnt he?
I think hed be better off keeping SF3 for the real world. The things which he really has to do. Then he can go off and do his fantasy stuff as much as he likes - but he doesnt need a system for that does he>
I think hed be better off keeping SF3 for the real world. The things which he really has to do. Then he can go off and do his fantasy stuff as much as he likes - but he doesnt need a system for that does he>
March 2, 2011 at 16:10 |
Meryl
Meryl
Seraphim,
I don't think any system will fix the issue of over commitment. Time management systems will not limit your commitments, pick your priorities nor will they make you work faster - only you can do these things. If the rule says you need to dismiss something because you have not worked on it, but you know it needs to get done you are at a logjam.
I think the overhang of systems and rules may be a drag on your productivity and major distraction for you.
I would suggest you stick to "write it all in one place" for a week or two, let your mind be your guide and forget everything else. Then see what you really need in the way of a system. Good luck
Gerry
I don't think any system will fix the issue of over commitment. Time management systems will not limit your commitments, pick your priorities nor will they make you work faster - only you can do these things. If the rule says you need to dismiss something because you have not worked on it, but you know it needs to get done you are at a logjam.
I think the overhang of systems and rules may be a drag on your productivity and major distraction for you.
I would suggest you stick to "write it all in one place" for a week or two, let your mind be your guide and forget everything else. Then see what you really need in the way of a system. Good luck
Gerry
March 2, 2011 at 16:25 |
Gerry
Gerry
Meryl
I was rather talking about myself there, because although I havent used SF3 yet Im pretty sure I would run into the same problems (overcommitment related) that Seraphim is currently confronted to. But it might not be for the same reasons : from what Ive read, Seraphim is probably more of a responsible person that I am and his problem could rather be related to (as Alan stated it) "Lots of interruptions, little free time".
The result is still the same however : "overcommitment", and the REAL solution also is the same : be more realistic about what you assign yourself to do.
That being said, after reading your last post, Im not sure you would be able to understand the time (or rather life) management issues of the "creative/idealist" people I was talking about :
The "creative whatnots" and "fantasy stuff", as you put it, that these people come up with, NEED to be adressed by the system so they can get a chance to become a part of the "real world". This is the very reason these people are living for... a life filled with nothing but doing the most mundane stuff, or just the stuff they "really have to do", is not worth living for them. As I said, it's a personality thing.
Anyway looking back at my post i realize I expressed myself clumsily :
The good thing about DWM seems to be that it forces people to be more honest with their commitments : simply following the rules takes care of PREVENTING overcommitment.
On the other hand, follwing the rules of SF3 does not prevent overcommitment, but the system will eventually "crash" if one doesnt prevent overcommiting BY HIMSELF.
It seems like the "chronic overcommitter" (which are often creative/idealist types) can find a cure to his bad habits in DWM, while SF would only make him feel miserable not be be able to make such a sensible system work.
I was rather talking about myself there, because although I havent used SF3 yet Im pretty sure I would run into the same problems (overcommitment related) that Seraphim is currently confronted to. But it might not be for the same reasons : from what Ive read, Seraphim is probably more of a responsible person that I am and his problem could rather be related to (as Alan stated it) "Lots of interruptions, little free time".
The result is still the same however : "overcommitment", and the REAL solution also is the same : be more realistic about what you assign yourself to do.
That being said, after reading your last post, Im not sure you would be able to understand the time (or rather life) management issues of the "creative/idealist" people I was talking about :
The "creative whatnots" and "fantasy stuff", as you put it, that these people come up with, NEED to be adressed by the system so they can get a chance to become a part of the "real world". This is the very reason these people are living for... a life filled with nothing but doing the most mundane stuff, or just the stuff they "really have to do", is not worth living for them. As I said, it's a personality thing.
Anyway looking back at my post i realize I expressed myself clumsily :
The good thing about DWM seems to be that it forces people to be more honest with their commitments : simply following the rules takes care of PREVENTING overcommitment.
On the other hand, follwing the rules of SF3 does not prevent overcommitment, but the system will eventually "crash" if one doesnt prevent overcommiting BY HIMSELF.
It seems like the "chronic overcommitter" (which are often creative/idealist types) can find a cure to his bad habits in DWM, while SF would only make him feel miserable not be be able to make such a sensible system work.
March 2, 2011 at 16:51 |
Daouda
Daouda
Im sure I'm not capable of understanding anything Daouda. But it seems common sense to me that the worst place to write down all your creative/idealistic stuff is on the list of things youre going to do. If you want to build castles in the air then the air is the place to build them.
Some other guy was talking about Tolstoy on another thread. I guess he was about as creative/idealistic as you can get but I bet he spent his time writing his novels, not inventing another million things he could do but would never get round to.
Some other guy was talking about Tolstoy on another thread. I guess he was about as creative/idealistic as you can get but I bet he spent his time writing his novels, not inventing another million things he could do but would never get round to.
March 2, 2011 at 17:06 |
Meryl
Meryl
Im sorry Meryl, but I just can't get past the condescending tone in your posts.
"It seems common sense to me", "Isnt it obvious", "creative whatnots" "fantasy stuff", and now "castles in the air"; your advices might be wise, but let me tell you that the way you write them wont make the people who need it most receptive to them. Bottom line, not helpful at all.
"It seems common sense to me", "Isnt it obvious", "creative whatnots" "fantasy stuff", and now "castles in the air"; your advices might be wise, but let me tell you that the way you write them wont make the people who need it most receptive to them. Bottom line, not helpful at all.
March 2, 2011 at 17:14 |
Daouda
Daouda
"Youre overcommitted. That's your problem. Not the system. Do you really expect a system to sort that out for you? "
The answer is to this is yes. In fact SF3 is not intended for the things you will do, but only the things you might do. They aren't commitments at all! SF does balance your work, eventually reaching the following equilibrium:
new stuff - stuff finished = stuff dismissed.
