Discussion Forum > Work Hard/Play Hard a.k.a Eat your veggies first
The above post was inspired by Dr. Covey's suggestion (in First Things First) to challenge and strengthen your independent will:
"If you make a commitment to yourself or to someone else, write about the way you use your independent will to carry it out. If you commit to exercise four times a week, evaluate the factors that empowered you to do it—or explore the reasons why you didn’t. Was your commitment halfhearted, hasty, or unrealistic? Was “mind over mattress” too great a challenge for your current level of independent will? Increased awareness of your independent will helps you develop it."
"If you make a commitment to yourself or to someone else, write about the way you use your independent will to carry it out. If you commit to exercise four times a week, evaluate the factors that empowered you to do it—or explore the reasons why you didn’t. Was your commitment halfhearted, hasty, or unrealistic? Was “mind over mattress” too great a challenge for your current level of independent will? Increased awareness of your independent will helps you develop it."
August 24, 2021 at 19:59 |
avrum
avrum
Great topic, avrum!
Sports worked better after office work then before. It's a good divider between the two worlds, business and leisure.
I can't remember one instance where I didn't do the Q2 first and yet came around doing it at some point. The exception to this are business calls, so first do the extroverted stuff, then shut down, go hermit and forge the tools in your dungeon, gazing into the flames, you alone.
Going for a long walk an think predetermined hard problems through can lead to action on them afterwards (in "Q2" fashion), if you can keep up the frame of mind.
Likewise, changing the environment and escape into a paper book for half an hour or so, can also lead to a mind ready to action on Q2. Don't take a internet connected device with you though.
Sports worked better after office work then before. It's a good divider between the two worlds, business and leisure.
I can't remember one instance where I didn't do the Q2 first and yet came around doing it at some point. The exception to this are business calls, so first do the extroverted stuff, then shut down, go hermit and forge the tools in your dungeon, gazing into the flames, you alone.
Going for a long walk an think predetermined hard problems through can lead to action on them afterwards (in "Q2" fashion), if you can keep up the frame of mind.
Likewise, changing the environment and escape into a paper book for half an hour or so, can also lead to a mind ready to action on Q2. Don't take a internet connected device with you though.
August 25, 2021 at 18:34 |
Christopher
Christopher
Perhaps my experience is different than others but I do not believe in the 4 quadrant model of time management or the concept of independent will. Determining what is Important but not urgent can be a moving target and assumes you have awareness of most other options. Other variables include your energy level and time available to engage in an activity. How do you define what is important but not urgent can change based the various roles we have in our life.
My bias is more toward David Allen's approach. Intuitive choices, based on an assessing an inventory of your work (defined as actions you have made some commitment to engage in) seems to be more flexible with less guilt vs deciding what constitutes veggies, dessert, and how it fits into a four box priority model.
In my opinion, the woman's approach of a strict order of work hard then play hard just seems forced and unnecessary. Sometimes variety can be a beneficial approach to an individual's ability to achieve desired outcomes.
With all this said, if a four box priority model and independent will works for someone, why not use it. Everyone's situation is different so use what works for you.
My bias is more toward David Allen's approach. Intuitive choices, based on an assessing an inventory of your work (defined as actions you have made some commitment to engage in) seems to be more flexible with less guilt vs deciding what constitutes veggies, dessert, and how it fits into a four box priority model.
In my opinion, the woman's approach of a strict order of work hard then play hard just seems forced and unnecessary. Sometimes variety can be a beneficial approach to an individual's ability to achieve desired outcomes.
With all this said, if a four box priority model and independent will works for someone, why not use it. Everyone's situation is different so use what works for you.
August 25, 2021 at 22:39 |
George
George
Christopher:
<< Likewise, changing the environment and escape into a paper book for half an hour or so, can also lead to a mind ready to action on Q2. Don't take a internet connected device with you though.>>
For a few years now, I have been making good use of Freedom - http://freedom.to - which provides removes the need to rely on willpower alone (at least with respect to incessant internet surfing).
<< Likewise, changing the environment and escape into a paper book for half an hour or so, can also lead to a mind ready to action on Q2. Don't take a internet connected device with you though.>>
For a few years now, I have been making good use of Freedom - http://freedom.to - which provides removes the need to rely on willpower alone (at least with respect to incessant internet surfing).
