Discussion Forum > Mark, have you broken Simple Scanning yet?
Aaron:
I succeeded in breaking it a while ago.
Looking at my notes, my main problems with it were that it just kept getting longer and longer and more and more oppressive. And because of the length of the list, it became very difficult to keep tasks in the right order. So there were problems of timing as well.
I succeeded in breaking it a while ago.
Looking at my notes, my main problems with it were that it just kept getting longer and longer and more and more oppressive. And because of the length of the list, it became very difficult to keep tasks in the right order. So there were problems of timing as well.
January 17, 2022 at 11:23 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
List of inspirations? What is this referring to!
January 18, 2022 at 14:33 |
Laby
Laby
I meant: What is this referring to?
January 18, 2022 at 14:34 |
Laby
Laby
Laby:
I can't remember. Maybe Aaron can give us the reference.
I can't remember. Maybe Aaron can give us the reference.
January 18, 2022 at 17:11 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark has posted the following in a few places. I believe it initially started as a note to himself to help him "stick" to simple scanning:
Reasons why I should not give up on Simple Scanning even if I get bored and oppressed by it:
- Any system would be better than constant chopping and changing.
- It is no worse than any other system.
- It is very comprehensive and very powerful
- It's simple
- It just about does the work for you.
- Stick something on your list and it gets done. No worries.
- If you change to something else, you have to start again from scratch.
- No miraculous system is going to suddenly appear in your life. Success in your life and work will be from consistent and regular application of one system. It might just as well be this one.
- There is no need to get bored - just concentrate on the results - they won't be boring!
- There is no need to get oppressed - the system will sort it all out for you regardless of the length of the list
- In short, trust the system!
Reasons why I should not give up on Simple Scanning even if I get bored and oppressed by it:
- Any system would be better than constant chopping and changing.
- It is no worse than any other system.
- It is very comprehensive and very powerful
- It's simple
- It just about does the work for you.
- Stick something on your list and it gets done. No worries.
- If you change to something else, you have to start again from scratch.
- No miraculous system is going to suddenly appear in your life. Success in your life and work will be from consistent and regular application of one system. It might just as well be this one.
- There is no need to get bored - just concentrate on the results - they won't be boring!
- There is no need to get oppressed - the system will sort it all out for you regardless of the length of the list
- In short, trust the system!
January 18, 2022 at 19:39 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
“He who breaks a resolution is a weakling; He who makes one is a fool.” – F.M. Knowles
“He who breaks a resolution is a weakling; He who makes one is a fool.” – F.M. Knowles
January 18, 2022 at 21:53 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
So the issues you stated Mark, are:
1) list length causes a feeling of oppression
2) list length causes difficulty in keeping tasks in the right order
3) timing issues
What do you mean by 2) and 3)?
Which of the bullet points that Aaron reposted would you amend? The second to last seems like a candidate: "There is no need to get oppressed - the system will sort it all out for you regardless of the length of the list."
Is there one or two simple rules that could be added to simple scanning that could help with at least the length? Perhaps some sort of dismissal rule like this:
1) At the start of each day, scan the list for items that stand out as being ready to be deleted.
2) Delete item by striking through it
3) Continue round and round the list until you complete one full review of your entire list without deleting anything.
4) Continue into simple scanning rules like normal (i.e. standing out to do, rather than to delete).
1) list length causes a feeling of oppression
2) list length causes difficulty in keeping tasks in the right order
3) timing issues
What do you mean by 2) and 3)?
Which of the bullet points that Aaron reposted would you amend? The second to last seems like a candidate: "There is no need to get oppressed - the system will sort it all out for you regardless of the length of the list."
Is there one or two simple rules that could be added to simple scanning that could help with at least the length? Perhaps some sort of dismissal rule like this:
1) At the start of each day, scan the list for items that stand out as being ready to be deleted.
2) Delete item by striking through it
3) Continue round and round the list until you complete one full review of your entire list without deleting anything.
4) Continue into simple scanning rules like normal (i.e. standing out to do, rather than to delete).
January 20, 2022 at 18:49 |
Cameron
Cameron
It seems like there is a fundamental conflict that still needs to be definitively resolved:
A. We want to maintain a consistently strong intuitive flow -- strong engagement with our work, a productive workflow, results that make a difference in our lives.
B. To have a strong intuitive flow, our intuition needs to be engaged, active, and effective. And to have this, we must keep the list small enough to maintain a strong intuition for all its contents.
C. To have a strong intuitive flow, our intuition also needs "free reign" to explore and act. And to have this, we must be able to capture whatever tasks and ideas our intuitive minds can generate, free of any arbitrary rules and restrictions.
So we have a fundamental conflict -- to have a strong intuitive flow, we need to keep our list small but also need to allow it to grow freely.
On one hand, systems that introduce arbitrary or rule-based mechanisms to reduce the size of the list always eventually come into conflict with our basic intuitive freedom, and this causes us to start resisting the system.
On the other hand, systems that have no such mechanism are always eventually overwhelmed by a list that grows too long and we can no longer process it effectively with our intuition -- we can't maintain a strong sense of the whole list, and it becomes more and more difficult to see the relationships and ordering between tasks.
Following Eli Goldratt, I have a working assumption that every conflict can be eliminated. It starts by identifying the conflict clearly. Can anyone improve on what I've written above? Let's get this conflict nailed so Mark can then go and eliminate it for us definitively and revolutionize time management (again). :)
A. We want to maintain a consistently strong intuitive flow -- strong engagement with our work, a productive workflow, results that make a difference in our lives.
B. To have a strong intuitive flow, our intuition needs to be engaged, active, and effective. And to have this, we must keep the list small enough to maintain a strong intuition for all its contents.
C. To have a strong intuitive flow, our intuition also needs "free reign" to explore and act. And to have this, we must be able to capture whatever tasks and ideas our intuitive minds can generate, free of any arbitrary rules and restrictions.
So we have a fundamental conflict -- to have a strong intuitive flow, we need to keep our list small but also need to allow it to grow freely.
On one hand, systems that introduce arbitrary or rule-based mechanisms to reduce the size of the list always eventually come into conflict with our basic intuitive freedom, and this causes us to start resisting the system.
On the other hand, systems that have no such mechanism are always eventually overwhelmed by a list that grows too long and we can no longer process it effectively with our intuition -- we can't maintain a strong sense of the whole list, and it becomes more and more difficult to see the relationships and ordering between tasks.
Following Eli Goldratt, I have a working assumption that every conflict can be eliminated. It starts by identifying the conflict clearly. Can anyone improve on what I've written above? Let's get this conflict nailed so Mark can then go and eliminate it for us definitively and revolutionize time management (again). :)
January 20, 2022 at 23:14 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Pondering this conflict some more -- and doing a lot of odd back-reading in the forums, going back to SuperFocus and other developments from 10-11 years ago -- I am starting to see this conflict all over the place.
For example, in this thread on the problems with SuperFocus, people starting resisting and/or modifying SuperFocus exactly because of this conflict. The Second Column of SuperFocus had an arbitrary compulsory completion rule, which caused people to resist it, but without that rule, the list of urgent and unfinished work would grow without end, causing people to give up on the system.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1535216#post1536865
I'm wondering if this conflict is the primary underlying cause for system failure. Can anyone think of any other reason why any of our TM systems ultimately fail? Or any systems that are not prone to this conflict in one way or another?
For example, in this thread on the problems with SuperFocus, people starting resisting and/or modifying SuperFocus exactly because of this conflict. The Second Column of SuperFocus had an arbitrary compulsory completion rule, which caused people to resist it, but without that rule, the list of urgent and unfinished work would grow without end, causing people to give up on the system.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1535216#post1536865
I'm wondering if this conflict is the primary underlying cause for system failure. Can anyone think of any other reason why any of our TM systems ultimately fail? Or any systems that are not prone to this conflict in one way or another?
January 20, 2022 at 23:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Comparing with GTD:
In GTD, there is a workflow diagram, with 5 stages.
1. Collect
2. Process (Clarifying)
3. Organize
4. Review
5. Do
The length of the list, and what is on it, might depend on which of these steps has already been taken. If the list is the same as what would be in a bullet journal, then there might be other items beside tasks. David Allen recommends that notes be separate from tasks, so if the list is only actionable, then perhaps some processing (clarifying) has already occurred. I get the impression that most long lists here on this forum are only actionable items. If more processing and/or organizing has occurred, then the list might be shorter. It might contain only committments, in which case, some research and decision-making has occurred. Or the list might contain only what is current actions that can actioned in the next few days, in which case the list might be shorter. Then during the Review stage, there would be fewer items to review.
It seems that many people implement GTD with the collecting, processing, organizing on the front end, on every single item. I have always found the workflow diagram difficult to follow on every item. It seems very complicated.
If the long list originates from the universal capture list, with the Autofocus, long list methods, the clarifying, processing occurs as the list is being reviewed. With GTD, the someday/maybe items are filtered out during the processing, clarifying stage. So they might be reviewed perhaps every month. With Autofocus, the same items might be dismissed. With Simple Scanning, they might remain on the list, and die a slow death in a "survival of the fittest."
One could organize organically during the process of working the list. The collecting step might be considered ongoing as well. So instead of stages occurring sequentially in time, the steps of collecting, processing, and organizing are mingled with reviewing and doing.
Perhaps with any time management practice, the gains are accompanied with costs. If one wants a shorter list, one might have to pay for it at the front-end by filtering out items, processing and organizing. This requires mental energy at the beginning when it sometimes it is too early to know. If one values intuition and freedom, one might have to pay for it later with a longer list, and somehow find ways to reduce it. The clarifying and organizing might need to come, but later.
Simple Scanning with a long list is very easy to get started and easy to understand. It likely is a not a complete time management system in itself, but can get almost anyone started on a right path. GTD is very difficult to implement from scratch, and it is likely that David Allen developed it over a period of time, incrementally, with years of experience. He seems to be aiming at a comprehensive system that leaves nothing out. There is nothing wrong with this, and he can't be faulted for it. But many people might not need the whole system, and in the end might have to craft their own system that fits them.
In GTD, there is a workflow diagram, with 5 stages.
1. Collect
2. Process (Clarifying)
3. Organize
4. Review
5. Do
The length of the list, and what is on it, might depend on which of these steps has already been taken. If the list is the same as what would be in a bullet journal, then there might be other items beside tasks. David Allen recommends that notes be separate from tasks, so if the list is only actionable, then perhaps some processing (clarifying) has already occurred. I get the impression that most long lists here on this forum are only actionable items. If more processing and/or organizing has occurred, then the list might be shorter. It might contain only committments, in which case, some research and decision-making has occurred. Or the list might contain only what is current actions that can actioned in the next few days, in which case the list might be shorter. Then during the Review stage, there would be fewer items to review.
It seems that many people implement GTD with the collecting, processing, organizing on the front end, on every single item. I have always found the workflow diagram difficult to follow on every item. It seems very complicated.
If the long list originates from the universal capture list, with the Autofocus, long list methods, the clarifying, processing occurs as the list is being reviewed. With GTD, the someday/maybe items are filtered out during the processing, clarifying stage. So they might be reviewed perhaps every month. With Autofocus, the same items might be dismissed. With Simple Scanning, they might remain on the list, and die a slow death in a "survival of the fittest."
One could organize organically during the process of working the list. The collecting step might be considered ongoing as well. So instead of stages occurring sequentially in time, the steps of collecting, processing, and organizing are mingled with reviewing and doing.
Perhaps with any time management practice, the gains are accompanied with costs. If one wants a shorter list, one might have to pay for it at the front-end by filtering out items, processing and organizing. This requires mental energy at the beginning when it sometimes it is too early to know. If one values intuition and freedom, one might have to pay for it later with a longer list, and somehow find ways to reduce it. The clarifying and organizing might need to come, but later.