In Seraphim's case, new stuff grows too fast, and we need to reduce that or accelerate dismissal. If there's a lot of duplication, maybe altering the system to get around to stuff faster will suffice. Certainly getting around faster will turn on the column 2 dismissal rule quicker.
Also having more urgent stuff will turn on that rule quicker. And maybe that fact should be considered a good thing, same as the DWM waterfall is a good thing, and not be fought against.
The answer is to this is yes. In fact SF3 is not intended for the things you will do, but only the things you might do. They aren't commitments at all! SF does balance your work, eventually reaching the following equilibrium:
new stuff - stuff finished = stuff dismissed.
In Seraphim's case, new stuff grows too fast, and we need to reduce that or accelerate dismissal. If there's a lot of duplication, maybe altering the system to get around to stuff faster will suffice. Certainly getting around faster will turn on the column 2 dismissal rule quicker.
Also having more urgent stuff will turn on that rule quicker. And maybe that fact should be considered a good thing, same as the DWM waterfall is a good thing, and not be fought against.
March 2, 2011 at 17:37 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Thanks for everyone's replies! It's fun getting so much attention. :-)
Meryl wrote:
<< Youre overcommitted. That's your problem. Not the system. >>
You are absolutely correct!!
<< Do you really expect a system to sort that out for you? >>
Actually, yes I do. Mark always said his AF series of systems can help do that, and I found myself that DWM was especially effective at it. I specifically asked him if SF could do this, and he said he thought it could -- at least that was his experience at the time. Mark is (woefully) familiar with the magnitude of my overcommitment problem, but I think it still surprises him sometimes how I am able to overwhelm his systems. :-)
Meryl wrote:
<< Youre overcommitted. That's your problem. Not the system. >>
You are absolutely correct!!
<< Do you really expect a system to sort that out for you? >>
Actually, yes I do. Mark always said his AF series of systems can help do that, and I found myself that DWM was especially effective at it. I specifically asked him if SF could do this, and he said he thought it could -- at least that was his experience at the time. Mark is (woefully) familiar with the magnitude of my overcommitment problem, but I think it still surprises him sometimes how I am able to overwhelm his systems. :-)
March 2, 2011 at 17:47 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Roger J wrote:
<< Perhaps because I have found myself overwhelmed by the sheer volume of outstanding tasks sometimes, I empathise with you. >>
Thanks Roger for all the suggestions. Actually I do this kind of reflection regularly, alone, and/or with my wife. And I do have some health issues that stop my in my tracks sometimes.
I have gotten a lot better at preventing hare-brained ideas from getting on the list in the first place. Most of what's on the list does need to get done sometime, or is at least related to projects that need to get done. Sometimes they are just ideas, brainstorms, related to my commitments, and these often get dismissed or deleted.
Anyway, thanks again!!
<< Perhaps because I have found myself overwhelmed by the sheer volume of outstanding tasks sometimes, I empathise with you. >>
Thanks Roger for all the suggestions. Actually I do this kind of reflection regularly, alone, and/or with my wife. And I do have some health issues that stop my in my tracks sometimes.
I have gotten a lot better at preventing hare-brained ideas from getting on the list in the first place. Most of what's on the list does need to get done sometime, or is at least related to projects that need to get done. Sometimes they are just ideas, brainstorms, related to my commitments, and these often get dismissed or deleted.
Anyway, thanks again!!
March 2, 2011 at 17:51 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Alan Baljeu wrote:
<< The system would be better if you ignored it to process those urgent items because there's so many. >>
But then I've got to write them down somewhere else. A sticky note will do. But then I lose the sticky note, or I start to accumulate them on the sides of my computer monitor, or stuck in the back of my SF book. And then I start to get anxious. Normally when I'm anxious I just turn to my SF book, and start working, and the anxiety goes away. But in this case, the tasks that are making me anxious aren't even written down there.
Anyway, in short: Been there, done that. :-) It doesn't work for me. I need to have everything in one place.
<< As for resistance to returning, I feel that too, and my remedy is Mark's "I'll just take out the book". >>
Yeah, that works pretty well for me too. :-)
<< The system would be better if you ignored it to process those urgent items because there's so many. >>
But then I've got to write them down somewhere else. A sticky note will do. But then I lose the sticky note, or I start to accumulate them on the sides of my computer monitor, or stuck in the back of my SF book. And then I start to get anxious. Normally when I'm anxious I just turn to my SF book, and start working, and the anxiety goes away. But in this case, the tasks that are making me anxious aren't even written down there.
Anyway, in short: Been there, done that. :-) It doesn't work for me. I need to have everything in one place.
<< As for resistance to returning, I feel that too, and my remedy is Mark's "I'll just take out the book". >>
Yeah, that works pretty well for me too. :-)
March 2, 2011 at 17:55 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Erik wrote:
<< First: Learn or re-learn to dismiss. >>
Actually this is working pretty well. It's been working GREAT since I observed Mark dismissing a bunch of stuff just because he had the flu. I had always operated my list without rules, if I was sick. Mark using dismissal when he didn't feel well enough to do the tasks was a revelation to me. Dismissal is a GREAT tool and I love how it works.
<< Second: You are probably using more common sense then rules then most people. Let me explain: If you get to a page and cross off C1 stuff because it was done earlier and simply work on C2 stuff then you HAVE to dismiss that entire page, period. >>
Actually this has been discussed in the past, and if I remember correctly, Mark said it didn't really matter if you count those as completions or not, for sake of dismissal. For me it functions as a simple straightforward rule.