August 25, 2021 at 23:23 |
avrum
avrum
George:
<<I do not believe in the 4 quadrant model of time management>>
I think the 4 quadrant model is as good as any to capture where one's time goes. I agree with you that one activity can be perceived as Quad 4, when in fact it is Quad 2. Still, I think Covey's point is that the things that bring the greatest meaning to our lives are rarely urgent, or minutiae.
<<How do you define what is important but not urgent can change based the various roles we have in our life.>>
I think the late Dr. Covey would agree with you.
<<My bias is more toward David Allen's approach. Intuitive choices... >>
In spirit, I agree. In practice, I gave GTD the ol' college try. Read the book. Took Allen's in-person training. I found the contexts, lists, project definitions not intuitive, and cumbersome.
<<I do not believe in the 4 quadrant model of time management>>
I think the 4 quadrant model is as good as any to capture where one's time goes. I agree with you that one activity can be perceived as Quad 4, when in fact it is Quad 2. Still, I think Covey's point is that the things that bring the greatest meaning to our lives are rarely urgent, or minutiae.
<<How do you define what is important but not urgent can change based the various roles we have in our life.>>
I think the late Dr. Covey would agree with you.
<<My bias is more toward David Allen's approach. Intuitive choices... >>
In spirit, I agree. In practice, I gave GTD the ol' college try. Read the book. Took Allen's in-person training. I found the contexts, lists, project definitions not intuitive, and cumbersome.
August 25, 2021 at 23:36 |
avrum
avrum
Well, Avrum, I generally agree with you concerning the contexts and project definition of the David Allen approach. Strict implementation of contexts is really not necessary unless you have an exceptionally long list of actions. But, some meaningful grouping of related tasks may be useful, such as agenda items or a client. In the same manner, projects are just a device to remind you that an action will lead to another action required to achieve a desired outcome. Again, unless you are working on some complex multistep projects, most of us can work off of action lists, which can just be e-mail folders with related actions.
But, for the hectic lifestyles of today, simple list based systems are hard to beat. No matter what system you use, it still comes down to intuitive choices.
But, for the hectic lifestyles of today, simple list based systems are hard to beat. No matter what system you use, it still comes down to intuitive choices.
August 26, 2021 at 0:42 |
George
George
I think people get caught up in thinking that "important" has to mean "big picture" or "life meaningful." I found significant freedom when I shifted from thinking of important as a long term concept to instead thinking of the things that I cared most about ensuring were done or actioned in my present moment (day) as "important."
I also love the theoretical "flexibility" and "Zen-like responsiveness" of a GTD style system. Unfortunately, I found the implementation very non-Zen when it actually came to taking action. In particular, after spending a lot of time with a lot of systems, I've discovered that the act of choosing to do something is extremely expensive for me personally. And it's worse the more energy I have. Thus, decision fatigue is a real thing in my life. I have a serious issue of FOMO and perfectionism that makes it very tough for me to pick a task to do that might theoretically be sub-optimal at any given time. So in the middle of the day, if I try to pick a "good" task to do, I'm immediately struck by fatigue and FOMO decision paralysis. If I try to allow myself to not "feel bad" about picking a task that isn't optimal, I find that I tend to also give up anything in my personality that drives me to pick productive activities, so I end up doing easy and distracting tasks that have nothing to do with what I really want to do if I thought about it (because I'm actively trying not to think about it).
This makes something like GTD very hard for me, even though I absolutely adore the organizational aspects of it. However, the "work hard, play hard" mantra has actually worked very well for me, in a very specific format.
I've found that if i start a task, I'm exceptionally driven to "complete" it. I can't really do "little and often" in the way that Mark promotes it, because I simply have a terrible time stopping the doing of any given task. That means that as long as i start a task, I'm going to work pretty hard on it. I've also found that it is exceptionally easy for me to "lecture" my future self. I discovered that if I want to make up a list of things that I should do at some point in the near future, such as tomorrow, then it's much easier for me to think about and make those decisions, though it's still not free. I also found, as Mark points out in the random methods posts, that it can feel easier to do something if someone else has already made the decision (thus, you don't have to make the decision and don't suffer from decision fatigue, perfectionism, or FOMO).
The only problem I found is that it's very easy for me to want to "overload" my future self because I can be too optimistic about what I might be able to do.