Simple Scanning with a long list is very easy to get started and easy to understand. It likely is a not a complete time management system in itself, but can get almost anyone started on a right path. GTD is very difficult to implement from scratch, and it is likely that David Allen developed it over a period of time, incrementally, with years of experience. He seems to be aiming at a comprehensive system that leaves nothing out. There is nothing wrong with this, and he can't be faulted for it. But many people might not need the whole system, and in the end might have to craft their own system that fits them.
January 21, 2022 at 6:22 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Seraphim:
re: conflict between long and short lists.
The way I would phrase this conflict, which I agree with you on, is the conflict between Capture and Action. DIT really focuses in on this, but I think Kanban has developed a culture around this more than anything else.
I think the challenge Mark faces with the current long list models is the desire to have the simplest possible system for addressing these issues. Normally, in other systems, when you're taking action, you're working from some interface that is distinct from the capture interface. For example, in Kanban, you have your Options → Doing → Done flow.
When you're taking action and doing things, you're working off the Doing column, which is intentionally constrained in size so that you *never* have list growth outside of the capacity to handle things. Many other do the same thing, but some famous ones, such as Simple Scanning or GTD, do not explicitly include this, which is why you often hear people complaining about the length of their lists in both.
But that Personal Kanban board also includes the Options column, which is where you are able to freely capture as much as you want, and let that list grow as much as you want. However, all of that work is "uncommitted" work in the sense that you aren't allowed to be working on it until you free up capacity in the Doing column.
It's worth noting that the 3T list fed from a long list is very much a variety of the above.
At its heart, Focus and Action requires narrowing and constraining, while Capture and Exploration requires expansion and Boundlessness. I think the key failures of many systems come in the boundary between these two systems, in the pulling of work from Options to Doing. If you can't do that often enough, then you become unresponsive and you can't steer the ship quickly enough, but if you do that too often, you bog down and get stuck. And finally, if it takes you too long to pull new work in once you have more capacity, then your whole system becomes more inefficient. This last one is, I think, what tends to happen with long list systems when the list gets too long: you end up not being able to get to the next action quickly enough, slowing the whole thing down.
So, it really boils down to Responding, Finishing, and Deciding, but then that's nothing new. Mark has been wrestling with those three issues for a long time. I think he's given himself a particularly difficult challenge by also insisting on simplicity, which means that a long list system needs to be a single long list. Most other systems require at least two lists to try to make this work.
re: conflict between long and short lists.
The way I would phrase this conflict, which I agree with you on, is the conflict between Capture and Action. DIT really focuses in on this, but I think Kanban has developed a culture around this more than anything else.
I think the challenge Mark faces with the current long list models is the desire to have the simplest possible system for addressing these issues. Normally, in other systems, when you're taking action, you're working from some interface that is distinct from the capture interface. For example, in Kanban, you have your Options → Doing → Done flow.
When you're taking action and doing things, you're working off the Doing column, which is intentionally constrained in size so that you *never* have list growth outside of the capacity to handle things. Many other do the same thing, but some famous ones, such as Simple Scanning or GTD, do not explicitly include this, which is why you often hear people complaining about the length of their lists in both.
But that Personal Kanban board also includes the Options column, which is where you are able to freely capture as much as you want, and let that list grow as much as you want. However, all of that work is "uncommitted" work in the sense that you aren't allowed to be working on it until you free up capacity in the Doing column.
It's worth noting that the 3T list fed from a long list is very much a variety of the above.
At its heart, Focus and Action requires narrowing and constraining, while Capture and Exploration requires expansion and Boundlessness. I think the key failures of many systems come in the boundary between these two systems, in the pulling of work from Options to Doing. If you can't do that often enough, then you become unresponsive and you can't steer the ship quickly enough, but if you do that too often, you bog down and get stuck. And finally, if it takes you too long to pull new work in once you have more capacity, then your whole system becomes more inefficient. This last one is, I think, what tends to happen with long list systems when the list gets too long: you end up not being able to get to the next action quickly enough, slowing the whole thing down.
So, it really boils down to Responding, Finishing, and Deciding, but then that's nothing new. Mark has been wrestling with those three issues for a long time. I think he's given himself a particularly difficult challenge by also insisting on simplicity, which means that a long list system needs to be a single long list. Most other systems require at least two lists to try to make this work.
January 21, 2022 at 23:58 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu --
Lots of interesting insights in your comments! I think you give many good illustrations and clarifications of the fundamental conflict.
The basic Kanban model that you describe is an especially good way to illustrate it, since it is so clear. There are so many ways it can go wrong, but Kanban makes it easier to see exactly where the flow is obstructed.
<< So, it really boils down to Responding, Finishing, and Deciding >>
Perhaps these are just the symptoms of the fundamental conflict?
-- Responding becomes a problem when the conflict causes us to focus too much on Doing or on accumulating too many Options. If we are too focused on WIP -- either too many things in process, or a focus on execution that is too narrow or takes too long -- we never look up and notice the changes in our environment that demand a response. And if we accumulate too many new ideas and options, it becomes too difficult to assess which ones need an urgent response.
-- Finishing becomes a problem because of the same conflict. Too much WIP makes it take longer and longer to finish anything, and causes too many things to be started but eventually dropped. And too many new things exacerbates the problem -- too many things are started that we can never finish.
-- Deciding -- same problem. Too much focus on execution causes options to accumulate and leads to FOMO and decision paralysis. Too much focus on exploration generates too many threads that need a decision to close or continue.
Maybe the conflict can be broken by something like an OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) or PDSA loop (Plan, Do, Study, Act).
These seem to incorporate three steps:
1-- Assess the situation -- exploration
2-- Decide what to do with what you have learned -- the handoff from exploration to execution
3-- Take action -- execute
It’s interesting how AF4R incorporates these into its page types:
-- New/Old -- capture and exploration
-- Recurring -- execution to maintain your current existence (systems and processes)
-- Unfinished -- execution to drive change or improvement (goals and aspirations)
Lots of interesting insights in your comments! I think you give many good illustrations and clarifications of the fundamental conflict.
The basic Kanban model that you describe is an especially good way to illustrate it, since it is so clear. There are so many ways it can go wrong, but Kanban makes it easier to see exactly where the flow is obstructed.
<< So, it really boils down to Responding, Finishing, and Deciding >>
Perhaps these are just the symptoms of the fundamental conflict?
-- Responding becomes a problem when the conflict causes us to focus too much on Doing or on accumulating too many Options. If we are too focused on WIP -- either too many things in process, or a focus on execution that is too narrow or takes too long -- we never look up and notice the changes in our environment that demand a response. And if we accumulate too many new ideas and options, it becomes too difficult to assess which ones need an urgent response.
-- Finishing becomes a problem because of the same conflict. Too much WIP makes it take longer and longer to finish anything, and causes too many things to be started but eventually dropped. And too many new things exacerbates the problem -- too many things are started that we can never finish.
-- Deciding -- same problem. Too much focus on execution causes options to accumulate and leads to FOMO and decision paralysis. Too much focus on exploration generates too many threads that need a decision to close or continue.
Maybe the conflict can be broken by something like an OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) or PDSA loop (Plan, Do, Study, Act).
These seem to incorporate three steps:
1-- Assess the situation -- exploration
2-- Decide what to do with what you have learned -- the handoff from exploration to execution
3-- Take action -- execute
It’s interesting how AF4R incorporates these into its page types:
-- New/Old -- capture and exploration
-- Recurring -- execution to maintain your current existence (systems and processes)
-- Unfinished -- execution to drive change or improvement (goals and aspirations)
January 22, 2022 at 5:15 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I've also been thinking about the fundamental problem. I'm not exactly sure how to phrase it, but I think it's something like we want to review different items at different frequencies. Some items (e.g. recently actioned, new) we want to be presented with often; others (e.g. random ideas, random articles/videos) we may only want to consider occasionally.
The problem of running SS with a very long list then becomes that we review most recent/relevant tasks too infrequently and review oldest/least relevant tasks too frequently. In experiential terms, once you leave the most recent pages you feel like "chugging" through the other pages to get back to the recent pages. Or when you're reviewing the oldest items you feel you've reviewed them to death, but you don't delete them because you want to keep them as options.
So perhaps what's needed is a way to review less-relevant items at lower frequencies. A few ideas for modifying SS for this purpose:
1) Only review the most recent x number of pages and add a new task: "review older pages." A sticky note could be used to mark where to end the scan.
2) If you pass a page and nothing stands out, then you don't review it on every pass anymore (maybe put a sticky note there) and add a task: "review pages with/before sticky note"
3) Whenever you don't feel a page deserves to be reviewed so frequently, then mark it with a sticky note and add a task to review it.
With all 3 options above you can create multiple "tiers" of frequencies using different coloured sticky notes. Tasks could be phrased as: "review pages with/before yellow sticky," "review pages with/before blue sticky," etc
4) On the first pass, review all items on all pages. On the 2nd pass, review all pages except the oldest page. On the 3rd pass, review all pages except the oldest 2 pages, etc. Run this algorithm across days so that eventually you only do a full review of the list every few days or so.
5) Alternate reviewing the whole list and reviewing the most recent few pages.
6) More radically, use spaced repetition software like Anki. Enter tasks as flashcards. When you review a card, you decide whether to do it. Whether you do it or not, answer according to how soon you want to see that task again. In Anki, it could be See Again (1 min) or Hard (10 min), Correct (1 day), and Easy (4 days). Times are adjustable.
The problem of running SS with a very long list then becomes that we review most recent/relevant tasks too infrequently and review oldest/least relevant tasks too frequently. In experiential terms, once you leave the most recent pages you feel like "chugging" through the other pages to get back to the recent pages. Or when you're reviewing the oldest items you feel you've reviewed them to death, but you don't delete them because you want to keep them as options.
So perhaps what's needed is a way to review less-relevant items at lower frequencies. A few ideas for modifying SS for this purpose:
1) Only review the most recent x number of pages and add a new task: "review older pages." A sticky note could be used to mark where to end the scan.
2) If you pass a page and nothing stands out, then you don't review it on every pass anymore (maybe put a sticky note there) and add a task: "review pages with/before sticky note"
3) Whenever you don't feel a page deserves to be reviewed so frequently, then mark it with a sticky note and add a task to review it.
With all 3 options above you can create multiple "tiers" of frequencies using different coloured sticky notes. Tasks could be phrased as: "review pages with/before yellow sticky," "review pages with/before blue sticky," etc
4) On the first pass, review all items on all pages. On the 2nd pass, review all pages except the oldest page. On the 3rd pass, review all pages except the oldest 2 pages, etc. Run this algorithm across days so that eventually you only do a full review of the list every few days or so.
5) Alternate reviewing the whole list and reviewing the most recent few pages.
6) More radically, use spaced repetition software like Anki. Enter tasks as flashcards. When you review a card, you decide whether to do it. Whether you do it or not, answer according to how soon you want to see that task again. In Anki, it could be See Again (1 min) or Hard (10 min), Correct (1 day), and Easy (4 days). Times are adjustable.
January 22, 2022 at 14:13 |
Charles
Charles
Seraphim:
<< So we have a fundamental conflict -- to have a strong intuitive flow, we need to keep our list small but also need to allow it to grow freely. >>
Yes, I think that's right. In life we constantly meet that conflict:
- Do we want a manicured lawn or a grass meadow in which wild flowers, insects, etc can flourish?
- Do we want a clinically tidy office or one filled with stimulating chaos?
- Do we learn better by being taught systematically or by being chucked in a the deep end?
Basically this is a conflict between order and disorder. Or nature vs. nurture.
The answer I think has to be BOTH/AND, rather than EITHER/OR.
- The best gardens are a mixture of formal and wild.
- The best offices have plenty of stimulation but everything that is needed is at hand where it can be found, ready for use.
- The best teaching is a mixture of stretching students while ensuring the foundations are fully learned.
So, how can we apply this to Simple Scanning?