Just because the items were completed early doesn't mean they were done outside the system. Sometimes the items in question were completed earlier because they were entered more than once in the list (Mark says not to worry about this, don't waste time trying to track down the duplicate entries). Or maybe because they became urgent and got done in C2 somewhere. (Mark says not to worry about tracking down the duplicate entries in that case, too.)
<< Third: Often, some things on a page will stand out but you know theres more important stuff on a later page so my advice is that you do one task and move on. >>
A rule like that would force me to look over all the things on the page, and prioritize among them. I like Mark's "standing out" process better. It produces less anxiety. And if I am familiar with the contents of my list, the "standing out" process takes into account the contents of other pages. If I am NOT familiar with my list, I can enter an urgent item to review it.
<< Give it 1 hour by putting it at the end of your list and you'll see the world won't stop turning. >>
It generally takes me a lot longer than an hour to get to the end of my list.
<< It's simple, your pages should get dismissed as fast as you put stuff in. >>
Yes, exactly, that's the end goal. The problem I am trying to avoid is an ever-growing list. The problem is making that happen simply by following the rules.
<< First: Learn or re-learn to dismiss. >>
Actually this is working pretty well. It's been working GREAT since I observed Mark dismissing a bunch of stuff just because he had the flu. I had always operated my list without rules, if I was sick. Mark using dismissal when he didn't feel well enough to do the tasks was a revelation to me. Dismissal is a GREAT tool and I love how it works.
<< Second: You are probably using more common sense then rules then most people. Let me explain: If you get to a page and cross off C1 stuff because it was done earlier and simply work on C2 stuff then you HAVE to dismiss that entire page, period. >>
Actually this has been discussed in the past, and if I remember correctly, Mark said it didn't really matter if you count those as completions or not, for sake of dismissal. For me it functions as a simple straightforward rule.
Just because the items were completed early doesn't mean they were done outside the system. Sometimes the items in question were completed earlier because they were entered more than once in the list (Mark says not to worry about this, don't waste time trying to track down the duplicate entries). Or maybe because they became urgent and got done in C2 somewhere. (Mark says not to worry about tracking down the duplicate entries in that case, too.)
<< Third: Often, some things on a page will stand out but you know theres more important stuff on a later page so my advice is that you do one task and move on. >>
A rule like that would force me to look over all the things on the page, and prioritize among them. I like Mark's "standing out" process better. It produces less anxiety. And if I am familiar with the contents of my list, the "standing out" process takes into account the contents of other pages. If I am NOT familiar with my list, I can enter an urgent item to review it.
<< Give it 1 hour by putting it at the end of your list and you'll see the world won't stop turning. >>
It generally takes me a lot longer than an hour to get to the end of my list.
<< It's simple, your pages should get dismissed as fast as you put stuff in. >>
Yes, exactly, that's the end goal. The problem I am trying to avoid is an ever-growing list. The problem is making that happen simply by following the rules.
March 2, 2011 at 18:11 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim,
You are certainly a valued member of this forum and no one can critique someone else's list without seeing it.
But 1200 tasks is going to strike a lot of people as too many. If you action one task every 2 minutes, it would take 40 hours to finish all the tasks. If you replace them as often as you work through the list, you would have to action and add about 240 every day (eight hours a day).
Even if many of these are sometime/maybe, it is still an awful lot of items to sift through every day. You indicate that you would have trouble keeping up with everything if they are not on the list, but it has got to be hard to keep from losing items that are on the list itself simply due to its shere size.
We don't participate in these forums only to find help, but to guide others. If the system is succeeding or failing for someone, it helps to know the circumstances. SF v.3 works well for me, but then again I have six open pages with only 44 open tasks and currently two in column two. I am using this at home and do not face many really urgent tasks, so it is easy for me. I see SF as little more than AF 1 with an added pop. SF will be a completely different situation for someone with hundreds of tasks, a disorganized boss, and less discrecionary time. My suggestions may not apply. If the system is not working as well for you, it is important that we sift through your circumstances to some extent, even if it seems cruel, because it is important to note what is and is not causing the problem as a means of maybe guiding someone who is absolutely new to this whole web site.
You are certainly a valued member of this forum and no one can critique someone else's list without seeing it.
But 1200 tasks is going to strike a lot of people as too many. If you action one task every 2 minutes, it would take 40 hours to finish all the tasks. If you replace them as often as you work through the list, you would have to action and add about 240 every day (eight hours a day).
Even if many of these are sometime/maybe, it is still an awful lot of items to sift through every day. You indicate that you would have trouble keeping up with everything if they are not on the list, but it has got to be hard to keep from losing items that are on the list itself simply due to its shere size.
We don't participate in these forums only to find help, but to guide others. If the system is succeeding or failing for someone, it helps to know the circumstances. SF v.3 works well for me, but then again I have six open pages with only 44 open tasks and currently two in column two. I am using this at home and do not face many really urgent tasks, so it is easy for me. I see SF as little more than AF 1 with an added pop. SF will be a completely different situation for someone with hundreds of tasks, a disorganized boss, and less discrecionary time. My suggestions may not apply. If the system is not working as well for you, it is important that we sift through your circumstances to some extent, even if it seems cruel, because it is important to note what is and is not causing the problem as a means of maybe guiding someone who is absolutely new to this whole web site.
March 2, 2011 at 18:15 |
Chris
Chris
"If you get to a page and cross off C1 stuff because it was done earlier and simply work on C2 stuff then you HAVE to dismiss that entire page, period."
I didn't follow whether in practice you agree or disagree with this. My notion is that moving forward is important, and dismissing is valuable, So I think I would suggest to not count previously done stuff, but I'm not sure.