What I'm continuing to find is that the Charles Schwab/Ivy Lee method is consistently the best list processing method for me. It's a kind of "work hard, play hard" method. It has all the elements that seem to work best for me. I get to decide on a severely limited set of things that I will do first when I "begin work" the next day. This makes it easy for me, because I can pick things right now, and I don't feel the worry that I would if I were trying to pick something to do "right now." Instead, I can think strategically about a "future self" that is emotionally distant from me right now. I also have to do this only once at the end of my work day, which means that I don't have to suffer decision fatigue during my work day.
Additionally, I don't have any list processing overhead, because I always just do the tasks in the order that I ranked them the night before, to completion. So when I start my work the next day, I don't have to make any decisions. I just get to work. I find this *extremely* liberating in a way that most other systems aren't. It's probably the single biggest "wow" moment for me. Compared to every other system, the idea of "start at the top, do each item until it's complete and don't go to the next one until you are done" is so liberating it was almost incredible when I first tried it (which is why I played around with other stuff after that).
This almost completely removes most of my emotional burden about work. If I complete all 6 items well, I don't have to worry much about what else I do for the day, as my "hard" work has been done. If I don't finish by the end of the day, well, I don't care, because I was always working on what I had decided to work on as the "most important", and I purposefully can ignore everything else and then make a new list for tomorrow (carrying over the old tasks that were incomplete). This ironically also lets me quit work at a better time (something I have trouble with).
I still have an "ideas" list which is essentially a lot like a typical Mark Forster long list. I use this as my feeder list to populate those 6 items. This is a lot like FV with the exception that there's a specific 6 item selection limit, I rank order them, and I only and always select a queue of 6 the night before, and I work each item to completion instead of working "little and often". I do in fact "dot" my items in my ideas list to track which ones are "in queue" at the moment. This can also be seen as a WIP limit in a Personal Kanban workflow.
Since I don't find Mark's typical approach to little and often to work for me, how do I avoid sitting forever on one task? Well, it's simple, I know that if I don't break my tasks down, I'll end up with a task that is too big to complete expediently, which will cause other things I want to do to lag *way* behind. So I am constantly encouraged to continuously break my tasks down until they are manageable. I might even have "decompose task X" as a task itself that goes onto the list.
I've also systematically and progressively focused on reducing and eliminating as many sources of "emergencies" in my work as possible. I have cut out almost all interruptions, reduce projects to a pipeline that ensures I'm not working on too many at once, and I ensure that I don't overschedule meetings. This allows me the flexibility to do this "eat the frog" style approach that I am taking and "work hard first". I do think that there's something to that. I find that play has no natural stopping point, so I will tend to continue playing much longer than I should. So doing the "important stuff" first just works for me.
I also love the theoretical "flexibility" and "Zen-like responsiveness" of a GTD style system. Unfortunately, I found the implementation very non-Zen when it actually came to taking action. In particular, after spending a lot of time with a lot of systems, I've discovered that the act of choosing to do something is extremely expensive for me personally. And it's worse the more energy I have. Thus, decision fatigue is a real thing in my life. I have a serious issue of FOMO and perfectionism that makes it very tough for me to pick a task to do that might theoretically be sub-optimal at any given time. So in the middle of the day, if I try to pick a "good" task to do, I'm immediately struck by fatigue and FOMO decision paralysis. If I try to allow myself to not "feel bad" about picking a task that isn't optimal, I find that I tend to also give up anything in my personality that drives me to pick productive activities, so I end up doing easy and distracting tasks that have nothing to do with what I really want to do if I thought about it (because I'm actively trying not to think about it).
This makes something like GTD very hard for me, even though I absolutely adore the organizational aspects of it. However, the "work hard, play hard" mantra has actually worked very well for me, in a very specific format.
I've found that if i start a task, I'm exceptionally driven to "complete" it. I can't really do "little and often" in the way that Mark promotes it, because I simply have a terrible time stopping the doing of any given task. That means that as long as i start a task, I'm going to work pretty hard on it. I've also found that it is exceptionally easy for me to "lecture" my future self. I discovered that if I want to make up a list of things that I should do at some point in the near future, such as tomorrow, then it's much easier for me to think about and make those decisions, though it's still not free. I also found, as Mark points out in the random methods posts, that it can feel easier to do something if someone else has already made the decision (thus, you don't have to make the decision and don't suffer from decision fatigue, perfectionism, or FOMO).