1) We should be free to add as much as we want to the list
2) We should also be free to delete as much as we want from the list.
Just as in nature 1) tends to happen of its own accord 2) tends to require conscious action.
There is a very simple way of weeding a list and that is:
- Go through the entire list deleting as much as you want.
- Repeat the process.
- Continue repeating the process until you have scanned through the whole list without making any deletions.
This is probably best done as a task (Weed List) which can be actioned every time it is felt that the list is becoming unmanageable or oppressive. That gives motivation to the weeding process.
<< So we have a fundamental conflict -- to have a strong intuitive flow, we need to keep our list small but also need to allow it to grow freely. >>
Yes, I think that's right. In life we constantly meet that conflict:
- Do we want a manicured lawn or a grass meadow in which wild flowers, insects, etc can flourish?
- Do we want a clinically tidy office or one filled with stimulating chaos?
- Do we learn better by being taught systematically or by being chucked in a the deep end?
Basically this is a conflict between order and disorder. Or nature vs. nurture.
The answer I think has to be BOTH/AND, rather than EITHER/OR.
- The best gardens are a mixture of formal and wild.
- The best offices have plenty of stimulation but everything that is needed is at hand where it can be found, ready for use.
- The best teaching is a mixture of stretching students while ensuring the foundations are fully learned.
So, how can we apply this to Simple Scanning?
1) We should be free to add as much as we want to the list
2) We should also be free to delete as much as we want from the list.
Just as in nature 1) tends to happen of its own accord 2) tends to require conscious action.
There is a very simple way of weeding a list and that is:
- Go through the entire list deleting as much as you want.
- Repeat the process.
- Continue repeating the process until you have scanned through the whole list without making any deletions.
This is probably best done as a task (Weed List) which can be actioned every time it is felt that the list is becoming unmanageable or oppressive. That gives motivation to the weeding process.
January 22, 2022 at 18:21 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Following on from the above, I am now going to see how long it takes me to break Simple Scanning using the above weeding process.
January 22, 2022 at 18:33 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Charles --
<< I think it's something like we want to review different items at different frequencies >>
AF4R is really good at this -- it separates out the things that are getting traction and puts them on their own page ("unfinished"). And the things that may or may not need any attention at all find their way onto their own page as well ("old tasks").
Perhaps this also suggests that the conflict between different frequencies is just another variation of the conflict between execution ("unfinished") and exploration ("old tasks"). This even seems to be reflected in your example of << recently actioned, new >> versus << random ideas, random articles/videos >>
Link to AF4R: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1325521
<< I think it's something like we want to review different items at different frequencies >>
AF4R is really good at this -- it separates out the things that are getting traction and puts them on their own page ("unfinished"). And the things that may or may not need any attention at all find their way onto their own page as well ("old tasks").
Perhaps this also suggests that the conflict between different frequencies is just another variation of the conflict between execution ("unfinished") and exploration ("old tasks"). This even seems to be reflected in your example of << recently actioned, new >> versus << random ideas, random articles/videos >>
Link to AF4R: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1325521
January 22, 2022 at 22:12 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark --
<< Following on from the above, I am now going to see how long it takes me to break Simple Scanning using the above weeding process. >>
I'll be really interested to see your results. That kind of task weeding has never worked for me. When the list starts to get "unmanageable or oppressive" for me, it's usually because I've already lost a strong intuitive sense of the whole content of my list. And this makes it harder to decide (whether intuitively or more actively/consciously) what things to delete -- in exactly the same way such a list makes it harder for "standing out" to work.
I think one reason I'm having more success with AF4R is because of how it handles this kind of situation. It groups things in a way that makes it easier to diagnose and correct:
-- Old tasks that have never been actioned are separated out into their own list, where it is easier to delete them en masse, or let them hang around via dismissal so they can continue to percolate without bothering the main flow of the system.
-- New tasks that accumulate too fast are usually a sign, either that I am dealing with a lot of urgent matters and always capturing lots of new tasks; or that I am a bit scattered and trying to find my focus. Urgent periods are easy to deal with -- unactioned tasks become stale pretty quickly and are easily deleted with no stress. Being scattered is a bit harder to correct, but it's very helpful that AF4R actually reveals the problem to me so quickly.
-- Unfinished tasks that accumulate beyond manageability are also more easily dealt with. This has happened once or twice in my most recent go at AF4R, and always seems to be the result of a change in priorities. If it's a temporary change, it's no problem -- the new priority tasks show up as a group near the end of the list, and the old priorities are still waiting for me near the beginning of the list. If the change turns out to be more long lasting, this natural grouping makes it easier to purge the old priorities.
-- Recurring tasks that accumulate beyond manageability are generally a sign that my processes and systems need to be upgraded or purged. For example, I've pretty much dropped Facebook out of my life in the last couple of weeks -- it was taking a lot more time than I had realized, and causing me to fall behind in more important things.
<< Following on from the above, I am now going to see how long it takes me to break Simple Scanning using the above weeding process. >>
I'll be really interested to see your results. That kind of task weeding has never worked for me. When the list starts to get "unmanageable or oppressive" for me, it's usually because I've already lost a strong intuitive sense of the whole content of my list. And this makes it harder to decide (whether intuitively or more actively/consciously) what things to delete -- in exactly the same way such a list makes it harder for "standing out" to work.
I think one reason I'm having more success with AF4R is because of how it handles this kind of situation. It groups things in a way that makes it easier to diagnose and correct:
-- Old tasks that have never been actioned are separated out into their own list, where it is easier to delete them en masse, or let them hang around via dismissal so they can continue to percolate without bothering the main flow of the system.
-- New tasks that accumulate too fast are usually a sign, either that I am dealing with a lot of urgent matters and always capturing lots of new tasks; or that I am a bit scattered and trying to find my focus. Urgent periods are easy to deal with -- unactioned tasks become stale pretty quickly and are easily deleted with no stress. Being scattered is a bit harder to correct, but it's very helpful that AF4R actually reveals the problem to me so quickly.
-- Unfinished tasks that accumulate beyond manageability are also more easily dealt with. This has happened once or twice in my most recent go at AF4R, and always seems to be the result of a change in priorities. If it's a temporary change, it's no problem -- the new priority tasks show up as a group near the end of the list, and the old priorities are still waiting for me near the beginning of the list. If the change turns out to be more long lasting, this natural grouping makes it easier to purge the old priorities.
-- Recurring tasks that accumulate beyond manageability are generally a sign that my processes and systems need to be upgraded or purged. For example, I've pretty much dropped Facebook out of my life in the last couple of weeks -- it was taking a lot more time than I had realized, and causing me to fall behind in more important things.
January 22, 2022 at 22:19 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
<< I'll be really interested to see your results. That kind of task weeding has never worked for me. When the list starts to get "unmanageable or oppressive" for me, it's usually because I've already lost a strong intuitive sense of the whole content of my list. >>
Although I said that "unmanageable or oppressive" was the cue for weeding, I have in fact found that "Weed List" gets tripped on nearly every pass - only 41 tasks on the list at the moment, very early days. I'll be interested to see how it develops.
Nowhere near breaking the system yet!
P.S. Haven't seen you on Facebook for ages. The algorithm or whatever they use probably has filtered us out.
<< I'll be really interested to see your results. That kind of task weeding has never worked for me. When the list starts to get "unmanageable or oppressive" for me, it's usually because I've already lost a strong intuitive sense of the whole content of my list. >>
Although I said that "unmanageable or oppressive" was the cue for weeding, I have in fact found that "Weed List" gets tripped on nearly every pass - only 41 tasks on the list at the moment, very early days. I'll be interested to see how it develops.
Nowhere near breaking the system yet!
P.S. Haven't seen you on Facebook for ages. The algorithm or whatever they use probably has filtered us out.
January 22, 2022 at 22:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Seraphim:
<<These seem to incorporate three steps:
1-- Assess the situation -- exploration
2-- Decide what to do with what you have learned -- the handoff from exploration to execution
3-- Take action -- execute>>
I tend to think that David Allen got this one right, by dividing the types of things to do with work into Capture, Clarify, Organize, Reflect, and Engage/Do. It's just how you do each of those things that really makes the difference. I would especially put organization as an important orthogonal concept to Clarify, versus mergin the two into "Decide." I'd also say that Reflect and Capture should be kept separate, instead of merging them into "assess". Not that you can't do both at the same time in a system, but that the roles they serve are probably best thought of as orthogonal to one another.
<<These seem to incorporate three steps:
1-- Assess the situation -- exploration
2-- Decide what to do with what you have learned -- the handoff from exploration to execution
3-- Take action -- execute>>
I tend to think that David Allen got this one right, by dividing the types of things to do with work into Capture, Clarify, Organize, Reflect, and Engage/Do. It's just how you do each of those things that really makes the difference. I would especially put organization as an important orthogonal concept to Clarify, versus mergin the two into "Decide." I'd also say that Reflect and Capture should be kept separate, instead of merging them into "assess". Not that you can't do both at the same time in a system, but that the roles they serve are probably best thought of as orthogonal to one another.
January 23, 2022 at 6:24 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Another way to think about this comes from Computer Science, and I think Cal Newport is a pretty decent authority on this intersection:
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/was-e-mail-a-mistake
In particular, if we think of ourselves as a member in a distributed system of work, as well as a concurrency system (we are switching between doing multiple things at the same time), then we can think of our decision system on how to engage with inputs and how to navigate our work and do that work in terms of asynchronous and synchronous overheads.
We know that we have to incur some level of overhead to coordinate with the outside world. In addition, I think we can think of our engagement with our tasks as a kind of coordination between our working time and our obligations to the outside world. Thus, there is a coordination problem between ourselves and others, and a coordination between our present state/commitments and the work we are doing. We have to somehow ensure that we are adequately negotiating these.
You then have to decide whether you prefer to engage with this coordination on an asynchronous level or a synchronous one, and if you decide on a synchronous one, you have to decide the pacing or cadence of that synchronization.
Because the primary value is driven by actually executing on the tasks, Newport argues that the best way to maximize this time and improve total system throughput (including with those around you) at a holistic level is to use a synchronous method and then decide on a pace of synchronization that is as slow or limited as you can get away with. In other words, synchronize as little as you can get away with and still keep the system flowing.
The counter-intuitive thing is that asynchronous communication at first seems to be a much better way to do things. You gain the flexibility to move in and out of coordination tasks as often as you want, and you can do them at your own convenience instead of having to have a specific synch point in which you connect with the other members of your system (internally, your dreams, goals, needs, schedule, &c. might be other "members" of your system). But the problem with this is that the complexity that arises around this if *everyone* is doing this such that actually coordinating and getting things in line ends up taking way more resources and slowing down your ability to do things.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/was-e-mail-a-mistake
In particular, if we think of ourselves as a member in a distributed system of work, as well as a concurrency system (we are switching between doing multiple things at the same time), then we can think of our decision system on how to engage with inputs and how to navigate our work and do that work in terms of asynchronous and synchronous overheads.
We know that we have to incur some level of overhead to coordinate with the outside world. In addition, I think we can think of our engagement with our tasks as a kind of coordination between our working time and our obligations to the outside world. Thus, there is a coordination problem between ourselves and others, and a coordination between our present state/commitments and the work we are doing. We have to somehow ensure that we are adequately negotiating these.
You then have to decide whether you prefer to engage with this coordination on an asynchronous level or a synchronous one, and if you decide on a synchronous one, you have to decide the pacing or cadence of that synchronization.
Because the primary value is driven by actually executing on the tasks, Newport argues that the best way to maximize this time and improve total system throughput (including with those around you) at a holistic level is to use a synchronous method and then decide on a pace of synchronization that is as slow or limited as you can get away with. In other words, synchronize as little as you can get away with and still keep the system flowing.
