Discussion Forum > Established routine tasks in long list
I think it depends upon how much is on a list. Does a list contain as little as necessary? Or is it meant to be comprehensive? Is there one list, or a few, or many?
If you have a long list, and write down everything you do as you do them, then your daily routine tasks will get on the list. If they are on the list, you will have motivation to read the list and review the other items.
If your universal capture list is also used as your to-do list, you will eventually have many items on the list. There is a simplicity in having one list. I found that eventually for me the list got too long to get through in one day, and I also got tired of crossing out and rewriting daily routines.
What I did was had a daily checklist for the 1st hour, and also for the last hour. This worked fine for a month or so. It reduced the long list. But eventually the long list grew. So I reviewed the long list, and selected the items I wanted to do today, and made a Today's list. I think this would be sufficient. I know a number of people recommend having a Master List and a Daily List. However, not all the tasks on the Today's list would get done. Eventually, I had several Daily lists. Now the number of lists are mounting, so that the long list isn't referred to anymore. Then it becomes a Someday/Maybe list. There is nothing wrong with any of these.
I got sick for a week, and didn't look at any list, so I have to start over.
I have had a daily routine checklist. That can work too. You don't have to rewrite the task, just check it off.
I think Newton's 3rd Law applies. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you push it in, it will pull out the other way. The ideal would be to strike a balance between having lists but not too many of them, having lists but not too long, having lists but not becoming a slave to them.
If you have a long list, and write down everything you do as you do them, then your daily routine tasks will get on the list. If they are on the list, you will have motivation to read the list and review the other items.
If your universal capture list is also used as your to-do list, you will eventually have many items on the list. There is a simplicity in having one list. I found that eventually for me the list got too long to get through in one day, and I also got tired of crossing out and rewriting daily routines.
What I did was had a daily checklist for the 1st hour, and also for the last hour. This worked fine for a month or so. It reduced the long list. But eventually the long list grew. So I reviewed the long list, and selected the items I wanted to do today, and made a Today's list. I think this would be sufficient. I know a number of people recommend having a Master List and a Daily List. However, not all the tasks on the Today's list would get done. Eventually, I had several Daily lists. Now the number of lists are mounting, so that the long list isn't referred to anymore. Then it becomes a Someday/Maybe list. There is nothing wrong with any of these.
I got sick for a week, and didn't look at any list, so I have to start over.
I have had a daily routine checklist. That can work too. You don't have to rewrite the task, just check it off.
I think Newton's 3rd Law applies. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you push it in, it will pull out the other way. The ideal would be to strike a balance between having lists but not too many of them, having lists but not too long, having lists but not becoming a slave to them.
December 14, 2021 at 19:30 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
One could choose not to put routines on any list, such as a morning wakeup routine, or evening bedtime routine, or a certain hour of the day to leave free of lists. Or certain day of the week which will be spontaneous, a sabbath day free of lists.
I am tempted to take my notebook with me wherever I go, but it is good at times to leave it home.
There is a difference between reviewing a list as reminder or checklist and not referring to it again - this could be a comprehensive list - and working from a list, a task list, to-do list, that you refer to constantly, and is the basis for work. It seems both are useful.
Some time management books advise processing to-do's into routines, tasks, and projects.
There are daily, weekly, monthly, yearly routines. Some software programs enable you to schedule the routines like this and put them on your calendar.
I am tempted to take my notebook with me wherever I go, but it is good at times to leave it home.
There is a difference between reviewing a list as reminder or checklist and not referring to it again - this could be a comprehensive list - and working from a list, a task list, to-do list, that you refer to constantly, and is the basis for work. It seems both are useful.
Some time management books advise processing to-do's into routines, tasks, and projects.
There are daily, weekly, monthly, yearly routines. Some software programs enable you to schedule the routines like this and put them on your calendar.
December 14, 2021 at 20:22 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
I'm a fan of putting it on your list, but there's some subtlety in choosing the appropriate resolution. I've been thinking a little about this as I juggle between Simple Scanning and Autofocus trying to find the right balance for keeping a list the right shape for good work. For most routine tasks, there's a resolution at which their actioning "feels" right. I think this has to do with how well a given routine is established, so it's not just a question of whether it should go on the list, but at what resolution it should go on the list. As an example, I have a set of forums that I review regularly and email to do. I have in the past used "Communications" as an item on my task list that covered all of these, because normally, most of my communications work is done at once or in batches. However, nowadays, I'm finding it better to split these out into separate tasks for email, forum 1, forum 2, etc. I still usually action them very close together, but separating them out just a little has showed some flexibility there, where I will sometimes let one forum languish a little longer on the list than another, and this flexibility is a bit nicer for me. I could be even more precise, but to no benefit. On the other hand, there are other tasks, such as a sleep routine, that I'll keep as a single item under "sleep". Likewise, I put a few books on my list, or a set of things that I need to talk to so and so about, and as the list matured, these things began to attenuate into a little list all by themselves. At that point, I realized that I should collate those items out into a single task item on the list, so I now have "Read Books" and "Update so and so" or the like. The reason for grouping them instead of splitting them out like I did with my forums is to help improve my ability to action that item, so that items aren't languishing on the list too much.