I didn't follow whether in practice you agree or disagree with this. My notion is that moving forward is important, and dismissing is valuable, So I think I would suggest to not count previously done stuff, but I'm not sure.
March 2, 2011 at 18:19 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Well, Seraphim, I did read some of what Mark and you talked about the system, and my memory is that he didn't say that the system could deal with tons and tons of irrelevant stuff being thrown at it. My memory is that he said that the system would seize up if people abused it and that would help to cure people of abusing it. Which sort of comes back to what I was saying.
March 2, 2011 at 18:19 |
Meryl
Meryl
<<
<< Third: Often, some things on a page will stand out but you know theres more important stuff on a later page so my advice is that you do one task and move on. >>
A rule like that would force me to look over all the things on the page, and prioritize among them. I like Mark's "standing out" process better. It produces less anxiety. And if I am familiar with the contents of my list, the "standing out" process takes into account the contents of other pages. If I am NOT familiar with my list, I can enter an urgent item to review it.>>
Has anybody tryed 2mc (Matt) AF1 "flagged tasks" tweak on SF3 yet ? It precisely adressed that issue and brought up other benefits as well.. I think it looked brilliant and I plan to try it
<< Third: Often, some things on a page will stand out but you know theres more important stuff on a later page so my advice is that you do one task and move on. >>
A rule like that would force me to look over all the things on the page, and prioritize among them. I like Mark's "standing out" process better. It produces less anxiety. And if I am familiar with the contents of my list, the "standing out" process takes into account the contents of other pages. If I am NOT familiar with my list, I can enter an urgent item to review it.>>
Has anybody tryed 2mc (Matt) AF1 "flagged tasks" tweak on SF3 yet ? It precisely adressed that issue and brought up other benefits as well.. I think it looked brilliant and I plan to try it
March 2, 2011 at 18:19 |
Daouda
Daouda
Seraphim wrote:
<<But then I've got to write them down somewhere else. A sticky note will do. But then I lose the sticky note, or I start to accumulate them on the sides of my computer monitor, or stuck in the back of my SF book. And then I start to get anxious. Normally when I'm anxious I just turn to my SF book, and start working, and the anxiety goes away. But in this case, the tasks that are making me anxious aren't even written down there.>>
IMHO, it's great to write everything down as long as I don't try to do everything I've written down.
Everything is input, but not every input is a commitment.
Perhaps you should write stuff down and then dismiss it after you have written it down, regard it as a simple note and not as a commitment.
<<But then I've got to write them down somewhere else. A sticky note will do. But then I lose the sticky note, or I start to accumulate them on the sides of my computer monitor, or stuck in the back of my SF book. And then I start to get anxious. Normally when I'm anxious I just turn to my SF book, and start working, and the anxiety goes away. But in this case, the tasks that are making me anxious aren't even written down there.>>
IMHO, it's great to write everything down as long as I don't try to do everything I've written down.
Everything is input, but not every input is a commitment.
Perhaps you should write stuff down and then dismiss it after you have written it down, regard it as a simple note and not as a commitment.
March 2, 2011 at 18:31 |
Rainer
Rainer
Lillian wrote:
<< It sounds to me like DWM worked better for you than SF is. Why not go back to DWM? >>
Actually SF is working even better, and I REALLY like the AF-like flow (which DWM didn't really have).
I'm just trying to see if there can be any very simple adjustment(s) to the rules that would help the C2 congestion and ever-growing list problems to self-correct.
<< It sounds to me like DWM worked better for you than SF is. Why not go back to DWM? >>
Actually SF is working even better, and I REALLY like the AF-like flow (which DWM didn't really have).
I'm just trying to see if there can be any very simple adjustment(s) to the rules that would help the C2 congestion and ever-growing list problems to self-correct.
March 2, 2011 at 18:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
edit: what I was saying was already covered. Ignore.
March 2, 2011 at 18:33 |
Don R
Don R
Meryl wrote:
<< But this is ridiculous. If the solution to Seraphims problem is to dismiss half of what he puts in his list, then u have to ask why he's putting so much on his list that he doesnt need to do. >>
I don't dismiss/delete THAT much stuff. Most of those 1200 tasks DO get worked on, many of them get regularly completed.
That's not the problem.
The problem is there doesn't seem to be a mechanism in SF to prevent unending growth of the list. The mechanics of SF do seem to keep the overall list much shorter, more compact, more nimble, and that's great!! But the list does still seem to be growing too fast. I'm still exploring the dynamics of the system to figure out if there's a simple way to get it to self-correct and stop that kind of growth, to balance out somehow, achieving the same sense of equilibrium that DWM provided.
<< But this is ridiculous. If the solution to Seraphims problem is to dismiss half of what he puts in his list, then u have to ask why he's putting so much on his list that he doesnt need to do. >>
I don't dismiss/delete THAT much stuff. Most of those 1200 tasks DO get worked on, many of them get regularly completed.
That's not the problem.
The problem is there doesn't seem to be a mechanism in SF to prevent unending growth of the list. The mechanics of SF do seem to keep the overall list much shorter, more compact, more nimble, and that's great!! But the list does still seem to be growing too fast. I'm still exploring the dynamics of the system to figure out if there's a simple way to get it to self-correct and stop that kind of growth, to balance out somehow, achieving the same sense of equilibrium that DWM provided.
March 2, 2011 at 18:46 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Gerry,
<< If the rule says you need to dismiss something because you have not worked on it, but you know it needs to get done you are at a logjam. >>
Actually dismissal doesn't work like that, in my experience at least. Dismissed tasks get reviewed, and if I find an important commitment among my dismissed tasks then I know I need to think about why that happened. That helps me re-negotiate my commitments, evaluate my project systems, cancel appointments, whatever is needed.