The counter-intuitive thing is that asynchronous communication at first seems to be a much better way to do things. You gain the flexibility to move in and out of coordination tasks as often as you want, and you can do them at your own convenience instead of having to have a specific synch point in which you connect with the other members of your system (internally, your dreams, goals, needs, schedule, &c. might be other "members" of your system). But the problem with this is that the complexity that arises around this if *everyone* is doing this such that actually coordinating and getting things in line ends up taking way more resources and slowing down your ability to do things.
January 23, 2022 at 6:40 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu:
Interesting article, but the author seems to think that effective pneumatic tube message transportation was a CIA invention. In fact they were widespread in use from the late 19th Century, and I can remember them being used in department stores. The City of London had a very extensive one for stockbrokers I believe.
Interesting article, but the author seems to think that effective pneumatic tube message transportation was a CIA invention. In fact they were widespread in use from the late 19th Century, and I can remember them being used in department stores. The City of London had a very extensive one for stockbrokers I believe.
January 23, 2022 at 13:11 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
I think the idea is to simply point out one of the large and prominent US users of such systems, though he acknowledges that many other large organizations invested in the technology.
In the same way, the equivalent of email was technically a thing in the 1960's, but it was so costly that only a few people really had it, as Newport acknowledges as well.
I think the idea is to simply point out one of the large and prominent US users of such systems, though he acknowledges that many other large organizations invested in the technology.
In the same way, the equivalent of email was technically a thing in the 1960's, but it was so costly that only a few people really had it, as Newport acknowledges as well.
January 24, 2022 at 1:06 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron wrote:
<<I think he's given himself a particularly difficult challenge by also insisting on simplicity, which means that a long list system needs to be a single long list. Most other systems require at least two lists to try to make this work. >>
This is a good observation. There are plenty of advantages to having one list. There are many items that take only a minute or two, that only need to be checked, and will be taken care of soon, in minutes or that day. It doesn't make sense to put these through a complicated clarifying process. On the other hand, if the list is the same as the universal capture list - some refer to this as the Unprocessed List - it will have many Someday/Maybe items. Some say one has to empty the Unprocessed List, and process every item, and move all of these Someday/Maybe items to a separate list. However, that could mean (if not digital) a lot of rewriting on items that aren't worth the effort. It seems it would be better to leave them on the list and review them less often. David Allen suggests once a month for Someday/Maybe .
If there is a second list, what is on the list? And is it tied to the long list?
One could make a Daily List from the long list, or make a short list, No-list from it.
One could separate the projects and make a project list.
One could put items onto a calendar.
In DIT, as I remember, the list is one's commitments. (Please correct if I am wrong. My impression is this is not a requirement for Autofocus or Simple Scanning) I don't remember where these items were supposed to come from, and maybe it wasn't spelled out, but if it comes from the capture list, then some clarifying would go on, from the time the idea gets on the capture list, to researching, and deciding (committing) and get the item ready to do. This would be a much shorter list.
It seems to be better if there are several lists, to have these written down, and checked to confirm that there are referred to, or even better to be simple enough they can kept in memory. A complicated flowchart is unlikely to last.
<<I think he's given himself a particularly difficult challenge by also insisting on simplicity, which means that a long list system needs to be a single long list. Most other systems require at least two lists to try to make this work. >>
This is a good observation. There are plenty of advantages to having one list. There are many items that take only a minute or two, that only need to be checked, and will be taken care of soon, in minutes or that day. It doesn't make sense to put these through a complicated clarifying process. On the other hand, if the list is the same as the universal capture list - some refer to this as the Unprocessed List - it will have many Someday/Maybe items. Some say one has to empty the Unprocessed List, and process every item, and move all of these Someday/Maybe items to a separate list. However, that could mean (if not digital) a lot of rewriting on items that aren't worth the effort. It seems it would be better to leave them on the list and review them less often. David Allen suggests once a month for Someday/Maybe .
If there is a second list, what is on the list? And is it tied to the long list?
One could make a Daily List from the long list, or make a short list, No-list from it.
One could separate the projects and make a project list.
One could put items onto a calendar.
In DIT, as I remember, the list is one's commitments. (Please correct if I am wrong. My impression is this is not a requirement for Autofocus or Simple Scanning) I don't remember where these items were supposed to come from, and maybe it wasn't spelled out, but if it comes from the capture list, then some clarifying would go on, from the time the idea gets on the capture list, to researching, and deciding (committing) and get the item ready to do. This would be a much shorter list.
It seems to be better if there are several lists, to have these written down, and checked to confirm that there are referred to, or even better to be simple enough they can kept in memory. A complicated flowchart is unlikely to last.
January 26, 2022 at 5:04 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark H.
<< It seems to be better if there are several lists, to have these written down, and checked to confirm that there are referred to, or even better to be simple enough they can kept in memory. >>
You're right in saying that my aim is to have "one list to rule them all". Originally (in Do It Tomorrow days and before) I used to say "Don't put things on your list unless you actually intend to do them". With AutoFocus 1 my attitude was "put everything on the list and the list will sort them out for you".
What I was essentially trying to do was to help the human mind to do what it's good at. And what the human mind is good at is turning experience into action. It takes in experiences through the senses, processes them, and then reacts. Every moment of every day (and night) we are receiving millions of sense impressions. So one of the first things the mind does is reject most of them, concentrating on the ones with which it is familiar or the loudest ones.
The list is simply a tool. A simple tool. The simpler the better. For a task to get on the list, the mind will already have done some considerable unconscious processing on it. The list is there to help the mind do the final stage - of deciding if and when to turn the tasks into actions.
If you do too much conscious pre-processing (e.g. by having more than one list, prioritizing, etc) you are not helping - you are getting in the way. The unconscious mind will do a much better job than your conscious mind.
There are two main problems I have had to overcome in order to get a long list system that works. They are:
a. Resistance
b. Timing
Resistance:
Resistance is actually a positive thing if used correctly because it signals that the unconscious mind is unhappy with doing a task as written. It can therefore be used as a way to weed the list. The original Autofocus did this with its dismissal process. Unfortunately the Autofocus dismissal process was seen not as "necessary weeding" but as "failure" by most of its users. Autofocus also suffered from timing problems, which successive revisions never really solved. Used sensibly, Autofocus 1 is still one of the best of my systems.
Timing
A fact we simply cannot ignore is that in modern life a lot of things have more urgency than others. That poses a problem for long list systems in that a) it's important for the mind to have awareness of the contents of the whole list, and b) it must be possible to do any task at any time without the rules getting in the way. You can't just beaver away in one section of the list, while ignoring the rest.
So the nearest we can get to an ideal system would be something like this:
1. One long list
2. Dot the first task on the list - compulsory
3. Scan the list, pre-selecting a few (ideally 3-5) that stand out.
4. Do all the dotted tasks, in reverse order, except the compulsorily dotted one at the beginning of the list.
5. The compulsorily dotted task is then DDD'd (Done, Deferred or Deleted)
6. Deferral can be done either by re-writing the task at the end of the list or by taking it off the list to be brought forward at a specific date.
7. Repeat the process from 2. above.
Tasks can be added or re-entered to the end of the list at any time.
Hmm... I seem to have described FV plus DDD weeding.
<< It seems to be better if there are several lists, to have these written down, and checked to confirm that there are referred to, or even better to be simple enough they can kept in memory. >>
You're right in saying that my aim is to have "one list to rule them all". Originally (in Do It Tomorrow days and before) I used to say "Don't put things on your list unless you actually intend to do them". With AutoFocus 1 my attitude was "put everything on the list and the list will sort them out for you".
What I was essentially trying to do was to help the human mind to do what it's good at. And what the human mind is good at is turning experience into action. It takes in experiences through the senses, processes them, and then reacts. Every moment of every day (and night) we are receiving millions of sense impressions. So one of the first things the mind does is reject most of them, concentrating on the ones with which it is familiar or the loudest ones.
The list is simply a tool. A simple tool. The simpler the better. For a task to get on the list, the mind will already have done some considerable unconscious processing on it. The list is there to help the mind do the final stage - of deciding if and when to turn the tasks into actions.
If you do too much conscious pre-processing (e.g. by having more than one list, prioritizing, etc) you are not helping - you are getting in the way. The unconscious mind will do a much better job than your conscious mind.
There are two main problems I have had to overcome in order to get a long list system that works. They are:
a. Resistance
b. Timing
Resistance:
Resistance is actually a positive thing if used correctly because it signals that the unconscious mind is unhappy with doing a task as written. It can therefore be used as a way to weed the list. The original Autofocus did this with its dismissal process. Unfortunately the Autofocus dismissal process was seen not as "necessary weeding" but as "failure" by most of its users. Autofocus also suffered from timing problems, which successive revisions never really solved. Used sensibly, Autofocus 1 is still one of the best of my systems.
Timing
A fact we simply cannot ignore is that in modern life a lot of things have more urgency than others. That poses a problem for long list systems in that a) it's important for the mind to have awareness of the contents of the whole list, and b) it must be possible to do any task at any time without the rules getting in the way. You can't just beaver away in one section of the list, while ignoring the rest.
So the nearest we can get to an ideal system would be something like this:
1. One long list
2. Dot the first task on the list - compulsory
3. Scan the list, pre-selecting a few (ideally 3-5) that stand out.
4. Do all the dotted tasks, in reverse order, except the compulsorily dotted one at the beginning of the list.
5. The compulsorily dotted task is then DDD'd (Done, Deferred or Deleted)
6. Deferral can be done either by re-writing the task at the end of the list or by taking it off the list to be brought forward at a specific date.
7. Repeat the process from 2. above.
Tasks can be added or re-entered to the end of the list at any time.
Hmm... I seem to have described FV plus DDD weeding.
January 26, 2022 at 10:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Why would the above work?
The two problems with a long list were Resistance and Timing.
1. Resistance is reduced because the main problem with FV, the rising resistance to the first task, is addressed directly. One doesn't have to be threatened by the first task because there is now a variety of responses to it. Since the other tasks on the list only come into play when they are dotted, there should be little or no resistance to the list itself. Closely related is the question of being oppressed by the amount of work left on the list. But since the dotting procedure ensures that one can move rapidly through the list, there is an assurance that tasks can be dealt with at an appropriate time
2. The dotting procedure means that work that is ready to be done can be done regardless of the length of the list. Since only a very limited number of dots are allowed on each pass, correct timing is easier. It's also helped because the whole list is scanned relatively frequently. This results in both one's conscious mind and one's intuition being kept aware of what is in the list.
Anyway, that's the theory. I'm now trying it out for real (and yes, writing this note was on the list).
The two problems with a long list were Resistance and Timing.
1. Resistance is reduced because the main problem with FV, the rising resistance to the first task, is addressed directly. One doesn't have to be threatened by the first task because there is now a variety of responses to it. Since the other tasks on the list only come into play when they are dotted, there should be little or no resistance to the list itself. Closely related is the question of being oppressed by the amount of work left on the list. But since the dotting procedure ensures that one can move rapidly through the list, there is an assurance that tasks can be dealt with at an appropriate time
2. The dotting procedure means that work that is ready to be done can be done regardless of the length of the list. Since only a very limited number of dots are allowed on each pass, correct timing is easier. It's also helped because the whole list is scanned relatively frequently. This results in both one's conscious mind and one's intuition being kept aware of what is in the list.
Anyway, that's the theory. I'm now trying it out for real (and yes, writing this note was on the list).
January 26, 2022 at 12:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
In fact I think the above may be over-complicating things. I'm going to see if I can find a long-list method which doesn't require pre-selection and is simpler than FVP or its derivatives. Is such a thing possible?
January 26, 2022 at 18:59 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I'm very curious to see if you have any bright ideas regarding simplifying FV, as it's already pretty simple!