I think using the shape of the list as a method for studying your work and adjusting how you engage with it is an important part of working with the long list. You "play with your tasks" intentionally as a way of shaping your work so that you improve the smoothness of that work.
I think the overarching principle here is one of "atomicity". This is the idea that your tasks are probably best written down at the resolution of single atomic units. That is, the task represents an action or set of actions that is unified and grouped in such a way that they will always occur together or in order. At some point, a set of tasks might become so routine that they always happen together, and in that case, it might be worth wrapping them all up and into a single atomic action for that specific routine. This becomes useful only once the routine is truly routine and atomic. Likewise, if you have a bunch of related tasks, but they aren't necessarily all actioned in some strict ordering or at the same time, then that's a group, but not really atomic.
I think trying to think about atomicity in your task list is a good rule of thumb to help judge the various resolutions of your tasks. Thus, my approach is to put pretty much everything on the list, but "work with the shape" of the list a lot to improve the atomicity to a comfortable place for me so that I feel that I'm actioning efficiently but also sufficiently flexibly.
I think using the shape of the list as a method for studying your work and adjusting how you engage with it is an important part of working with the long list. You "play with your tasks" intentionally as a way of shaping your work so that you improve the smoothness of that work.
I think the overarching principle here is one of "atomicity". This is the idea that your tasks are probably best written down at the resolution of single atomic units. That is, the task represents an action or set of actions that is unified and grouped in such a way that they will always occur together or in order. At some point, a set of tasks might become so routine that they always happen together, and in that case, it might be worth wrapping them all up and into a single atomic action for that specific routine. This becomes useful only once the routine is truly routine and atomic. Likewise, if you have a bunch of related tasks, but they aren't necessarily all actioned in some strict ordering or at the same time, then that's a group, but not really atomic.
I think trying to think about atomicity in your task list is a good rule of thumb to help judge the various resolutions of your tasks. Thus, my approach is to put pretty much everything on the list, but "work with the shape" of the list a lot to improve the atomicity to a comfortable place for me so that I feel that I'm actioning efficiently but also sufficiently flexibly.
December 14, 2021 at 23:21 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
And I'll argue that as long as you have the task at the right resolution on the list, you will be saving mental energy by keeping a unified springboard from which to decide what to do, rather than having sometimes to remember to do something separate from your list, while at other times looking at your list. While there is a mental cost of choice, it's more expensive if you have to integrate both recall and choice at the same time. It's easier to have the choices laid out a priori.
December 14, 2021 at 23:23 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Thanks, everyone. Some interesting insights.
Aaron Hsu: <And I'll argue that as long as you have the task at the right resolution on the list, you will be saving mental energy by keeping a unified springboard from which to decide what to do, rather than having sometimes to remember to do something separate from your list, while at other times looking at your list. While there is a mental cost of choice, it's more expensive if you have to integrate both recall and choice at the same time. It's easier to have the choices laid out a priori. >
This is a strong argument and one I'm tempted to agree with myself. I confess, though, that sometimes over the years I've encountered resistance to putting "everything" in my life on a list. This is one of the reasons I've gravitated towards the "no-list" or no-list-at-all approaches in recent times. There's something great about the freedom in that. (And the Dreams approach, which I've used most recently, is awesome.)
Still, it's hard to deny the power of the long-list systems (especially when it comes to reducing mental effort in doing/keeping track of things). I would not be surprised to find myself doing long list again one day (if I get over the aforementioned resistance).
Aaron Hsu: <And I'll argue that as long as you have the task at the right resolution on the list, you will be saving mental energy by keeping a unified springboard from which to decide what to do, rather than having sometimes to remember to do something separate from your list, while at other times looking at your list. While there is a mental cost of choice, it's more expensive if you have to integrate both recall and choice at the same time. It's easier to have the choices laid out a priori. >
This is a strong argument and one I'm tempted to agree with myself. I confess, though, that sometimes over the years I've encountered resistance to putting "everything" in my life on a list. This is one of the reasons I've gravitated towards the "no-list" or no-list-at-all approaches in recent times. There's something great about the freedom in that. (And the Dreams approach, which I've used most recently, is awesome.)
Still, it's hard to deny the power of the long-list systems (especially when it comes to reducing mental effort in doing/keeping track of things). I would not be surprised to find myself doing long list again one day (if I get over the aforementioned resistance).
December 19, 2021 at 17:20 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
I'm starting a new long list after being sick for a week and when the list is short there's no problem with putting the routines on it. It makes the list go faster and has more of a flow. a long list is great for keeping track of those little items and little tasks that you would otherwise forget. Putting a lot of structure around those is just not worth it and it's counterproductive. I too like the no lists or what I would call short lists. It's useful when you don't want to keep it on a long list and it only applies for the next few minutes and then the task is done. The list is short and you can get through it and you feel a sense of accomplishment. However if you don't accomplish everything on the short list and you want to preserve it then you have to put it on the long list.
