Discussion Forum > New addition to the random method
Paul MacNeil:
That's a good idea, though personally I prefer "just do it". I think if I was going to do it your way I would write the urgent tasks on a separate piece of paper or possibly a second column, rather than at the end of the list. But as always do what works best for you.
As for writing homilies, see http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2007/3/3/the-popes-advice-on-getting-sermons-written.html
That's a good idea, though personally I prefer "just do it". I think if I was going to do it your way I would write the urgent tasks on a separate piece of paper or possibly a second column, rather than at the end of the list. But as always do what works best for you.
As for writing homilies, see http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2007/3/3/the-popes-advice-on-getting-sermons-written.html
July 31, 2021 at 17:19 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Awesome advice on the link, it's a very natural process and how I've ended up doing it after 20 years. My best ones almost write themselves after I've had time to incubate the readings and come up with one good image or idea. Last week I rewrote Alanis Morrissette's lyrics to "one hand in my pocket." All I usually need is a little inspiration, which takes time to develop and can't be forced. But then there's always the tweaking and fine-tuning on Saturday. It's great when it shows up on my random list during the week as well. But oddly I find sometimes if I "finish" a homily too early it loses its flavour by the weekend. The other great piece of advice I received years ago was to write the homily very carefully and then completely toss the notes when you actually deliver it.
Anyway, I'm going to try the random for a few days and let you know how it goes.
Anyway, I'm going to try the random for a few days and let you know how it goes.
July 31, 2021 at 18:38 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
BTW, that link was the year before I discovered your blog. Too bad I missed it!
July 31, 2021 at 18:44 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
And three years before I heard Pope Benedict for the first and only time - at Fatima in May 2010. It was also the first time I saw what a crowd of 500,000 people looks like.
July 31, 2021 at 19:16 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
This is the reason I don't use Randomizer often, because it is arbitrary, and doesn't distinguish tasks, doesn't know if a task is urgent or not. The time that I have used the random method is when I have the day or afternoon free, and have nothing urgent, and don't feel like doing anything worthwhile. I like rolling the dice, it makes it feel like a game. Even then, I don't seem to able to do it more than a few hours.
August 2, 2021 at 4:21 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark H.
<< This is the reason I don't use Randomizer often, because it is arbitrary, and doesn't distinguish tasks, doesn't know if a task is urgent or not. >>
This is true. However the whole point of the Randomizer is to take the human element out of the equation. We humans are naturally subject to resistance, procrastination, laziness, bursts of enthusiasm which quickly die out, etc, etc. The Randomizer works precisely because it doesn't suffer from any of these.
To make best use of the Randomizer in real life, one has to re-introduce some of the human element so that you get the best balance. This is going to vary from one human to another - both in their natural temperaments and the nature of their work and life situations.
Some things which might help:
- Deal with urgent things separately under the "if it needs doing now, do it now" rule
- Don't let your list get too long. As is being discussed in the concurrent thread "optimum list size and Reinertsen's Principles of Flow" find the best size of list for your circumstances. If your work has a fast turn-over, then have a short list. If it's got a slower turn-over then you can afford a longer list.
- Have more than one list. You might for instance use the "Do It Tomorrow" priorities: Immediate, Same day, Everything Else, or something similar.
<< This is the reason I don't use Randomizer often, because it is arbitrary, and doesn't distinguish tasks, doesn't know if a task is urgent or not. >>
This is true. However the whole point of the Randomizer is to take the human element out of the equation. We humans are naturally subject to resistance, procrastination, laziness, bursts of enthusiasm which quickly die out, etc, etc. The Randomizer works precisely because it doesn't suffer from any of these.
To make best use of the Randomizer in real life, one has to re-introduce some of the human element so that you get the best balance. This is going to vary from one human to another - both in their natural temperaments and the nature of their work and life situations.
Some things which might help:
- Deal with urgent things separately under the "if it needs doing now, do it now" rule
- Don't let your list get too long. As is being discussed in the concurrent thread "optimum list size and Reinertsen's Principles of Flow" find the best size of list for your circumstances. If your work has a fast turn-over, then have a short list. If it's got a slower turn-over then you can afford a longer list.