There is an aspect of timing here that I think is important, and that's the "cadence" of how often you scan the list vs doing something. For people like me, it's important for a system that I can tweak this value, because otherwise the overheads of scanning the list overwhelm my work efficiency. Since I'm in an environment that doesn't require rapid responsiveness, it's important for me to be able to lay out sufficient work that I don't have to constantly be thinking about my work, rather than doing the work. Pre-selection is a nice knob to tune for this, because I can go through a scan at whatever "pace" I want. It could be tuned to get me looking through my list every 1 minute, 1 hour, or 1 day or anything else.
Some long systems like FVP and SS make it harder for me to tweak this because they involve scanning after every single action with no way to "reduce the overhead". AF kept the scanning overheads more or less limited, but they were still there. I think being able to have a knob in the system to tune that responsiveness needs to still be there, or somehow be "self-correcting" so that the knob isn't necessary.
There is an aspect of timing here that I think is important, and that's the "cadence" of how often you scan the list vs doing something. For people like me, it's important for a system that I can tweak this value, because otherwise the overheads of scanning the list overwhelm my work efficiency. Since I'm in an environment that doesn't require rapid responsiveness, it's important for me to be able to lay out sufficient work that I don't have to constantly be thinking about my work, rather than doing the work. Pre-selection is a nice knob to tune for this, because I can go through a scan at whatever "pace" I want. It could be tuned to get me looking through my list every 1 minute, 1 hour, or 1 day or anything else.
Some long systems like FVP and SS make it harder for me to tweak this because they involve scanning after every single action with no way to "reduce the overhead". AF kept the scanning overheads more or less limited, but they were still there. I think being able to have a knob in the system to tune that responsiveness needs to still be there, or somehow be "self-correcting" so that the knob isn't necessary.
January 26, 2022 at 20:15 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Mark Forster:
How was your trial of Simple Scanning + "Weed list"?
<I'm going to see if I can find a long-list method which doesn't require pre-selection and is simpler than FVP or its derivatives.>
Sorry for descending with tons of modifications, but have you considered running something like FVP but using pages as markers/posts instead of dotted tasks? For example:
1) scan page 1, then pages 1 and 2, then pages 1-3, etc.
2) Scan all pages, then all pages except last, all pages except last 2, etc
3) scan all pages, then only the most recent of half of all pages, then a most recent quarter of all pages, etc
4) scan page 1, then double the number of pages each subsequent scan: 2, 4, 8, etc.
These all wouldn't require preselection.
As for simplying FVP, have you thought of running FVP without the compulsion to do anything about the dotted task? Basically to treat it as a marker: scan it, if you don't feel like doing it, just skip it and hope you feel like doing it in a future scan. It loses the "pressure" on harder tasks, but you'd still get the "softening" effect from multiple scans.
How was your trial of Simple Scanning + "Weed list"?
<I'm going to see if I can find a long-list method which doesn't require pre-selection and is simpler than FVP or its derivatives.>
Sorry for descending with tons of modifications, but have you considered running something like FVP but using pages as markers/posts instead of dotted tasks? For example:
1) scan page 1, then pages 1 and 2, then pages 1-3, etc.
2) Scan all pages, then all pages except last, all pages except last 2, etc
3) scan all pages, then only the most recent of half of all pages, then a most recent quarter of all pages, etc
4) scan page 1, then double the number of pages each subsequent scan: 2, 4, 8, etc.
These all wouldn't require preselection.
As for simplying FVP, have you thought of running FVP without the compulsion to do anything about the dotted task? Basically to treat it as a marker: scan it, if you don't feel like doing it, just skip it and hope you feel like doing it in a future scan. It loses the "pressure" on harder tasks, but you'd still get the "softening" effect from multiple scans.
January 26, 2022 at 21:44 |
Charles
Charles
Aaron Hsu:
<< they involve scanning after every single action with no way to "reduce the overhead". >>
It's difficult to think of a way of getting rid of all forms of scanning with a long-list system.
One way of not having any "down-time" from actually working is simply to chose what you are going to do next without referring to any list. The danger of this is that you lose focus and drift. A good way of avoiding this happening is to write down what you are going to do before you do it. This has the additional advantage of giving you a record of what you have done which you can use to audit your actions.
It is actually surprisingly effective.
<< they involve scanning after every single action with no way to "reduce the overhead". >>
It's difficult to think of a way of getting rid of all forms of scanning with a long-list system.
One way of not having any "down-time" from actually working is simply to chose what you are going to do next without referring to any list. The danger of this is that you lose focus and drift. A good way of avoiding this happening is to write down what you are going to do before you do it. This has the additional advantage of giving you a record of what you have done which you can use to audit your actions.
It is actually surprisingly effective.
January 27, 2022 at 0:44 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Charles:
<< As for simplying FVP, have you thought of running FVP without the compulsion to do anything about the dotted task? Basically to treat it as a marker: scan it, if you don't feel like doing it, just skip it and hope you feel like doing it in a future scan. >>
I have done sort of similar things, but the danger with methods like this is that the list just becomes a collection of markers with no real definition of what they are all about. So you just end up wandering around the list with not much purpose.
<< As for simplying FVP, have you thought of running FVP without the compulsion to do anything about the dotted task? Basically to treat it as a marker: scan it, if you don't feel like doing it, just skip it and hope you feel like doing it in a future scan. >>
I have done sort of similar things, but the danger with methods like this is that the list just becomes a collection of markers with no real definition of what they are all about. So you just end up wandering around the list with not much purpose.
January 27, 2022 at 0:51 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<<One way of not having any "down-time" from actually working is simply to chose what you are going to do next without referring to any list.>>
I actually find that this ends up having the *most* overhead, in that I end up spending a lot *more* time trying to figure out what I am going to do, than I would if I just had a list of things in front of me. The reason is that I have to keep all of those things in my head, and then I start trying to assess them in my head and go round and round trying to figure out what to do.
A list gives some anchoring to this. The problem comes when I have to be reviewing that list constantly. For some people, whose immediate obligations may change all the time, they *need* to be able to review their lists all the time, because what they thought they were going to do 5 minutes ago isn't what they are going to do now. But that comes at a cost of having to constantly revisit the list, which is a lot of overhead.
If you don't have that level of the ground shifting under your feet, then you don't want to waste time looking over the list again when nothing has changed. You just want to be able to get on with the next thing. The issue with overhead comes in how much you have to think in order to figure out what that next thing is. In something like Simple Scanning, you might have had to review a lot of items all the time, after every action was complete. That's a lot of scanning.
A benefit to FV, which I think I would want to preserve in any various, is the ability to tweak just how often you have to scan the list. If I have a life that is stable from hour to hour, then I can tune the amount of stuff that I pre-select to match roughly that hour cycle, so I don't have to "come up for air" when I'm working and look at my list again for a while. All the things I need to do are already lined up for me and ready to go, no extra thinking required. I can tune just how many things I pre-select, and the more I select, the less I have to look at the list, and the more I can concentrate on just working, but the less I select, the faster I'll be able to respond to new inputs. I like being able to tune this knob.
In my case, I've found that the extra "features" and overheads that are helpful to other people who need to respond quickly are detrimental to my own work because it takes me out of my flow and puts me into "decision" mode, which I don't like. So I like being able to have a whole set of things that I can just work down without any worry about choosing something else (it helps with the Paradox of Choice). This means I'm intentionally less reactive, but that's fine in my case, because I am reasonably protected, so I know I won't have to break out of the list or change my priorities quickly.
<<One way of not having any "down-time" from actually working is simply to chose what you are going to do next without referring to any list.>>
I actually find that this ends up having the *most* overhead, in that I end up spending a lot *more* time trying to figure out what I am going to do, than I would if I just had a list of things in front of me. The reason is that I have to keep all of those things in my head, and then I start trying to assess them in my head and go round and round trying to figure out what to do.
A list gives some anchoring to this. The problem comes when I have to be reviewing that list constantly. For some people, whose immediate obligations may change all the time, they *need* to be able to review their lists all the time, because what they thought they were going to do 5 minutes ago isn't what they are going to do now. But that comes at a cost of having to constantly revisit the list, which is a lot of overhead.
If you don't have that level of the ground shifting under your feet, then you don't want to waste time looking over the list again when nothing has changed. You just want to be able to get on with the next thing. The issue with overhead comes in how much you have to think in order to figure out what that next thing is. In something like Simple Scanning, you might have had to review a lot of items all the time, after every action was complete. That's a lot of scanning.
A benefit to FV, which I think I would want to preserve in any various, is the ability to tweak just how often you have to scan the list. If I have a life that is stable from hour to hour, then I can tune the amount of stuff that I pre-select to match roughly that hour cycle, so I don't have to "come up for air" when I'm working and look at my list again for a while. All the things I need to do are already lined up for me and ready to go, no extra thinking required. I can tune just how many things I pre-select, and the more I select, the less I have to look at the list, and the more I can concentrate on just working, but the less I select, the faster I'll be able to respond to new inputs. I like being able to tune this knob.
In my case, I've found that the extra "features" and overheads that are helpful to other people who need to respond quickly are detrimental to my own work because it takes me out of my flow and puts me into "decision" mode, which I don't like. So I like being able to have a whole set of things that I can just work down without any worry about choosing something else (it helps with the Paradox of Choice). This means I'm intentionally less reactive, but that's fine in my case, because I am reasonably protected, so I know I won't have to break out of the list or change my priorities quickly.
January 27, 2022 at 4:52 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
<< I've found that the extra "features" and overheads that are helpful to other people who need to respond quickly are detrimental to my own work because it takes me out of my flow and puts me into "decision" mode, which I don't like. >>
That's why in all my long list systems I emphasis using "standing out" rather than conscious thought. One's intuition is much quicker at making this sort of decision than consciously weighing pros and cons, and intuition usually makes better decisions too. The one proviso is that you are familiar with the field of work, so that you intuition is based on your prior experiences, not on magic!
However in a pre-select system there are two "knobs" already present which you can adjust without needing to invent more rules:
1) The average number of tasks you pre-select.
2) The average length of time you spend each time you work on a task.
The settings you put these knobs on depend on the nature of your work and the number of unforeseeable demands on your time during the day. Plus your personal preferences of course. Personally I like to keep both knobs on a relatively low setting, but it sounds as if you might be happier with them set higher.
<< I've found that the extra "features" and overheads that are helpful to other people who need to respond quickly are detrimental to my own work because it takes me out of my flow and puts me into "decision" mode, which I don't like. >>
That's why in all my long list systems I emphasis using "standing out" rather than conscious thought. One's intuition is much quicker at making this sort of decision than consciously weighing pros and cons, and intuition usually makes better decisions too. The one proviso is that you are familiar with the field of work, so that you intuition is based on your prior experiences, not on magic!
However in a pre-select system there are two "knobs" already present which you can adjust without needing to invent more rules:
1) The average number of tasks you pre-select.
2) The average length of time you spend each time you work on a task.
The settings you put these knobs on depend on the nature of your work and the number of unforeseeable demands on your time during the day. Plus your personal preferences of course. Personally I like to keep both knobs on a relatively low setting, but it sounds as if you might be happier with them set higher.
January 27, 2022 at 11:22 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Aaron:
<< I actually find that this ends up having the *most* overhead, in that I end up spending a lot *more* time trying to figure out what I am going to do, than I would if I just had a list of things in front of me. >>
Like "standing out" this is more a matter of intuition than of conscious thought. It's usually best to write down the first thing that comes into one's head. If you then find yourself thinking "I should have written x down instead", well, then you've already identified what your following task is going to be!
<< I actually find that this ends up having the *most* overhead, in that I end up spending a lot *more* time trying to figure out what I am going to do, than I would if I just had a list of things in front of me. >>
Like "standing out" this is more a matter of intuition than of conscious thought. It's usually best to write down the first thing that comes into one's head. If you then find yourself thinking "I should have written x down instead", well, then you've already identified what your following task is going to be!