The only problem I found is that it's very easy for me to want to "overload" my future self because I can be too optimistic about what I might be able to do.
What I'm continuing to find is that the Charles Schwab/Ivy Lee method is consistently the best list processing method for me. It's a kind of "work hard, play hard" method. It has all the elements that seem to work best for me. I get to decide on a severely limited set of things that I will do first when I "begin work" the next day. This makes it easy for me, because I can pick things right now, and I don't feel the worry that I would if I were trying to pick something to do "right now." Instead, I can think strategically about a "future self" that is emotionally distant from me right now. I also have to do this only once at the end of my work day, which means that I don't have to suffer decision fatigue during my work day.
Additionally, I don't have any list processing overhead, because I always just do the tasks in the order that I ranked them the night before, to completion. So when I start my work the next day, I don't have to make any decisions. I just get to work. I find this *extremely* liberating in a way that most other systems aren't. It's probably the single biggest "wow" moment for me. Compared to every other system, the idea of "start at the top, do each item until it's complete and don't go to the next one until you are done" is so liberating it was almost incredible when I first tried it (which is why I played around with other stuff after that).
This almost completely removes most of my emotional burden about work. If I complete all 6 items well, I don't have to worry much about what else I do for the day, as my "hard" work has been done. If I don't finish by the end of the day, well, I don't care, because I was always working on what I had decided to work on as the "most important", and I purposefully can ignore everything else and then make a new list for tomorrow (carrying over the old tasks that were incomplete). This ironically also lets me quit work at a better time (something I have trouble with).
I still have an "ideas" list which is essentially a lot like a typical Mark Forster long list. I use this as my feeder list to populate those 6 items. This is a lot like FV with the exception that there's a specific 6 item selection limit, I rank order them, and I only and always select a queue of 6 the night before, and I work each item to completion instead of working "little and often". I do in fact "dot" my items in my ideas list to track which ones are "in queue" at the moment. This can also be seen as a WIP limit in a Personal Kanban workflow.
Since I don't find Mark's typical approach to little and often to work for me, how do I avoid sitting forever on one task? Well, it's simple, I know that if I don't break my tasks down, I'll end up with a task that is too big to complete expediently, which will cause other things I want to do to lag *way* behind. So I am constantly encouraged to continuously break my tasks down until they are manageable. I might even have "decompose task X" as a task itself that goes onto the list.
I've also systematically and progressively focused on reducing and eliminating as many sources of "emergencies" in my work as possible. I have cut out almost all interruptions, reduce projects to a pipeline that ensures I'm not working on too many at once, and I ensure that I don't overschedule meetings. This allows me the flexibility to do this "eat the frog" style approach that I am taking and "work hard first". I do think that there's something to that. I find that play has no natural stopping point, so I will tend to continue playing much longer than I should. So doing the "important stuff" first just works for me.
September 1, 2021 at 4:11 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron - very interesting. I like how you matched your various internal bottlenecks and motivations to a system that works for you. You’re not fighting your nature, and it sounds like it’s bearing fruit. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.
September 1, 2021 at 5:13 |
avrum
avrum
Aaron:
<< I know that if I don't break my tasks down, I'll end up with a task that is too big to complete expediently, which will cause other things I want to do to lag *way* behind. So I am constantly encouraged to continuously break my tasks down until they are manageable. >>
That IS my "little and often approach".
And see: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2007/2/15/the-four-quadrants-a-different-version.html
<< I know that if I don't break my tasks down, I'll end up with a task that is too big to complete expediently, which will cause other things I want to do to lag *way* behind. So I am constantly encouraged to continuously break my tasks down until they are manageable. >>
That IS my "little and often approach".
And see: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2007/2/15/the-four-quadrants-a-different-version.html
September 1, 2021 at 11:02 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
I don't see Little and Often mentioned in that link? Did I miss something.
I'm referring to a few things you mentioned in the past:
* That you action tasks and "spend as much time as you want on them and then stop."
* "When you are given a task which doesn’t need to be done immediately, don’t put it off. You will do far better to start work on it as soon as possible and to do some work on it daily." In this case, the way that you often describe accomplishing this in your systems, referencing little and often, is to put the task on the list, and then just do as much of it as you want to when it comes up. What I'm saying is that this doesn't work for me.
* You make liberal use of "if you are not finished with a task, re-enter it". I'm saying that this application of little and often doesn't work for me.