I was always afraid of dismissing tasks like that -- what if I missed an important deadline??? But if the review happens regularly (which it does for me) then I can make sure I don't miss deadlines.
<< I think the overhang of systems and rules may be a drag on your productivity and major distraction for you. >>
Well, yes, if the rules involve frequent "common sense" overrides. But if the rules remain simple, like with SF, then they are a major support and help.
Thanks for your suggestions! Your ideas are always very sensible.
<< If the rule says you need to dismiss something because you have not worked on it, but you know it needs to get done you are at a logjam. >>
Actually dismissal doesn't work like that, in my experience at least. Dismissed tasks get reviewed, and if I find an important commitment among my dismissed tasks then I know I need to think about why that happened. That helps me re-negotiate my commitments, evaluate my project systems, cancel appointments, whatever is needed.
I was always afraid of dismissing tasks like that -- what if I missed an important deadline??? But if the review happens regularly (which it does for me) then I can make sure I don't miss deadlines.
<< I think the overhang of systems and rules may be a drag on your productivity and major distraction for you. >>
Well, yes, if the rules involve frequent "common sense" overrides. But if the rules remain simple, like with SF, then they are a major support and help.
Thanks for your suggestions! Your ideas are always very sensible.
March 2, 2011 at 18:51 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Daouda -
<< The good thing about DWM seems to be that it forces people to be more honest with their commitments : simply following the rules takes care of PREVENTING overcommitment.
On the other hand, follwing the rules of SF3 does not prevent overcommitment, but the system will eventually "crash" if one doesnt prevent overcommiting BY HIMSELF.>>
Yes, exactly! You've captured the difference very succinctly.
<< The good thing about DWM seems to be that it forces people to be more honest with their commitments : simply following the rules takes care of PREVENTING overcommitment.
On the other hand, follwing the rules of SF3 does not prevent overcommitment, but the system will eventually "crash" if one doesnt prevent overcommiting BY HIMSELF.>>
Yes, exactly! You've captured the difference very succinctly.
March 2, 2011 at 18:53 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Chris wrote:
<< 1200 tasks is going to strike a lot of people as too many. >>
Yeah, I get that a lot. LOL!
<< 1200 tasks is going to strike a lot of people as too many. >>
Yeah, I get that a lot. LOL!
March 2, 2011 at 19:04 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Rainer wrote:
<< Perhaps you should write stuff down and then dismiss it after you have written it down, regard it as a simple note and not as a commitment. >>
Yes, as someone else (Alan?) wrote earlier in the thread, entries in the list are not "will do" items but "maybe do" items.
Some of the urgent stuff I write down does occasionally get crossed off without me doing anything. For example, my wife and I discuss 5 things that need to be done right now. I write them all down. While working on them, my wife comes back and says she did XXX herself, so I can cross it off. Or she tells me that something has changed, so we can delete it. Or I realize it isn't really urgent after all, so it's "DONE FOR NOW" and gets moved to end of list, C1.
<< Perhaps you should write stuff down and then dismiss it after you have written it down, regard it as a simple note and not as a commitment. >>
Yes, as someone else (Alan?) wrote earlier in the thread, entries in the list are not "will do" items but "maybe do" items.
Some of the urgent stuff I write down does occasionally get crossed off without me doing anything. For example, my wife and I discuss 5 things that need to be done right now. I write them all down. While working on them, my wife comes back and says she did XXX herself, so I can cross it off. Or she tells me that something has changed, so we can delete it. Or I realize it isn't really urgent after all, so it's "DONE FOR NOW" and gets moved to end of list, C1.
March 2, 2011 at 19:08 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim you said "Or I realize it isn't really urgent after all, so it's "DONE FOR NOW" and gets moved to end of list, C1"
Just curious, are you using the list as a tickler? I mean, is this 'done for now' something that will likely be ready to be done by the time you get to it again, or is it 'a done for now, and can wait until April but I don't want to forget about it" item? If it's the latter, have you tried having a future-tickler page at the end of the book (to keep things together) and check that list once a week -ish?
Just curious, are you using the list as a tickler? I mean, is this 'done for now' something that will likely be ready to be done by the time you get to it again, or is it 'a done for now, and can wait until April but I don't want to forget about it" item? If it's the latter, have you tried having a future-tickler page at the end of the book (to keep things together) and check that list once a week -ish?
March 2, 2011 at 19:17 |
Lillian
Lillian
Seraphim
Slighltly off the most current topic :
1200 tasks indeed sounds like a LOT... You said that DWM worked great for you by limiting your commitments through dismissals... Sounds like you were expecting -consciously or not, out of a DWM-built habit - SF to do the same ?
Maybe you should approach SF radically differently that you did DWM, and make use of a "someday/maybe" list, reviewed regularly, on the side?
Maybe DWM is simply the best solution for a "chronic overcommiter" such as you ?
Maybe you should face the facts that you are just a regular human being, that life is boring and dull, time is finite, and then cure yourself from your irrealistic overcommitment tendencies (you probably should, as much as myself, but I sure as hell know this approach would NEVER work for me - This just makes me want to sit down in a corner and do nothing. And also, with this kind of thinking, I dont think anybody would ever have contributed with anything extraordinary to this world)
Finally, and this seems to be your rightful quest right now, the SF rules could be appended to make them work as well as DWM in the face of overcommitment !
Im with you on the latter option...
Slighltly off the most current topic :
1200 tasks indeed sounds like a LOT... You said that DWM worked great for you by limiting your commitments through dismissals... Sounds like you were expecting -consciously or not, out of a DWM-built habit - SF to do the same ?
Maybe you should approach SF radically differently that you did DWM, and make use of a "someday/maybe" list, reviewed regularly, on the side?