January 27, 2022 at 12:38 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
Curious, but do you never have the situation where you go to write down what you are going to do next and you find that your mind is entirely blank, and you can't think of anything? Or, that the things that come up are entirely not the things you should be doing (such as playing 10 hours of video games straight in a row)?
What about the situation where you are working on something, and then someone comes and talks to you for 30 seconds (say, to tell you that so and so is ready for something), and then by the time you turn back to what you were doing 45 seconds later, your mind is entirely blank, and you have no recollection at all of what it was you were trying to accomplish, and then you have to reread your notes to figure out where you were, and what the problem was you were thinking about, sometimes taking 5 - 15 minutes just to get back to where you were?
I think a lot of people have a strong "ping" about things based on urgency, like, if they don't do X, then tomorrow or the day after or even a week from now they'll be in trouble. But what happens to someone's intuition when the decisions they make today won't negatively affect them (like, at all, no negative repercussions) until maybe 3 months to a year down the road?
Curious, but do you never have the situation where you go to write down what you are going to do next and you find that your mind is entirely blank, and you can't think of anything? Or, that the things that come up are entirely not the things you should be doing (such as playing 10 hours of video games straight in a row)?
What about the situation where you are working on something, and then someone comes and talks to you for 30 seconds (say, to tell you that so and so is ready for something), and then by the time you turn back to what you were doing 45 seconds later, your mind is entirely blank, and you have no recollection at all of what it was you were trying to accomplish, and then you have to reread your notes to figure out where you were, and what the problem was you were thinking about, sometimes taking 5 - 15 minutes just to get back to where you were?
I think a lot of people have a strong "ping" about things based on urgency, like, if they don't do X, then tomorrow or the day after or even a week from now they'll be in trouble. But what happens to someone's intuition when the decisions they make today won't negatively affect them (like, at all, no negative repercussions) until maybe 3 months to a year down the road?
January 28, 2022 at 2:17 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron asked Mark, but here's my answer:
<<do you never have the situation where you go to write down what you are going to do next and you find that your mind is entirely blank, and you can't think of anything? Or, that the things that come up are entirely not the things you should be doing?>>
I wouldn't say blank, but it would take me a long time to get my mind to the readiness to do the important tasks. For this reason "write what I will do next" is not a balanced fast-operating system for me. I like better "write what I will do tomorrow" as a process.
<<Someone comes and talks to you... and then by the time you turn back to what you were doing your mind is entirely blank,... and then you have to reread your notes to figure out where you were, sometimes taking 5 - 15 minutes just to get back to where you were?>>
This isn't every hour I get interrupted, but when it happens, it happens as you describe. I don't know how this connects to the discussion, because regardless of process I will have a way to get back to the task at hand.
<<I think a lot of people have a strong "ping" about things based on urgency, like, if they don't do X, then tomorrow or the day after or even a week from now they'll be in trouble. But what happens to someone's intuition when the decisions they make today won't negatively affect them (like, at all, no negative repercussions) until maybe 3 months to a year down the road?>>
For me, such things are neglected unless I have a process that pushes them to the forefront.
<<do you never have the situation where you go to write down what you are going to do next and you find that your mind is entirely blank, and you can't think of anything? Or, that the things that come up are entirely not the things you should be doing?>>
I wouldn't say blank, but it would take me a long time to get my mind to the readiness to do the important tasks. For this reason "write what I will do next" is not a balanced fast-operating system for me. I like better "write what I will do tomorrow" as a process.
<<Someone comes and talks to you... and then by the time you turn back to what you were doing your mind is entirely blank,... and then you have to reread your notes to figure out where you were, sometimes taking 5 - 15 minutes just to get back to where you were?>>
This isn't every hour I get interrupted, but when it happens, it happens as you describe. I don't know how this connects to the discussion, because regardless of process I will have a way to get back to the task at hand.
<<I think a lot of people have a strong "ping" about things based on urgency, like, if they don't do X, then tomorrow or the day after or even a week from now they'll be in trouble. But what happens to someone's intuition when the decisions they make today won't negatively affect them (like, at all, no negative repercussions) until maybe 3 months to a year down the road?>>
For me, such things are neglected unless I have a process that pushes them to the forefront.
January 28, 2022 at 17:29 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Aaron:
<< do you never have the situation where you go to write down what you are going to do next and you find that your mind is entirely blank, and you can't think of anything?
Yes, but in that case I write down something innocuous like "Cup of Tea" or "Email" and by the time I've made the tea or answered the emails, my mind has told me half a dozen things that I should have been doing instead.
Or, alternatively, if nothing comes to mind, take the day off. All the things you should have been doing will be screaming at you by the time you get back.
<< Or, that the things that come up are entirely not the things you should be doing (such as playing 10 hours of video games straight in a row)? >>
Unless you're at World Championship level 10 hours is too long a practice session. You would be better off with shorter sessions interleaved with other matters. Though practice of any skill is usually better scheduled rather than dealt with on a free-flowing list.
<< do you never have the situation where you go to write down what you are going to do next and you find that your mind is entirely blank, and you can't think of anything?
Yes, but in that case I write down something innocuous like "Cup of Tea" or "Email" and by the time I've made the tea or answered the emails, my mind has told me half a dozen things that I should have been doing instead.
Or, alternatively, if nothing comes to mind, take the day off. All the things you should have been doing will be screaming at you by the time you get back.
<< Or, that the things that come up are entirely not the things you should be doing (such as playing 10 hours of video games straight in a row)? >>
Unless you're at World Championship level 10 hours is too long a practice session. You would be better off with shorter sessions interleaved with other matters. Though practice of any skill is usually better scheduled rather than dealt with on a free-flowing list.
January 28, 2022 at 18:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Interesting ideas Mark. However you misapprehended the question of video games. 10 hours of “video games” is not remotely practicing a skill. It is an activity taken up because it’s enjoyable, and although it brings absolutely zero practical value, it does relieve stress and boredom, and enables you to stop thinking about more daunting tasks you are resisting. It’s also a quick answer to “what will I do next”, that comes up easily when nothing else comes up at all.
Finally, it’s usually never an intended 10 hours, but it’s what happens when I don’t have work defined in advance. Following a “do what comes to mind” strategy, my mind may be blank except that playing a game (or some such) fills the void. The trouble is, whatever activity I choose will tend to fill my thoughts for the duration of that activity, and moving on from it is not easy, first of all because I am absorbed in it and moving on doesn’t come to mind, and second, I never had in mind anything to move on to.
I recently surmised that my tendencies are typical of people with ADHD, though I’ve never been diagnosed (and online self assessments tend to be like “are you unable to function effectively in life?” which isn’t the case).
To make this concrete, imagine an AutoFocus list, I come across “play video games”, it stands out. I do that as long as I want to (as sometimes appears in the explanation of “little and often”). Suddenly hours have passed by. This is the problem. Working entirely listless exacerbates this, whereas working with a list, if I am in an effective frame of mind, mitigates this, because it is very easy to turn to the list and see another task to pull me away. Without a pre-commitment or a looming emergency or a list device to suggest moving away, I just won’t.
Which is why I put in the lots of effort into making sure I have these mechanisms in place.
Finally, it’s usually never an intended 10 hours, but it’s what happens when I don’t have work defined in advance. Following a “do what comes to mind” strategy, my mind may be blank except that playing a game (or some such) fills the void. The trouble is, whatever activity I choose will tend to fill my thoughts for the duration of that activity, and moving on from it is not easy, first of all because I am absorbed in it and moving on doesn’t come to mind, and second, I never had in mind anything to move on to.
I recently surmised that my tendencies are typical of people with ADHD, though I’ve never been diagnosed (and online self assessments tend to be like “are you unable to function effectively in life?” which isn’t the case).
To make this concrete, imagine an AutoFocus list, I come across “play video games”, it stands out. I do that as long as I want to (as sometimes appears in the explanation of “little and often”). Suddenly hours have passed by. This is the problem. Working entirely listless exacerbates this, whereas working with a list, if I am in an effective frame of mind, mitigates this, because it is very easy to turn to the list and see another task to pull me away. Without a pre-commitment or a looming emergency or a list device to suggest moving away, I just won’t.
Which is why I put in the lots of effort into making sure I have these mechanisms in place.
January 29, 2022 at 12:46 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu:
<< 10 hours of “video games” is not remotely practicing a skill. >>
I'm under the impression that video games are highly competitive and indeed do require a great degree of skill. Are there not Championships in the video gaming world? For example http://www.pcmag.com/news/the-greatest-gaming-tournaments-in-the-world
In fact one of the reasons that I advise "little and often" when working a list is that it more closely approximates to the addictive quality of video games.
<< It is an activity taken up because it’s enjoyable, and although it brings absolutely zero practical value >>
Wouldn't the same apply to any sport or game?
<< Working entirely listless exacerbates this, whereas working with a list, if I am in an effective frame of mind, mitigates this, because it is very easy to turn to the list and see another task to pull me away.>>
I wasn't talking about "working entirely listless". I was talking about writing down what you were going to do and then doing it. This is not drifting aimlessly into something. It is making a conscious choice to do something.
<< 10 hours of “video games” is not remotely practicing a skill. >>
I'm under the impression that video games are highly competitive and indeed do require a great degree of skill. Are there not Championships in the video gaming world? For example http://www.pcmag.com/news/the-greatest-gaming-tournaments-in-the-world
In fact one of the reasons that I advise "little and often" when working a list is that it more closely approximates to the addictive quality of video games.
<< It is an activity taken up because it’s enjoyable, and although it brings absolutely zero practical value >>
Wouldn't the same apply to any sport or game?
<< Working entirely listless exacerbates this, whereas working with a list, if I am in an effective frame of mind, mitigates this, because it is very easy to turn to the list and see another task to pull me away.>>
I wasn't talking about "working entirely listless". I was talking about writing down what you were going to do and then doing it. This is not drifting aimlessly into something. It is making a conscious choice to do something.
January 29, 2022 at 13:22 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think the core issue is one of immediate gratification. Mark, in this case, playing video games as a professional pursuit for a championship or for some other reason would be perfectly legitimate, but that's not, in the example I gave, why I would be doing it, nor would it lead to something like that (I would need *way* more than 10 hours a day for many years to get even a little competitive, and even then I probably wouldn't be able to compete directly).
Video games and social media are two very specific cases that are quite different than other sports, because they are *more* addictive than those other sports, particularly traditional ones. The difference is in the sheer quality of psychological design that has gone into them to not only be engaging, but to be addictively engaging in a way that sustains maximum continued desire to engage. (c.f. Cal Newport, Digital Minimalism)
So, here's the issue as it starts to manifest. We are bombarded with entertainment and the like that is so stimulating and engaging that normal work will have a tendency to appear more and more boring over time. This will make it even harder to start on "normal work" even if theoretically it is something that we want to do. This will also have a tendency to prime our brains for short-term thinking instead of long-term thinking.
At that point, you might also be in a situation where there is nothing pressing on you in the short term (after all, in some sense, do you really *want* to only be able to do work when something is pressing on you as an emergency or because it has become an emergency?), and now you are confronted with what you are going to do next.
At this point, every time you have to make a decision, you are having to balance the long-term and the short-term, and in this case, there is essentially no immediate pain for not pursuing the long-term, and even more, almost no benefits if you do pursue long-term goals, either, because you will not receive nearly enough reward for the effort, since you are already desensitized to rewards. This will undermine the gamification of your long list systems, because the reward that you get from those systems isn't sufficient for them to break the "tedium" barrier. Or, in the case of the "simplest no-list", the issue is that your mind will be mostly blank of any worries (long-term stuff won't come to bite you for months or years yet), and so anything that you may want to do is instinctually overwhelmed by your brain's strong signals that there are really attractive short-term things to pursue, such as video games.