- Have more than one list. You might for instance use the "Do It Tomorrow" priorities: Immediate, Same day, Everything Else, or something similar.
August 2, 2021 at 10:34 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I tried to write a post earlier this morning, but somehow it didn't make it. Apologies if this is repeated. The gist of it was a distinction I discovered between two types of random: Random from the perspective of importance and random from the perspective of when to do them. The items on my list are not random at all from the perspective of importance. Certainly, some items are more important than others (for example, writing a homily is more important than cleaning my litter box)(well, maybe not for my cat). At the same time, from the perspective of "when they should be done," by far most of my tasks are random. For example, on Monday at 10:30, it doesn't really matter whether I clean my litterbox or work on my homily. I have until Sunday. The decision can be totally random, a flip of the coin. Carefree. I find this intensely liberating - I sometimes can't wait to see what I'll be doing next. Most of my tasks are random like this, although some are more important than others, at least until they become urgent (think "kitty litter" or "do laundry" when you have no shirts). That's why I'm trying to work on a system that will handle urgent or immediate items. What's interesting about the random method is that the more consistently I use it, the less frequently items become urgent. As Mark said, there's no need for any human element in the decision about when to do a given task, until it becomes urgent. As long as it gets done. And basically, if it's on the list, it's important. I think the random method is almost a perfect system, not to be underestimated.
August 3, 2021 at 17:04 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Coincidentally, I ran across a Tik Tok video last night about a variation of the randomizer method. It's by @danidonovan if you want to look for it there, but I'll transcribe it here (and link to it at the bottom):
"Here is a step by step guide of how I trick myself into getting s--- done when I don't feel like it. If you're anything like me, you have a hard time getting motivated to start tasks or don't know what to do first. So, we'll let fate decide by using a strategy I call: Dice Roll (aka pretending to be a D&D character).
"If you don't have a 20 sided die, a 6 sided die will definitely work. If you don't have either, there are a lot of free apps out there.
"First write a couple of number ranges down and assign tasks to them. The more important the task, the wider the range. I always make sure the last number is a fun activity."
example shown in the video:
1-5: Dishes
6-10: Emails
11-19: Sketch comic (NB: she is a comic artist who makes comics about ADHD)
20: Video game
"Next, roll your dice, write down the number that came up, and circle the outcome associated with it, and then immediately start on that task. You don't get to argue or roll again. Just do it. And if you roll a 20? The universe clearly wants you to have some guilt-free procrastination time."
The actual video (only 49 seconds long) is available as (at the time of this writing) the third video on this page on her website, so you don't need to venture into Tik Tok itself to view it: https://www.adhddd.com/tiktoks/advice-tutorials/
I vaguely remember some people might have considered putting different weights on different tasks. I just thought this was an interesting looking variation.
"Here is a step by step guide of how I trick myself into getting s--- done when I don't feel like it. If you're anything like me, you have a hard time getting motivated to start tasks or don't know what to do first. So, we'll let fate decide by using a strategy I call: Dice Roll (aka pretending to be a D&D character).
"If you don't have a 20 sided die, a 6 sided die will definitely work. If you don't have either, there are a lot of free apps out there.
"First write a couple of number ranges down and assign tasks to them. The more important the task, the wider the range. I always make sure the last number is a fun activity."
example shown in the video:
1-5: Dishes
6-10: Emails
11-19: Sketch comic (NB: she is a comic artist who makes comics about ADHD)
20: Video game
"Next, roll your dice, write down the number that came up, and circle the outcome associated with it, and then immediately start on that task. You don't get to argue or roll again. Just do it. And if you roll a 20? The universe clearly wants you to have some guilt-free procrastination time."
The actual video (only 49 seconds long) is available as (at the time of this writing) the third video on this page on her website, so you don't need to venture into Tik Tok itself to view it: https://www.adhddd.com/tiktoks/advice-tutorials/
I vaguely remember some people might have considered putting different weights on different tasks. I just thought this was an interesting looking variation.