* You have repeatedly mentioned that you don't often feel a need to break tasks down on your lists into "physical next actions" and instead are fine with an item on the list as long as it properly triggers you to know what that next action is on it, even if the task is bigger than that next action. That also doesn't work for me.
* Things like the principles described here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/22/sf-tips-1-work-little-and-often.html don't work well for me.
In other words, if I put a task on a list, I can't just "do a little bit of that task" when I start working on it. If I put "Work on Project X", then that's a horrible item on my list, because if I start working on Project X, I won't feel like stopping until I'm either completely out of energy for the whole day and I can't do anything else (well beyond my bedtime, often times), or until Project X is completely done. There's no sense of "just a little" in my psyche. I have also found I can't put something like "5 minutes of Project X" on my list either, because time limits like that don't work at all, I never, ever meet them. IOW, anything that would require me to re-enter a task in the list or relies on me being able to stop doing something before the entire task is fully complete, just doesn't work. The only way I can do little and often is to have explicit, concrete tasks that have clear termination points after which the task is clearly done, and which are small enough for me to actually complete said task within a few hours. I find I need something like this:
https://www.oliverburkeman.com/physical
The problem I have found is that I won't do this unless there is something in the system that makes me want to break tasks down this far. Otherwise I won't break the tasks down if I don't "have to".
In other words, psychologically, there's no "little and often" in my mind. There's either, done, or not done. I can't do "a little." I also chafe at "often." I don't want to repeat the doing of something. So, if I see "Read book" on my list, it's much harder for me to do that than if I see "Read Ch. 1 of book." I don't want to see a task repeated on my list over and over again, as I tend to get really annoyed at this. Even routine tasks are a struggle for this precise reason. There are a few things that I have cultivated as routines around this, but they don't go onto my task list, they go onto some sort of habit tracker or routine checklist that allows me to check something off as done or not done, but which shows a change in state over time.
Only "recepticals of dopamine" are exceptions to this. These are tasks or activities that represent renewable buckets of dopamine hits that I go back to because they have a promise of novelty and excitement. Unsurprisingly, I can revisit these buckets relatively easily, but I certainly can't do "a little" of it. If I get into something like that, I usually feel compelled to empty the bucket entirely before stopping.
I don't see Little and Often mentioned in that link? Did I miss something.
I'm referring to a few things you mentioned in the past:
* That you action tasks and "spend as much time as you want on them and then stop."
* "When you are given a task which doesn’t need to be done immediately, don’t put it off. You will do far better to start work on it as soon as possible and to do some work on it daily." In this case, the way that you often describe accomplishing this in your systems, referencing little and often, is to put the task on the list, and then just do as much of it as you want to when it comes up. What I'm saying is that this doesn't work for me.
* You make liberal use of "if you are not finished with a task, re-enter it". I'm saying that this application of little and often doesn't work for me.
* You have repeatedly mentioned that you don't often feel a need to break tasks down on your lists into "physical next actions" and instead are fine with an item on the list as long as it properly triggers you to know what that next action is on it, even if the task is bigger than that next action. That also doesn't work for me.
* Things like the principles described here: http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/22/sf-tips-1-work-little-and-often.html don't work well for me.
In other words, if I put a task on a list, I can't just "do a little bit of that task" when I start working on it. If I put "Work on Project X", then that's a horrible item on my list, because if I start working on Project X, I won't feel like stopping until I'm either completely out of energy for the whole day and I can't do anything else (well beyond my bedtime, often times), or until Project X is completely done. There's no sense of "just a little" in my psyche. I have also found I can't put something like "5 minutes of Project X" on my list either, because time limits like that don't work at all, I never, ever meet them. IOW, anything that would require me to re-enter a task in the list or relies on me being able to stop doing something before the entire task is fully complete, just doesn't work. The only way I can do little and often is to have explicit, concrete tasks that have clear termination points after which the task is clearly done, and which are small enough for me to actually complete said task within a few hours. I find I need something like this:
https://www.oliverburkeman.com/physical
The problem I have found is that I won't do this unless there is something in the system that makes me want to break tasks down this far. Otherwise I won't break the tasks down if I don't "have to".