Maybe DWM is simply the best solution for a "chronic overcommiter" such as you ?
Maybe you should face the facts that you are just a regular human being, that life is boring and dull, time is finite, and then cure yourself from your irrealistic overcommitment tendencies (you probably should, as much as myself, but I sure as hell know this approach would NEVER work for me - This just makes me want to sit down in a corner and do nothing. And also, with this kind of thinking, I dont think anybody would ever have contributed with anything extraordinary to this world)
Finally, and this seems to be your rightful quest right now, the SF rules could be appended to make them work as well as DWM in the face of overcommitment !
Im with you on the latter option...
March 2, 2011 at 19:29 |
Daouda
Daouda
Lillian -
<< have you tried having a future-tickler page at the end of the book >>
Yes, I've been putting more and more things into Outlook reminders to be considered in the future. Sometimes they are very precise things that need to be triggered at a very precise time (calling back a colleague; preparing for a presentation; etc.).
Other times they are things that I just don't want to deal with any time soon but do want to remember for later. These might go into a "read later" list (which almost never gets checked, LOL) or into an Outlook reminder for a month or two from now.
Actually, I really like using "read later" lists that never get checked, and other lists or folders of that sort. They provide the illusion that I am saving something for later, which reduces the anxiety of simply deleting them. But they also reduce my task load since they almost never actually make it back onto my task list. LOL
<< have you tried having a future-tickler page at the end of the book >>
Yes, I've been putting more and more things into Outlook reminders to be considered in the future. Sometimes they are very precise things that need to be triggered at a very precise time (calling back a colleague; preparing for a presentation; etc.).
Other times they are things that I just don't want to deal with any time soon but do want to remember for later. These might go into a "read later" list (which almost never gets checked, LOL) or into an Outlook reminder for a month or two from now.
Actually, I really like using "read later" lists that never get checked, and other lists or folders of that sort. They provide the illusion that I am saving something for later, which reduces the anxiety of simply deleting them. But they also reduce my task load since they almost never actually make it back onto my task list. LOL
March 2, 2011 at 19:31 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Daouda -
<< 1200 tasks indeed sounds like a LOT... You said that DWM worked great for you by limiting your commitments through dismissals... Sounds like you are expecting -consciously or not, out of a DWM-built habit - SF to do the same ? >>
Yes, Mark said he expected SF could help with this -- SF tends to be much more compact than the other list systems and seemed to help limit the total number of tasks. I'm still thinking through the dynamics of why that happens -- because it DOESN'T have an explicit mechanism for this like DWM does.
<< Maybe you should approach SF radically differently that you did DWM, and make use of a "someday/maybe" list, reviewed regularly, on the side? >>
Yes, I am doing more of this with my "read later" lists -- see my last post above, to Lillian.
<< Maybe DWM is simply the best solution for a "chronic overcommiter" such as you ? >>
Maybe, but SF is so much more FUN! :-)
<< Maybe you should face the facts that you are just a regular human being, that life is boring and dull, time is finite, and then cure yourself from your irrealistic overcommitment tendencies. >>
Yeah, I need a Puddleglum to keep me honest. (cf. CS Lewis "The Silver Chair")
I do have that tendency to want to create and explore. But actually those tendencies are not the main problem. There are just lots of things I really must do.
I am always trying to figure out the best ways to get the things done in different ways -- focusing on "high-leverage activities" as they say. For example, delegating! Delegating is pretty fun when there's someone you can delegate to!
<< Finally, and this seems to be your rightful quest right now, the SF rules could be appended to make them work as well as DWM in the face of overcommitment ! >>
That's my hope!
<< 1200 tasks indeed sounds like a LOT... You said that DWM worked great for you by limiting your commitments through dismissals... Sounds like you are expecting -consciously or not, out of a DWM-built habit - SF to do the same ? >>
Yes, Mark said he expected SF could help with this -- SF tends to be much more compact than the other list systems and seemed to help limit the total number of tasks. I'm still thinking through the dynamics of why that happens -- because it DOESN'T have an explicit mechanism for this like DWM does.
<< Maybe you should approach SF radically differently that you did DWM, and make use of a "someday/maybe" list, reviewed regularly, on the side? >>
Yes, I am doing more of this with my "read later" lists -- see my last post above, to Lillian.
<< Maybe DWM is simply the best solution for a "chronic overcommiter" such as you ? >>
Maybe, but SF is so much more FUN! :-)
<< Maybe you should face the facts that you are just a regular human being, that life is boring and dull, time is finite, and then cure yourself from your irrealistic overcommitment tendencies. >>
Yeah, I need a Puddleglum to keep me honest. (cf. CS Lewis "The Silver Chair")
I do have that tendency to want to create and explore. But actually those tendencies are not the main problem. There are just lots of things I really must do.
I am always trying to figure out the best ways to get the things done in different ways -- focusing on "high-leverage activities" as they say. For example, delegating! Delegating is pretty fun when there's someone you can delegate to!
<< Finally, and this seems to be your rightful quest right now, the SF rules could be appended to make them work as well as DWM in the face of overcommitment ! >>
That's my hope!
March 2, 2011 at 19:38 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim
you wrote
Well, yes, if the rules involve frequent "common sense" overrides. But if the rules remain simple, like with SF, then they are a major support and help.
I have a total opposite view, I personally would never look to a rule to solve a problem for me. I always filter what I do through common sense.
You did not answer my suggestion to try a simpler system. But, another thought would be to make a list of your commitments and review this list trimming it down outside of being in a task management system where you clearly are struggling to keep up. This may shed some clarity on what you really need or want to do.
Additionally, many people have commented that 1200 tasks is quite a bit, can you post some of what is on the list it may be helpful in helping develop solutions.