August 3, 2021 at 19:32 |
Don R
Don R
And in response to the actual topic of this thread specifically, it seems like a cross between a long list and a no-list method. (Serial no list is also a cross between the two, I think.) To me, I think that FVP also can handle adding urgent things to the end of the list and then getting them done first because of how you select what you want to do before the previous dotted item, and you don't get back to the previous dotted item until there isn't anything you want to do before that dotted item lower in the list. But being able to process the things that aren't immediately urgent with randomizer should also be really good for the reasons you mentioned. I'll think about trying that. I think I avoid randomizer because I wonder if it would take you to working on things that you shouldn't work on right now, but since you have the option to take care of the urgent things first, that would solve that problem.
August 3, 2021 at 19:41 |
Don R
Don R
Paul MacNeil:
<< I find this intensely liberating - I sometimes can't wait to see what I'll be doing next. >>
That was always my experience with Randomizer also. There was something delightful in how the system would select things.
Randomizer would also tend to create associations between things that I wouldn't normally associate. I mean, I'd come out of a meeting and be mulling over some problem or other. And then I'd open my list and roll the dice, and it tells me to clean my CPAP machine. And that activity somehow triggers an association to the problem at work, and I suddenly find myself coming up with a new solution for that problem. Maybe this is akin to how we get new ideas when taking a shower or doing some other unrelated task. Randomizer seems to generate more of these unexpected associations than I generate on my own just using a "standing out" method.
This taught me to put more of these kinds of short side-tasks on my list, even during the workday. They provide a nice break from the computer, a physical break as well as a mental break that helps spark new ideas.
<< That's why I'm trying to work on a system that will handle urgent or immediate items. >>
I don't have any insights or suggestions on the urgency problem -- it was never a big issue for me, somehow. My biggest issue was that the list would keep growing till it slowed to a crawl. I wonder if the same queuing/dismissal principles we have been discussing in the Reinertsen thread could be applied effectively to Randomizer. http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2784793
<< I find this intensely liberating - I sometimes can't wait to see what I'll be doing next. >>
That was always my experience with Randomizer also. There was something delightful in how the system would select things.
Randomizer would also tend to create associations between things that I wouldn't normally associate. I mean, I'd come out of a meeting and be mulling over some problem or other. And then I'd open my list and roll the dice, and it tells me to clean my CPAP machine. And that activity somehow triggers an association to the problem at work, and I suddenly find myself coming up with a new solution for that problem. Maybe this is akin to how we get new ideas when taking a shower or doing some other unrelated task. Randomizer seems to generate more of these unexpected associations than I generate on my own just using a "standing out" method.
This taught me to put more of these kinds of short side-tasks on my list, even during the workday. They provide a nice break from the computer, a physical break as well as a mental break that helps spark new ideas.
<< That's why I'm trying to work on a system that will handle urgent or immediate items. >>
I don't have any insights or suggestions on the urgency problem -- it was never a big issue for me, somehow. My biggest issue was that the list would keep growing till it slowed to a crawl. I wonder if the same queuing/dismissal principles we have been discussing in the Reinertsen thread could be applied effectively to Randomizer. http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/2784793
August 4, 2021 at 2:24 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
My previous trial of Randomizer ended after 2 days after I got fed up of it selecting things I didn't want to do at the moment.
August 4, 2021 at 4:38 |
Virix
Virix
This discussion highlights some conditions which are needed if the Randomizer is to work well:
1. The longer the list, the longer it will take to process every task on the list. That's pretty obvious, but it doesn't seem to prevent people adding time-critical tasks to a long list and then complaining that the tasks don't get selected in time.
2. If a task is on the list you must actually be prepared to do it. If you second-guess the Randomizer because you don't feel like doing the task which it has selected, the system will break down.
3. In a pure random system the chances of every task are equal every "throw". That means however long a task has been on the list it will have exactly the same chance on the hundredth throw as on the first throw. However "The Randomizer System" is not a pure random system. It is weighted towards the earlier tasks on the list. This puts a limit on how long it takes to get through every task on the list. Always set the upper limit on the randomizer for the number of lines on the page.
4. The secret of getting the list to work well is to establish what that time limit is. This can be done by writing the start time/date on each page and seeing how long it takes before every task on a page is done.
5. Having done that you have a choice of either a) not putting tasks on the list that need to be done quicker than the limit, or b) shortening the list to reduce the limit, or c) both.