In other words, psychologically, there's no "little and often" in my mind. There's either, done, or not done. I can't do "a little." I also chafe at "often." I don't want to repeat the doing of something. So, if I see "Read book" on my list, it's much harder for me to do that than if I see "Read Ch. 1 of book." I don't want to see a task repeated on my list over and over again, as I tend to get really annoyed at this. Even routine tasks are a struggle for this precise reason. There are a few things that I have cultivated as routines around this, but they don't go onto my task list, they go onto some sort of habit tracker or routine checklist that allows me to check something off as done or not done, but which shows a change in state over time.
Only "recepticals of dopamine" are exceptions to this. These are tasks or activities that represent renewable buckets of dopamine hits that I go back to because they have a promise of novelty and excitement. Unsurprisingly, I can revisit these buckets relatively easily, but I certainly can't do "a little" of it. If I get into something like that, I usually feel compelled to empty the bucket entirely before stopping.
September 2, 2021 at 2:43 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron: <<"if you are not finished with a task, re-enter it". I'm saying that this application of little and often doesn't work for me>>
Little and often - as a mindset - was one of the only ways I was able to write my books.
I think your post above re: how the Ivy Method plays nicely with your thinking, would make for an excellent self help/productivity book. To have the reader answer questions, think and try different workflow systems and choose the one the produces the most consistent results.
I have tried the Ivy Method, and it does not work for me. However, your post brought me back to a time where Covey's weekly planning question served me well:
Question 1: What one thing could you do (something you aren’t doing now) that, if you did it on a regular basis, would make a tremendous positive difference in your personal life?
Question 2: What one thing in your professional life would bring similar results?
I'm thinking of returning to this during my weekly planning session. Writing that one thing down on an index card, and reviewing it each morning.
Little and often - as a mindset - was one of the only ways I was able to write my books.
I think your post above re: how the Ivy Method plays nicely with your thinking, would make for an excellent self help/productivity book. To have the reader answer questions, think and try different workflow systems and choose the one the produces the most consistent results.
I have tried the Ivy Method, and it does not work for me. However, your post brought me back to a time where Covey's weekly planning question served me well:
Question 1: What one thing could you do (something you aren’t doing now) that, if you did it on a regular basis, would make a tremendous positive difference in your personal life?
Question 2: What one thing in your professional life would bring similar results?
I'm thinking of returning to this during my weekly planning session. Writing that one thing down on an index card, and reviewing it each morning.
September 2, 2021 at 13:20 |
avrum
avrum
Aaron Hsu:
<< I don't see Little and Often mentioned in that link? Did I miss something. >>
No you didn't. It wasn't intended to be about Little and Often, but something which provided more context. Sorry not to be clear.
<< In other words, psychologically, there's no "little and often" in my mind. There's either, done, or not done. >>
I've always said that people should enter tasks on their list in the way that suits them best. If you find that it suits you best to put "physical next actions" on your list, then that's fine by me. Personally I use a mixture - whatever for me suits the particular task or project.
<< I don't see Little and Often mentioned in that link? Did I miss something. >>
No you didn't. It wasn't intended to be about Little and Often, but something which provided more context. Sorry not to be clear.
<< In other words, psychologically, there's no "little and often" in my mind. There's either, done, or not done. >>
I've always said that people should enter tasks on their list in the way that suits them best. If you find that it suits you best to put "physical next actions" on your list, then that's fine by me. Personally I use a mixture - whatever for me suits the particular task or project.
September 2, 2021 at 13:38 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think the principles behind why Mark's version of "Little and Often" is effective can be connected with the concept of Executive Dysfunction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_dysfunction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_dysfunction
September 4, 2021 at 22:06 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
I ran across this in a textbook about Self-Directed Behavior. It’s called Premack’s Principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premack's_principle
“You have to eat your veggies first” is actually an application of it.
> Premack principle suggests that if a person wants to perform a given activity, the person will perform a less desirable activity to get at the more desirable activity […] An individual will be more motivated to perform a particular activity if he knows that he will partake in a more desirable activity as a consequence.
> Stated objectively, if high-probability behaviors (more desirable behaviors) are made contingent upon lower-probability behaviors (less desirable behaviors), then the lower-probability behaviors are more likely to occur. More desirable behaviors are those that individuals spend more time doing if permitted; less desirable behaviors are those that individuals spend less time doing when free to act.
> Just as "reward" was commonly used to alter behavior long before "reinforcement" was studied experimentally, the Premack principle has long been informally understood and used in a wide variety of circumstances. An example is a mother who says, "You have to finish your vegetables (low frequency) before you can eat any ice cream (high frequency)."