I have found though that the longer the list the more it bogs down and it's harder to process it and putting the routines makes it even longer. This must be the reason for the dismissal process. To keep the list short enough to have it manageable. However it seems to me that it is just as useful just to keep those items and make them part of a someday maybe list.
I have found though that the longer the list the more it bogs down and it's harder to process it and putting the routines makes it even longer. This must be the reason for the dismissal process. To keep the list short enough to have it manageable. However it seems to me that it is just as useful just to keep those items and make them part of a someday maybe list.
December 19, 2021 at 17:44 |
Mark H
Mark H
The long list is maybe the easiest method to get started from scratch. You just start writing. You don't have to structure it from the beginning. As a list gets longer you can let the structure grow organically. You can add subroutines like in computer programming or sublists. However you get to a point where if you have too many lists you're not going to look at the longer list.
December 19, 2021 at 17:50 |
Mark H
Mark H
P.S. Aaron: I forgot to add that you made some good points about the importance of entering a task at the right "level" (atomicity, etc.).
I think in the past, with long list, I had a tendency to re-enter tasks at too high a level: i.e. as one big task. While sometimes that is appropriate (e.g. when the component parts of that task are obvious), I'm starting to think that, in many cases, entering smaller tasks could be advantageous. Among other things: that might spur you to do more and faster work since you'll want to get the clutter of the little tasks off your list. (Whereas, with a big task, you might feel less incentive to work on it since the task will stay on the list for a while whether you action it or not.)
I think in the past, with long list, I had a tendency to re-enter tasks at too high a level: i.e. as one big task. While sometimes that is appropriate (e.g. when the component parts of that task are obvious), I'm starting to think that, in many cases, entering smaller tasks could be advantageous. Among other things: that might spur you to do more and faster work since you'll want to get the clutter of the little tasks off your list. (Whereas, with a big task, you might feel less incentive to work on it since the task will stay on the list for a while whether you action it or not.)
December 19, 2021 at 22:20 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
I've often made the point that a task can be entered at any level. Putting in a high-level task like "New Project A" means something on the lines of "Think About New Project A and decide what action needs to be taken now". Obviously that is going to generate a string of lower-level tasks.
A point I haven't made anything like as often is that not only can a task be entered at any level, but it can be entered at multiple levels at once. So having generated your string of lower-level tasks you can still keep "New Project A" on the list in order to generate further ideas, tasks and reviews.
A point I haven't made anything like as often is that not only can a task be entered at any level, but it can be entered at multiple levels at once. So having generated your string of lower-level tasks you can still keep "New Project A" on the list in order to generate further ideas, tasks and reviews.
December 22, 2021 at 15:58 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark Forster:
<< a task... can be entered at multiple levels at once. So having generated your string of lower-level tasks you can still keep "New Project A" on the list in order to generate further ideas, tasks and reviews. >>
That's awesome. Thanks for the suggestion!
<< a task... can be entered at multiple levels at once. So having generated your string of lower-level tasks you can still keep "New Project A" on the list in order to generate further ideas, tasks and reviews. >>
That's awesome. Thanks for the suggestion!
December 23, 2021 at 17:05 |
Belacqua
Belacqua
Mark: This might be a neat way of aligning future goals with daily actions towards it.
December 27, 2021 at 21:11 |
michael
michael
My question is: How do you handle tasks in Simple Scanning (or in any long list system) which are so much an established part of your current routine that you wouldn't forget to do them even if they weren't on the list? At what point do you remove them from the list? Or do you keep them on your list forever?
I'll give two examples from my own routines: I walk/exercise twice a day and I stream the daily news on a regular basis. Neither of these are scheduled tasks; if I were using a long list, they would be entered as discretionary tasks ("walk"; "news"). But if I left them off the list entirely, I wouldn't forget to do them.
In favor of dropping such tasks from the list, one could argue that it saves rewriting and that the tasks are needlessly taking up mental energy while scanning.
In favor of leaving them on the list is the fundamental idea that a long list should contain "everything" you have to do. If we start dropping a bunch of tasks, pretty soon we don't have a comprehensive list and we don't get a visualization of our total workload. Arguably, the point of putting routine tasks on the list is less to remember them but to optimize how we work on them. One thinks of a major recurring task like "email," for instance. You can remember to check your email even if it's not on your long list, but that doesn't necessarily mean that "email" should be dropped from your list.
Anyway, to me, this question doesn't seem trivially easy. After all, even the most comprehensive long list necessarily contains only a select portion of the actions we do every day. Many actions ("tie shoelaces," "pour water into teacup," etc.) one would never think to put on a list, and for good reason. The issue becomes at what point to include tasks and at what point (perhaps) to drop them. Intuition developed from long-term use of a long list helps here--but having Mark's principled guidance would also be helpful!
I think Mark previously said that there is no hard-and-fast rule, but "Keep it on your list if it's helpful" or something like that. (I don't remember.) This would make sense.
If this question has been previously answered, feel free to direct me to the old thread.