1. The longer the list, the longer it will take to process every task on the list. That's pretty obvious, but it doesn't seem to prevent people adding time-critical tasks to a long list and then complaining that the tasks don't get selected in time.
2. If a task is on the list you must actually be prepared to do it. If you second-guess the Randomizer because you don't feel like doing the task which it has selected, the system will break down.
3. In a pure random system the chances of every task are equal every "throw". That means however long a task has been on the list it will have exactly the same chance on the hundredth throw as on the first throw. However "The Randomizer System" is not a pure random system. It is weighted towards the earlier tasks on the list. This puts a limit on how long it takes to get through every task on the list. Always set the upper limit on the randomizer for the number of lines on the page.
4. The secret of getting the list to work well is to establish what that time limit is. This can be done by writing the start time/date on each page and seeing how long it takes before every task on a page is done.
5. Having done that you have a choice of either a) not putting tasks on the list that need to be done quicker than the limit, or b) shortening the list to reduce the limit, or c) both.
August 4, 2021 at 11:43 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
My own use of the randomizer system is exactly as Mark has described it, except I don't have any concern about the length of the list. It really does seem to find it's own length. I sympathize with Virix about hitting tasks that I don't really want to do. That happens a lot, actually, but I suspend judgement and just do it. Conisder my kitty litter example: it can easily wait, but when it comes up randomly and I do it, I feel like I'm actually giving myself to my list, or surrendering to it, if you will. But then, isn't life made up also of tasks that we don't want to do? I'm reminded of Scott Peck's "Road Less Travelled" where he speaks about delayed gratification and spiritual discipline. I don't mind saying, there's a kind of spirituality to this, a zen-like simplicity - which I believe comes form not overthinking. Loomans' "Time Surfing" gets at this, I think, but I don't trust my intuition the way he does. The interesting question for me to reflect on is "where do my tasks come from? How do they get on the list?" There's no filter for individual tasks (If I think it needs doing I put it on the list) but as I accept some projects and reject others, based on long term objectives, or the things I like to do, the list does seem to reflect my overall goals and vocation.
August 4, 2021 at 16:39 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
I used the randomizer and loved it. Not surprisingly, reading this has made me want to try again.
I put everything on, including most urgent things, and I had a dismissal policy. Whenever I landed on something I did not want to do, or did not want to do right now, I asked myself, can I at least spend 5 minutes on it? If so, I would, and if not, I would highlight it and consider it dismissed. I would slide over it on future randomizations, unless I landed on the review dismissed tasks, in which case they could come into play again.
I put everything on, including most urgent things, and I had a dismissal policy. Whenever I landed on something I did not want to do, or did not want to do right now, I asked myself, can I at least spend 5 minutes on it? If so, I would, and if not, I would highlight it and consider it dismissed. I would slide over it on future randomizations, unless I landed on the review dismissed tasks, in which case they could come into play again.
August 6, 2021 at 13:42 |
vegheadjones
vegheadjones
I finally gave the Random Method a try. I resisted because leaving getting things done to chance seemed ridiculous to me but after spending a few days with it, I'm hooked. The game of it really cuts the noise for me when I'm feeling pulled in too many directions. I view the "roll of a dice" the same way as a co-worker appearing and asking for an update. I'd drop things for a random interruptions. Why not interrupt myself with a random query? I did make a few adjustments to fit my personality though.
1- I use with small time boxing. Telling myself I was going to do one random thing for 5-10 minutes only was really liberating. When the timer sounded. I picked a new random thing. I would allow myself to ignore the time's up sound if I intuitively knew I should keep going but often I would stick with the time limit or I would finish before time was up anyway.
2- I number each page 1-34. If I roll a 12 and 12 has been crossed out on page one, I look at the next page's #12 and so on. . If my final page's #12 is also done, then I will do the slide rule of doing #13 on the last page
3- Having multiple pages doesn't address the more urgent items very well. I have found that if I do a full read through of my list to start the day and make a separate "hot list" of items that are due today, I can work that list separately, even randomly, before returning to the larger list.