Gerry
you wrote
Well, yes, if the rules involve frequent "common sense" overrides. But if the rules remain simple, like with SF, then they are a major support and help.
I have a total opposite view, I personally would never look to a rule to solve a problem for me. I always filter what I do through common sense.
You did not answer my suggestion to try a simpler system. But, another thought would be to make a list of your commitments and review this list trimming it down outside of being in a task management system where you clearly are struggling to keep up. This may shed some clarity on what you really need or want to do.
Additionally, many people have commented that 1200 tasks is quite a bit, can you post some of what is on the list it may be helpful in helping develop solutions.
Gerry
March 2, 2011 at 21:48 |
Gerry
Gerry
Don't post all 1200 tasks please. ;-) Thought: maybe you need bigger tasks? Then you won't have so many.
March 2, 2011 at 22:28 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
1200 tasks?? You must be joking. Seriously, guy...I run an NIH-funded lab with Post-Docs, graduate students, etc. and serve on NIH Study Sections, author books, manuscripts, teach graduate courses, serve in university administrative roles, and....well....I have NEVER had 1200 tasks in ANY kind of system. My God, man....what are you writing in there?
Seriously, Sepahim....I am only concerned about your sanity. Wow....I thought I was always overwhelmed.
Seriously, Sepahim....I am only concerned about your sanity. Wow....I thought I was always overwhelmed.
March 2, 2011 at 22:46 |
David Drake
David Drake
Don't worry, I won't post my task list. I am fine having a long list of tasks. I don't recall asking for help in reducing its size. The only reason I mentioned it is because Erik asked me to describe my list and what's on it and how I typically process it. :-)
My point in opening this thread was not to find help in reducing my number of tasks. Rather, it was to observe that frequent invocation of the "common sense" rule leads to my mind getting muddled and my attention getting unfocused. It also builds resistance to using the system at all. I was wondering if anyone else has had that experience.
When I post questions about how the system is supposed to work, about 80% of the answers are "Good grief, just use common sense!" Do you mean, "Good grief, please go muddle your mind, get unfocused, and build resistance to the system!" Of course not. :-)
Whenever it's Mark who is responding like that to my questions, I know I have just surprised him again with my large load of tasks and how his latest invention is responding to the stress test. But since I am really just asking for his guidance about how he intended the system to work, eventually he responds with great insights and helpful tips.
My point in opening this thread was not to find help in reducing my number of tasks. Rather, it was to observe that frequent invocation of the "common sense" rule leads to my mind getting muddled and my attention getting unfocused. It also builds resistance to using the system at all. I was wondering if anyone else has had that experience.
When I post questions about how the system is supposed to work, about 80% of the answers are "Good grief, just use common sense!" Do you mean, "Good grief, please go muddle your mind, get unfocused, and build resistance to the system!" Of course not. :-)
Whenever it's Mark who is responding like that to my questions, I know I have just surprised him again with my large load of tasks and how his latest invention is responding to the stress test. But since I am really just asking for his guidance about how he intended the system to work, eventually he responds with great insights and helpful tips.
March 2, 2011 at 22:48 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Gerry wrote:
<< You did not answer my suggestion to try a simpler system. But, another thought would be to make a list of your commitments and review this list trimming it down outside of being in a task management system where you clearly are struggling to keep up. This may shed some clarity on what you really need or want to do. >>
For me, just capturing everything in one place doesn't provide enough structure. I've tried it many times. It diminishes my sense of focus and creates anxiety. I need more of a system than that. I'd mentioned that elsewhere, which is why I didn't specifically respond to you on that. Sorry!
Yes, reviewing a list of commitments can be helpful. Sometimes I've put a list of them in my list and done some thinking about them whenever they stood out: why is this important / not important, why is this working / not working, etc.
But really, in these various threads I've started, I'm not looking for help in reducing my task load or my commitments. I've been making various observations about aspects of the SF system and asking people if their experience is similar to mine or not.
Right now my main "trouble" is that the list keeps growing. Yes, it comes from my commitments -- I know that. Yes, I have a lot of tasks and a lot of commitments. That's not my problem. DWM handled this workload pretty well, and SF is generally working even better.
My problem is that SF has not yet reached an equilibrium, and I don't see how the dynamics of the system will produce one. I'm trying to see if there are any simple adjustments that can be made to achieve it, without compromising the fundamental rules and "feel" of the system.
<< You did not answer my suggestion to try a simpler system. But, another thought would be to make a list of your commitments and review this list trimming it down outside of being in a task management system where you clearly are struggling to keep up. This may shed some clarity on what you really need or want to do. >>
For me, just capturing everything in one place doesn't provide enough structure. I've tried it many times. It diminishes my sense of focus and creates anxiety. I need more of a system than that. I'd mentioned that elsewhere, which is why I didn't specifically respond to you on that. Sorry!
Yes, reviewing a list of commitments can be helpful. Sometimes I've put a list of them in my list and done some thinking about them whenever they stood out: why is this important / not important, why is this working / not working, etc.
But really, in these various threads I've started, I'm not looking for help in reducing my task load or my commitments. I've been making various observations about aspects of the SF system and asking people if their experience is similar to mine or not.
Right now my main "trouble" is that the list keeps growing. Yes, it comes from my commitments -- I know that. Yes, I have a lot of tasks and a lot of commitments. That's not my problem. DWM handled this workload pretty well, and SF is generally working even better.
My problem is that SF has not yet reached an equilibrium, and I don't see how the dynamics of the system will produce one. I'm trying to see if there are any simple adjustments that can be made to achieve it, without compromising the fundamental rules and "feel" of the system.