But it gets worse. At this point, you're still potentially in charge. So, you decide, why not do some video games at this point? You intentionally decide to start playing. You write it down, and then you begin. But at that point, you're now in a whirlpool *designed* to keep you in there as long as possible. There is zero motivation to stop, and indeed, in a lot of modern games, there *is* no really good "stopping point". You have to actually put in a relatively hard amount of work to 'stop", whereas the path of least resistance is always to keep going. And even more, there was nothing on your mind to begin with, and with games that get you into the flow of things, there won't be anything to concern you when you're playing either, because you'll be engrossed in the game, so you won't be thinking about anything else.
There's no way a timer or the like is going to be convincing enough for you to stop, because what else is there? You stop, and then you have to spend a lot of hard work to convince yourself not to just keep going, or you could just keep going and feel good.
And in this case, just saying, "Little and Often," probably won't help, because little and often is defined usually, in intuitive systems, by when you mentally decide that you want to do something else, but the games are designed to prevent your brain from worrying about anything else, and so there is never something else that will come into your brain to make you worry about it. Maybe a compulsion to sleep or eat will hit you after you are exhausted 24 or 48 hours later, but there are people for whom even that wasn't a sufficient detractor.
Little and Often combined with timeboxing is great for things that impose a lot of resistance, but I'm not sure they're a good solution as-is to something that appeals to you more than just about anything else even though doing it too much will be a problem.
I know you've written about this a bit before, but I have to admit that I don't think it's compelling enough to just say write it down. You can write it down, and be intentionally doing this, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still the thing you want to do more than other stuff. There are a lot of people who struggle with this in the modern world, even if it isn't video games, because the attention economy has become so good at keeping people on a given platform, while simultaneously making other things much less attractive.
What I think is the more normal thing to have happen is to "Write it down" -> Do it for way longer than you really should -> Worry a little bit about how much time you spent on it -> Be out of time for other stuff -> Go to bed and reset your day -> Write it down and do the [time sucking thing] again -> Repeat always feeling a little bad, but not bad enough to stop -> eventual degradation of overall quality of life, but not quickly enough for you to stop the behaviors, nor sufficiently strong warning signals to encourage you to stop while there is still time to stop the downward spiral.
The solution that many people have taken to handling this is to stop cold turkey or to simply say no to it. That works, but I think it's somewhat unsatisfactory in that you want to be able to enjoy some of this stuff, you just don't want it to take over your life.
If you take the perspective that these things are like a chemical addiction, then some people have concluded that there's no such thing as little and often, because that will only make the problem worse, and complete abstention is the only solution. That's certainly how most people think about alcohol addiction. However, again, I think that's a little unsatisfactory to me in the case of things like social media, video games, and so forth.
Video games and social media are two very specific cases that are quite different than other sports, because they are *more* addictive than those other sports, particularly traditional ones. The difference is in the sheer quality of psychological design that has gone into them to not only be engaging, but to be addictively engaging in a way that sustains maximum continued desire to engage. (c.f. Cal Newport, Digital Minimalism)
So, here's the issue as it starts to manifest. We are bombarded with entertainment and the like that is so stimulating and engaging that normal work will have a tendency to appear more and more boring over time. This will make it even harder to start on "normal work" even if theoretically it is something that we want to do. This will also have a tendency to prime our brains for short-term thinking instead of long-term thinking.
At that point, you might also be in a situation where there is nothing pressing on you in the short term (after all, in some sense, do you really *want* to only be able to do work when something is pressing on you as an emergency or because it has become an emergency?), and now you are confronted with what you are going to do next.
At this point, every time you have to make a decision, you are having to balance the long-term and the short-term, and in this case, there is essentially no immediate pain for not pursuing the long-term, and even more, almost no benefits if you do pursue long-term goals, either, because you will not receive nearly enough reward for the effort, since you are already desensitized to rewards. This will undermine the gamification of your long list systems, because the reward that you get from those systems isn't sufficient for them to break the "tedium" barrier. Or, in the case of the "simplest no-list", the issue is that your mind will be mostly blank of any worries (long-term stuff won't come to bite you for months or years yet), and so anything that you may want to do is instinctually overwhelmed by your brain's strong signals that there are really attractive short-term things to pursue, such as video games.
But it gets worse. At this point, you're still potentially in charge. So, you decide, why not do some video games at this point? You intentionally decide to start playing. You write it down, and then you begin. But at that point, you're now in a whirlpool *designed* to keep you in there as long as possible. There is zero motivation to stop, and indeed, in a lot of modern games, there *is* no really good "stopping point". You have to actually put in a relatively hard amount of work to 'stop", whereas the path of least resistance is always to keep going. And even more, there was nothing on your mind to begin with, and with games that get you into the flow of things, there won't be anything to concern you when you're playing either, because you'll be engrossed in the game, so you won't be thinking about anything else.
There's no way a timer or the like is going to be convincing enough for you to stop, because what else is there? You stop, and then you have to spend a lot of hard work to convince yourself not to just keep going, or you could just keep going and feel good.
And in this case, just saying, "Little and Often," probably won't help, because little and often is defined usually, in intuitive systems, by when you mentally decide that you want to do something else, but the games are designed to prevent your brain from worrying about anything else, and so there is never something else that will come into your brain to make you worry about it. Maybe a compulsion to sleep or eat will hit you after you are exhausted 24 or 48 hours later, but there are people for whom even that wasn't a sufficient detractor.
Little and Often combined with timeboxing is great for things that impose a lot of resistance, but I'm not sure they're a good solution as-is to something that appeals to you more than just about anything else even though doing it too much will be a problem.
I know you've written about this a bit before, but I have to admit that I don't think it's compelling enough to just say write it down. You can write it down, and be intentionally doing this, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still the thing you want to do more than other stuff. There are a lot of people who struggle with this in the modern world, even if it isn't video games, because the attention economy has become so good at keeping people on a given platform, while simultaneously making other things much less attractive.
What I think is the more normal thing to have happen is to "Write it down" -> Do it for way longer than you really should -> Worry a little bit about how much time you spent on it -> Be out of time for other stuff -> Go to bed and reset your day -> Write it down and do the [time sucking thing] again -> Repeat always feeling a little bad, but not bad enough to stop -> eventual degradation of overall quality of life, but not quickly enough for you to stop the behaviors, nor sufficiently strong warning signals to encourage you to stop while there is still time to stop the downward spiral.
The solution that many people have taken to handling this is to stop cold turkey or to simply say no to it. That works, but I think it's somewhat unsatisfactory in that you want to be able to enjoy some of this stuff, you just don't want it to take over your life.
If you take the perspective that these things are like a chemical addiction, then some people have concluded that there's no such thing as little and often, because that will only make the problem worse, and complete abstention is the only solution. That's certainly how most people think about alcohol addiction. However, again, I think that's a little unsatisfactory to me in the case of things like social media, video games, and so forth.
January 30, 2022 at 5:03 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
I know the question is primarily addressed to Mark, but if I could chip in a little...
Dr. Wozniak, the inventor of SuperMemo, the predecessor to Anki, has written about videogames and provides some unconventional thought. Some links:
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Videogames
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Gaming_disorder
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Videogames_and_TV_tend_to_saturate
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Videogames_are_better_than_teachers
He writes primarily in relation to children, but I think it could apply to adults too.
He considers gaming as a legitimate form of learning, and the right balance between gaming and other modes of learning could be directed by what he calls the "learn drive" - the innate desire to learn. He claims that letting our learning be directed by that drive leads to optimal learning. I personally feel like I've learned quite a bit through games, especially online multiplayer games, although I don't know if I could have learned those things more effectively through other means.
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Learn_drive
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Optimality_of_the_learn_drive
He also claims that videogames tend to saturate - that is, at some point the person gets bored of it. This sort of jives with my experience. I find that whenever I get really into a game, if I "ride it out" and play all day for a few days (or weeks...) usually I reach a point where I'm actually consciously aware that I'm not enjoying it.
Wozniak also claims that if there are many other rewarding activities available, then the person may move on to those. For me, I recently moved from gaming to reading, watching TV shows, and social media (not great examples I know lol). I also know a few people (mostly teenagers and college-aged) I met through online gaming who months later were engaged with work, school, outings, family, music, etc instead of gaming. Also that stress and limits tends to make the rewards from gaming seem more enticing than they normally would be.
Viewed through these lens, gaming a lot as an adult could be interpreted as:
1) we are learning a lot in the game (if we weren't being challenged in some way it wouldn't retain our attention)
2) we aren't aware of or have some access barriers to many other possibilities for learning/production/recreation
3) we're under some stress that distorts the rewards from gaming to other rewards
The corresponding responses would then be:
1) continue playing until we're bored (aka learned enough from it for the time being)
2) bring to your own attention other things you can do, or look into how you can access more activities or make it easier to engage in them (lower activation energy)
3) take appropriate action to address sources of stress (e.g. sleep, eating, relationships, environments, obligations, etc)
Long lists as Mark designed them helps with response (2) in that (a) listing in-game tasks on the long list makes them appear more like work, comparable to other real-life tasks; (b) the list reminds the person of many other activities to do, which for someone who has been gaming a lot can be hard to think of; and (b) using the "standing out" principle, the person chooses something that's almost as easy to get started on as gaming.
I agree with Aaron though that games have an inherent "stickiness" to them. Sometimes I would choose to play just a few minutes but it turns into an hour or more, even though I could sense that I had enough of it and wanted to move on to something else. Moreover, even if we are learning, as adults we tend to also want to pursue other goals (not just learn).
I don't think limiting game time as a standalone strategy has worked for me either. (I don't think I was compelled enough by this idea to even attempt it.) Wozniak describes how limits or going cold turkey can backfire.
But one way that somewhat worked for me in curbing my gaming in the recent past is to basically use something similar to the school timetable that Mark suggested, and have set times for work, meals, and daily tasks. I would only play during scheduled breaks, meal times (while eating), and unscheduled/free time. I pretty consistently stopped playing when it was time to do something else, although I would sometimes cut into sleep...
I'm not sure exactly why it worked, but I think it might have been knowing that I'd only be "deprived" of it for a known amount of time, that I have lots of time in the week to game, and that if I didn't move on to work/other tasks I would simply lose the opportunity that day to do them (e.g. it's either exercise now or not today).
But I think Aaron has a point about lack of short-term consequences. I employed the schedule when working on master's coursework, with associated deadlines, and now that I don't have deadlines, I've since lost the motivation to maintain that rigid schedule.
Wozniak doesn't seem to offer too much in terms of the balance (time allocation) between continued learning and pursuing life goals, except to suggest starting with a 50/50 ratio and adjusting it based on productive output. Practically, he does this through programmed yet flexible days.
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Genius_checklist#Balance_learning_and_productivity
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Planning_a_perfect_productive_day_without_stress
But I feel like we still haven't come to a satisfactory solution...
Dr. Wozniak, the inventor of SuperMemo, the predecessor to Anki, has written about videogames and provides some unconventional thought. Some links:
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Videogames
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Gaming_disorder
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Videogames_and_TV_tend_to_saturate
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Videogames_are_better_than_teachers
He writes primarily in relation to children, but I think it could apply to adults too.
He considers gaming as a legitimate form of learning, and the right balance between gaming and other modes of learning could be directed by what he calls the "learn drive" - the innate desire to learn. He claims that letting our learning be directed by that drive leads to optimal learning. I personally feel like I've learned quite a bit through games, especially online multiplayer games, although I don't know if I could have learned those things more effectively through other means.
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Learn_drive
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Optimality_of_the_learn_drive
He also claims that videogames tend to saturate - that is, at some point the person gets bored of it. This sort of jives with my experience. I find that whenever I get really into a game, if I "ride it out" and play all day for a few days (or weeks...) usually I reach a point where I'm actually consciously aware that I'm not enjoying it.
Wozniak also claims that if there are many other rewarding activities available, then the person may move on to those. For me, I recently moved from gaming to reading, watching TV shows, and social media (not great examples I know lol). I also know a few people (mostly teenagers and college-aged) I met through online gaming who months later were engaged with work, school, outings, family, music, etc instead of gaming. Also that stress and limits tends to make the rewards from gaming seem more enticing than they normally would be.