3- I looked up synonyms for "random" to alleviate my dislike of leaving getting things done to chance. I've settled on "adventitious". I'm now naming this system "Methodically Adventitious"
Brent
1- I use with small time boxing. Telling myself I was going to do one random thing for 5-10 minutes only was really liberating. When the timer sounded. I picked a new random thing. I would allow myself to ignore the time's up sound if I intuitively knew I should keep going but often I would stick with the time limit or I would finish before time was up anyway.
2- I number each page 1-34. If I roll a 12 and 12 has been crossed out on page one, I look at the next page's #12 and so on. . If my final page's #12 is also done, then I will do the slide rule of doing #13 on the last page
3- Having multiple pages doesn't address the more urgent items very well. I have found that if I do a full read through of my list to start the day and make a separate "hot list" of items that are due today, I can work that list separately, even randomly, before returning to the larger list.
3- I looked up synonyms for "random" to alleviate my dislike of leaving getting things done to chance. I've settled on "adventitious". I'm now naming this system "Methodically Adventitious"
Brent
January 31, 2022 at 23:06 |
Brent
Brent
<<I'm now naming this system "Methodically Adventitious">>
Or maybe "Adventure mode"?
Adding some adventure into one's life. Venturing into one's to-dos. You never know what's around the corner!
Reminds me a bit of what Mark wrote about years ago about choosing restaurants, dishes, etc randomly to add interest to one's life.
Maybe this can be part of making a more addictive TM system (cf. other thread on breaking SS)
Or maybe "Adventure mode"?
Adding some adventure into one's life. Venturing into one's to-dos. You never know what's around the corner!
Reminds me a bit of what Mark wrote about years ago about choosing restaurants, dishes, etc randomly to add interest to one's life.
Maybe this can be part of making a more addictive TM system (cf. other thread on breaking SS)
February 1, 2022 at 0:35 |
Charles
Charles
I'm still using the random method, although I also combine it with one of the other AF systems, most likely FVP. The longer I can stick with the purely random method, the better the system works, and, yes, for me, the more adventurous it is. It also means that I get work done on things I probably wouldn't be motivated to do but should do at some point (for the second year in a row my income tax is already done by February). But realistically, there are just some things that can't wait. I know, Mark says just do them, but I kind of like FVP for that. When I feel the pressure intuitively that there are some things I need to do, I ignore the latest randomly selected task in favour of a round of preselected tasks, beginning with the first unactioned task. Then I don't go back to random until all the preselected tasks are worked on. Then, once they are worked on, I carry on with random where I left off. Seems to be fun, getting lots done anyway.
February 3, 2022 at 3:07 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Random has the incredible effect of melting resistance like no other system (for me), and it has the addition of increasing my productivity exponentially. I think this is because random cuts a wider swath of stuff I'm working on, stuff that I'm not sure would actually stand out, but when I land on it randomly I'm glad I worked on it for a bit ("pulled the file out" as the procrastinators like me say). Then when a given task becomes more important I see that I've already done some work on it (sometimes all of it), and it feels amazing -- like I have a whole staff working on my stuff besides me (I don't).
But the problem has always been urgent items. Well, that's easy, just do it -- this has always been one of Mark's rules. If something needs to be done now, do it. But there's an "in-between" category for me, and I suddenly remembered a word we had for it back when I was in the seminary (I'm a catholic priest) - "immediate preparation." Remote preparation refers to something akin to "life-long learning" - preparation that is done way ahead of time. Proximate preparation is done a few weeks ahead of time. This is stuff that lands on my random (autofocus) list. Immediate preparation is stuff I need to do now or at least stuff that I can't risk waiting for to show up randomly. For example, I wake up in the morning and I have to prepare a short homily for a funeral later that morning. It's not urgent, maybe I can have breakfast first, but I can't wait for it to show up on my random list, either, I'd be screwed if I don't get to it - then it becomes urgent in the worst sense, undermining my credibility and professionalism (but I can wait for proximate tasks to show up randomly, no problem).
So at the beginning of the day, I add a line at the end of the list and enter any immediate tasks that come to mind. If they are recurring tasks (unlikely, but maybe) I reenter them at the end of the list. When the immediate tasks are done to my satisfaction, I return to the random list again where I left off.
I know what you might be thinking: Just do them. Yes, for urgent tasks, but there is still something reassuring about having these "immediate" tasks incorporated into the system.