March 2, 2011 at 22:56 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Sorry, Seraphim. I was not trying to be sarcastic. I am just amazed at how many entries you have in your system. You do need a way to trim that down in some manner. I don't think ANY time management system can help you maintain such a list. SF3 may be great, but wow....that is incredible.
Hang in there, guy...
-David
Hang in there, guy...
-David
March 2, 2011 at 23:13 |
David Drake
David Drake
Seraphim,
Not to be argumentative, but if you do not reduce your commitments the only way you get more work done is to work faster. Again I am not sure a system can make you work faster especially if you are using a portion of your time to experiment. Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems as though the expectation of the system may be unrealistic. Good luck
Gerry
Not to be argumentative, but if you do not reduce your commitments the only way you get more work done is to work faster. Again I am not sure a system can make you work faster especially if you are using a portion of your time to experiment. Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems as though the expectation of the system may be unrealistic. Good luck
Gerry
March 2, 2011 at 23:16 |
Gerry
Gerry
Personally, I find it unvaluable to have such an "extreme case" in Seraphim to REALLY stress-test the system. Most of the people here seem to find him almost "crazy", even myself am in awe in front of the 1200 number, but you can be sure someone in the world reading this on the internet can exactly relate to his situation. Seraphim, Im 100% sure you are not alone, and your experiments with the system are eventually gonna be useful to many. I think (hope) that Mark, who probably would never have thought by himself that someone could push his system to such limits, will eventually modify the final instructions in some way to adress the issues that you are exposing. After all, he admitted himself recently that SF is still in the "experimental" phase.
March 2, 2011 at 23:30 |
Daouda
Daouda
Seraphim, you wrote:
<<And if I am familiar with the contents of my list, the "standing out" process takes into account the contents of other pages. If I am NOT familiar with my list, I can enter an urgent item to review it.
<< Give it 1 hour by putting it at the end of your list and you'll see the world won't stop turning. >>
It generally takes me a lot longer than an hour to get to the end of my list.>>
Do you see the conundrum?
If you are familiar with what's in your list, your intuition is affected and the standing out process helps you move faster through your list. If you are not familiar with what's in your list because it takes too much time to go through, then you put stuff that you remember being important in C2 acerbating your problem of being stuck on a page... The answer is obviously to cycle faster and there are not many solutions.
Also, I'm sorry to say that I still believe you should dismiss the entire page if you didn't work on a C1 item even if you have stricken multiple from having done them earlier. And especially if they where done as being pulled in C2 and done as part of a previous page. You are crippling yourself by pulling them i and not facing up with the consequences. Those 2 things paired are a big wall if used the way you do and a highway if used the way I suggest.
No matter what happens, you'll have to drop stuff so let me ask you this:
Which is the best of these 2 evils?
1 - Going through the list quickly, acting on the most important stuff on each page, being familiar with your stuff, few double entries and dropping the least important?
2 - Pulling stuff forward, not cycling through the list fast enough, doing what is the most important that you can remember off the top of your head and feeling anxious you have left important stuff somewhere else and dropping or simply not finishing in time what was on the pages you didn't get to in time?
I hope this post will be taken in the spirit it is written, I honestly want to give helpful insight. If you feel badgered in any way, please let me know.
<<And if I am familiar with the contents of my list, the "standing out" process takes into account the contents of other pages. If I am NOT familiar with my list, I can enter an urgent item to review it.
<< Give it 1 hour by putting it at the end of your list and you'll see the world won't stop turning. >>
It generally takes me a lot longer than an hour to get to the end of my list.>>
Do you see the conundrum?
If you are familiar with what's in your list, your intuition is affected and the standing out process helps you move faster through your list. If you are not familiar with what's in your list because it takes too much time to go through, then you put stuff that you remember being important in C2 acerbating your problem of being stuck on a page... The answer is obviously to cycle faster and there are not many solutions.
Also, I'm sorry to say that I still believe you should dismiss the entire page if you didn't work on a C1 item even if you have stricken multiple from having done them earlier. And especially if they where done as being pulled in C2 and done as part of a previous page. You are crippling yourself by pulling them i and not facing up with the consequences. Those 2 things paired are a big wall if used the way you do and a highway if used the way I suggest.
No matter what happens, you'll have to drop stuff so let me ask you this:
Which is the best of these 2 evils?
1 - Going through the list quickly, acting on the most important stuff on each page, being familiar with your stuff, few double entries and dropping the least important?
2 - Pulling stuff forward, not cycling through the list fast enough, doing what is the most important that you can remember off the top of your head and feeling anxious you have left important stuff somewhere else and dropping or simply not finishing in time what was on the pages you didn't get to in time?
I hope this post will be taken in the spirit it is written, I honestly want to give helpful insight. If you feel badgered in any way, please let me know.
March 3, 2011 at 0:08 |
Erik
Erik
If I have one or two items that are governed by "common sense", then I can keep track of how to handle them. They are just one or two exceptions -- no big deal.
Maybe even 3 or 4 would be OK.
But when the number starts to climb, I suddenly no longer have a system. And personally I find that I work best with a real, consistent *system*. Even if it's just Gerry's simple "write it all in one place" system.
Actually, whenever AF1 broke down for me, I used Gerry's approach as a fallback. I just processed the same list but didn't really use any rules. And then, after the crisis of the day subsided, I could try to get back to actually following the AF rules. The problem was, I got sloppier and sloppier over time, till the days I was actually using the rules were the exception and the random cherry-picking was the rule. And I lost all feeling for the intuitive aspect of AF.
That's what I am afraid of with SF, if I need to play the "common sense" card too often. I want the rules to WORK, 99% of the time. SF gets pretty close. I am trying to think of how to work it properly, so it really does achieve that. Mark's absence is forcing me to think through it all myself, which is fun and challenging.