I think of this when I run across “implementation intentions” (when X, I’ll do Y). What you should actually do is make sure X is something you do frequently (aka “high-probability behavior”), and Y something you wish you would do as frequently (less desirable/low-probability), and make it so you must do Y in order to do X.
“You have to eat your veggies first” is actually an application of it.
> Premack principle suggests that if a person wants to perform a given activity, the person will perform a less desirable activity to get at the more desirable activity […] An individual will be more motivated to perform a particular activity if he knows that he will partake in a more desirable activity as a consequence.
> Stated objectively, if high-probability behaviors (more desirable behaviors) are made contingent upon lower-probability behaviors (less desirable behaviors), then the lower-probability behaviors are more likely to occur. More desirable behaviors are those that individuals spend more time doing if permitted; less desirable behaviors are those that individuals spend less time doing when free to act.
> Just as "reward" was commonly used to alter behavior long before "reinforcement" was studied experimentally, the Premack principle has long been informally understood and used in a wide variety of circumstances. An example is a mother who says, "You have to finish your vegetables (low frequency) before you can eat any ice cream (high frequency)."
I think of this when I run across “implementation intentions” (when X, I’ll do Y). What you should actually do is make sure X is something you do frequently (aka “high-probability behavior”), and Y something you wish you would do as frequently (less desirable/low-probability), and make it so you must do Y in order to do X.
September 5, 2021 at 14:55 |
Don R
Don R
I meant to include an example. At my old job we had to take turns carrying a phone which our company could call 24 hours a day if they needed someone to fix major computer problems, aka “being on call.” The chances of handing off the phone to the next person when your turn was done was high probability (100%), because no one likes being on call. The person on call was also supposed to check the ticket system and make sure each ticket was assigned to someone. But the chances of someone doing that were more like 20%. My boss asked for ideas on making sure that happened and I suggested Premack’s principle: before you physically give the phone to the next person, you must first update the ticket system (which only takes a couple minutes). We all agreed and from then on, the tickets always got updated.
September 5, 2021 at 15:05 |
Don R
Don R
Don:
<<I ran across this in a textbook about Self-Directed Behavior.>>
Do you have the name of the book?
<<I ran across this in a textbook about Self-Directed Behavior.>>
Do you have the name of the book?
September 5, 2021 at 16:42 |
avrum
avrum
Aaron Hsu:
<< I think the principles behind why Mark's version of "Little and Often" is effective can be connected with the concept of Executive Dysfunction >>
I'm not qualified to say, but I have been told by a specialist with autistic children that my principles work well with them..
<< I think the principles behind why Mark's version of "Little and Often" is effective can be connected with the concept of Executive Dysfunction >>
I'm not qualified to say, but I have been told by a specialist with autistic children that my principles work well with them..
September 6, 2021 at 12:09 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
avrum:
The one I originally read was several editions earlier, but here's the current one: https://www.amazon.com/Self-Directed-Behavior-Self-Modification-Personal-Adjustment/dp/1285077091
Self-Directed Behavior: Self-Modification for Personal Adjustment 10th Edition
by David L. Watson (Author), Roland G. Tharp (Author)
I ordered a used copy for myself after writing my previous post for about $40 which should arrive soon. You have to go to "other sellers" and then "20 Used from $43.05" to find one at a more reasonable price. There might be other ways to get ahold of it though.
The one I originally read was several editions earlier, but here's the current one: https://www.amazon.com/Self-Directed-Behavior-Self-Modification-Personal-Adjustment/dp/1285077091
Self-Directed Behavior: Self-Modification for Personal Adjustment 10th Edition
by David L. Watson (Author), Roland G. Tharp (Author)
I ordered a used copy for myself after writing my previous post for about $40 which should arrive soon. You have to go to "other sellers" and then "20 Used from $43.05" to find one at a more reasonable price. There might be other ways to get ahold of it though.
September 8, 2021 at 15:51 |
Don R
Don R
Generally, I'm clear on my daily Quadrant 2 - Important, Not Urgent - activities. Left to my own predilections, I wait until evening guilt bullies me into doing Quad 2 activities. When I do, it's usually a 1/2 hearted attempt.
I'd be curious to hear if any of you have been able to sustain some form of a "Eat your veggies before desert" type of workflow. What worked, what did not.