Viewed through these lens, gaming a lot as an adult could be interpreted as:
1) we are learning a lot in the game (if we weren't being challenged in some way it wouldn't retain our attention)
2) we aren't aware of or have some access barriers to many other possibilities for learning/production/recreation
3) we're under some stress that distorts the rewards from gaming to other rewards
The corresponding responses would then be:
1) continue playing until we're bored (aka learned enough from it for the time being)
2) bring to your own attention other things you can do, or look into how you can access more activities or make it easier to engage in them (lower activation energy)
3) take appropriate action to address sources of stress (e.g. sleep, eating, relationships, environments, obligations, etc)
Long lists as Mark designed them helps with response (2) in that (a) listing in-game tasks on the long list makes them appear more like work, comparable to other real-life tasks; (b) the list reminds the person of many other activities to do, which for someone who has been gaming a lot can be hard to think of; and (b) using the "standing out" principle, the person chooses something that's almost as easy to get started on as gaming.
I agree with Aaron though that games have an inherent "stickiness" to them. Sometimes I would choose to play just a few minutes but it turns into an hour or more, even though I could sense that I had enough of it and wanted to move on to something else. Moreover, even if we are learning, as adults we tend to also want to pursue other goals (not just learn).
I don't think limiting game time as a standalone strategy has worked for me either. (I don't think I was compelled enough by this idea to even attempt it.) Wozniak describes how limits or going cold turkey can backfire.
But one way that somewhat worked for me in curbing my gaming in the recent past is to basically use something similar to the school timetable that Mark suggested, and have set times for work, meals, and daily tasks. I would only play during scheduled breaks, meal times (while eating), and unscheduled/free time. I pretty consistently stopped playing when it was time to do something else, although I would sometimes cut into sleep...
I'm not sure exactly why it worked, but I think it might have been knowing that I'd only be "deprived" of it for a known amount of time, that I have lots of time in the week to game, and that if I didn't move on to work/other tasks I would simply lose the opportunity that day to do them (e.g. it's either exercise now or not today).
But I think Aaron has a point about lack of short-term consequences. I employed the schedule when working on master's coursework, with associated deadlines, and now that I don't have deadlines, I've since lost the motivation to maintain that rigid schedule.
Wozniak doesn't seem to offer too much in terms of the balance (time allocation) between continued learning and pursuing life goals, except to suggest starting with a 50/50 ratio and adjusting it based on productive output. Practically, he does this through programmed yet flexible days.
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Genius_checklist#Balance_learning_and_productivity
http://supermemo.guru/wiki/Planning_a_perfect_productive_day_without_stress
But I feel like we still haven't come to a satisfactory solution...
January 30, 2022 at 11:31 |
Charles
Charles
Aaron Hsu:
I apologise for thinking that you must be a serious competitive gamer because I couldn't think of any other reason why anyone would make a conscious choice to play a video game when they actually intended to be working.
I would have thought that if someone is so addicted to playing video games that they would deliberately write down "Play Video Games" as the first task in their work list, knowing that they might then play for anything up to 10 hours, then there really isn't any time management method which would be capable of helping them. Certainly not one which I'm capable of writing!
I apologise for thinking that you must be a serious competitive gamer because I couldn't think of any other reason why anyone would make a conscious choice to play a video game when they actually intended to be working.
I would have thought that if someone is so addicted to playing video games that they would deliberately write down "Play Video Games" as the first task in their work list, knowing that they might then play for anything up to 10 hours, then there really isn't any time management method which would be capable of helping them. Certainly not one which I'm capable of writing!
January 30, 2022 at 13:17 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Charles,
I've never been a great fan of Wosniak because none of his methods have ever worked for me. But I know a lot of people have benefited greatly so I'm not going to knock him.
The only chemical addiction I've ever had was smoking. And the only cure I ever found was to meet a beautiful woman who didn't smoke. We have our 47th Wedding Anniversary this year.
But the moral of this discussion is that time management systems need to be more addictive. I'm working on it!
I've never been a great fan of Wosniak because none of his methods have ever worked for me. But I know a lot of people have benefited greatly so I'm not going to knock him.
The only chemical addiction I've ever had was smoking. And the only cure I ever found was to meet a beautiful woman who didn't smoke. We have our 47th Wedding Anniversary this year.
But the moral of this discussion is that time management systems need to be more addictive. I'm working on it!
January 30, 2022 at 13:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<<I would have thought that if someone is so addicted to playing video games that they would deliberately write down "Play Video Games" as the first task in their work list, knowing that they might then play for anything up to 10 hours, then there really isn't any time management method which would be capable of helping them. Certainly not one which I'm capable of writing!>>
While that might be true, I think this is one of the major reasons that people do seek out time management systems. If people were in a sufficiently healthy mental state that they were not struggling to do the things that they wanted to do, then a lot of them would be fine. For many people, the struggle is entirely about being able to actually do the things that you know you should be doing instead of a set of behaviors that you know aren't good.
In fact, there's a rather popular online coaching program specifically geared just to address the demographic of people growing up and suffering from video game addiction:
http://www.healthygamer.gg/about-us
A huge component of what they cover, and which is how I found them, is time management and productivity, because many of them aren't able to do that well.
I would go so far as to say that in the modern world of an attention economy, the major hurdle for productivity and time management *is* how you address addictive behaviors like video games or social media that are time sinks and cause you to dismiss or throw out any theoretically good time management principles you may have had. Modern time management systems have to be somehow effective and resilient in the face of severe addictive applications that are considered common place and often "necessary" to some people.
<<I would have thought that if someone is so addicted to playing video games that they would deliberately write down "Play Video Games" as the first task in their work list, knowing that they might then play for anything up to 10 hours, then there really isn't any time management method which would be capable of helping them. Certainly not one which I'm capable of writing!>>
While that might be true, I think this is one of the major reasons that people do seek out time management systems. If people were in a sufficiently healthy mental state that they were not struggling to do the things that they wanted to do, then a lot of them would be fine. For many people, the struggle is entirely about being able to actually do the things that you know you should be doing instead of a set of behaviors that you know aren't good.
In fact, there's a rather popular online coaching program specifically geared just to address the demographic of people growing up and suffering from video game addiction:
http://www.healthygamer.gg/about-us
A huge component of what they cover, and which is how I found them, is time management and productivity, because many of them aren't able to do that well.
I would go so far as to say that in the modern world of an attention economy, the major hurdle for productivity and time management *is* how you address addictive behaviors like video games or social media that are time sinks and cause you to dismiss or throw out any theoretically good time management principles you may have had. Modern time management systems have to be somehow effective and resilient in the face of severe addictive applications that are considered common place and often "necessary" to some people.
January 31, 2022 at 8:01 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Another point to add is that it isn't just video games. Cal Newport discusses in "A World Without Email" that some studies have found results of something like less than 6 minutes or something insanely tiny between people compulsively checking communications platforms, with the result that people were getting something like 1 hour or something like that of actual work done during the whole day, with almost everything else being addictive sources of communication, both work and non-work related.
The morale is that it's not just "games" that can cause the issue, but that there are work systems that are themselves equally addictive and cause a massive amount of churn on useless stuff without moving the needle forward on more important things, even though these systems are demonstrably causing more stress.
The morale is that it's not just "games" that can cause the issue, but that there are work systems that are themselves equally addictive and cause a massive amount of churn on useless stuff without moving the needle forward on more important things, even though these systems are demonstrably causing more stress.
January 31, 2022 at 8:04 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
This is exactly right. It’s not specifically video games, and it’s not necessarily 10hrs, that’s an exaggeration most times. It’s the idea of imbalance, where if I very easily will tend to mismanage my time in ways I consider less than ideal. I lean towards Nir Eyal’s assessment that it’s not even the attention economy that’s the primary problem. You can remove all digital distractions and still be distracted.
And I absolutely agree that productivity systems can equally work to misdirect you if they are themselves not oriented rightly.
And I absolutely agree that productivity systems can equally work to misdirect you if they are themselves not oriented rightly.
January 31, 2022 at 15:07 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Aaron Hsu:
<< For many people, the struggle is entirely about being able to actually do the things that you know you should be doing instead of a set of behaviors that you know aren't good. >>
That affects most people to a certain extent, but a serious debilitating addiction is not going to be solved by a time management system alone.
From the Healthy Gamer website:
<< Healthy Gamer programming is developed with a combination of well-evidenced interventions: peer-based solutions, meditation and Ayurveda, neurochemistry research, and psychiatric/psychological principles. >>
That's going a long way beyond time management.
But the point about writing down the next thing you are going to do is that it forces a person to make a conscious choice about what they are going to do next. Once a choice is brought into consciousness it is much more likely to be a constructive one.
As you point out, that will not be sufficient for a genuine addict. But that's the reason why there are many more ingredients in the mix above.
Criticising a time management method because it's not capable of dealing with addiction is like criticising a knife for not being a fork.
<< For many people, the struggle is entirely about being able to actually do the things that you know you should be doing instead of a set of behaviors that you know aren't good. >>
That affects most people to a certain extent, but a serious debilitating addiction is not going to be solved by a time management system alone.
From the Healthy Gamer website:
<< Healthy Gamer programming is developed with a combination of well-evidenced interventions: peer-based solutions, meditation and Ayurveda, neurochemistry research, and psychiatric/psychological principles. >>
That's going a long way beyond time management.
But the point about writing down the next thing you are going to do is that it forces a person to make a conscious choice about what they are going to do next. Once a choice is brought into consciousness it is much more likely to be a constructive one.
As you point out, that will not be sufficient for a genuine addict. But that's the reason why there are many more ingredients in the mix above.
Criticising a time management method because it's not capable of dealing with addiction is like criticising a knife for not being a fork.
January 31, 2022 at 17:17 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Aaron Hsu:
<< some studies have found results of something like less than 6 minutes or something insanely tiny between people compulsively checking communications platforms, with the result that people were getting something like 1 hour or something like that of actual work done during the whole day >>
The use of a system which encourages someone to make conscious rather than compulsive choices is a big help in this sort of situation.
<< some studies have found results of something like less than 6 minutes or something insanely tiny between people compulsively checking communications platforms, with the result that people were getting something like 1 hour or something like that of actual work done during the whole day >>
The use of a system which encourages someone to make conscious rather than compulsive choices is a big help in this sort of situation.
January 31, 2022 at 17:42 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<<Criticising a time management method because it's not capable of dealing with addiction>>
Addiction is a multifactorial issue. My observations after spending 2+ years as a youth/family addictions therapist (early 2000s): what works for one family, doesn't work for another. And by "works" I mean a systemic change that goes beyond what any one individual can do (and that goes for the person who is identified as the "symptom bearer" i.e. the one with the addiction).
We're a quirky bunch on this forum. I'd wager less than .001% of people give this stuff much thought - beyond reading an article or two on January 1.
<<Criticising a time management method because it's not capable of dealing with addiction>>
Addiction is a multifactorial issue. My observations after spending 2+ years as a youth/family addictions therapist (early 2000s): what works for one family, doesn't work for another. And by "works" I mean a systemic change that goes beyond what any one individual can do (and that goes for the person who is identified as the "symptom bearer" i.e. the one with the addiction).
We're a quirky bunch on this forum. I'd wager less than .001% of people give this stuff much thought - beyond reading an article or two on January 1.
January 31, 2022 at 18:12 |
avrum
avrum
I'm gonna posit that clinical addiction is not the case in the discussion here. There is an imbalance, and maybe other tools are needed beyond a time management system to rebalance things, but also the time management approach ought to support the objective.
January 31, 2022 at 18:34 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
You said you had decided to push simple scanning as far as it could go for you. I'm just curious, have you broken it yet or is it still humming along for you with the help of your new list of inspirations around it?