Discussion Forum > Children and Productivity Systems
I taught two of my early-teenage sons how to use FVP back when that was the system-du-jour. One of them found it very helpful and continued using it off and on for a few years. Since then, he has dabbled off and on with different TM strategies. The other didn't get any traction with it at all and doesn't seem to have any interest in or use for TM methods. Both are now in their early twenties with successful engineering jobs.
In general I've found it difficult to share TM methods with people. I always wonder what the common thread is, that makes some people want to use TM methods, and to be effective with them, and others have no use for them at all. Their use does not seem to be a predictor of professional or personal success.
For example, my wife, and my son who did not get any traction with FVP, both just jump straight into action when presented with a task, whereas I tend to circle around the task a bit to decide whether and how I want to tackle it. They more more of a bias for action, where I have more of a bias for thinking. Sometimes their method is more effective -- they get a lot done, for sure! Sometimes my method is more effective -- sometimes I find better ways to get the results and minimize negative side effects.
In general I've found it difficult to share TM methods with people. I always wonder what the common thread is, that makes some people want to use TM methods, and to be effective with them, and others have no use for them at all. Their use does not seem to be a predictor of professional or personal success.
For example, my wife, and my son who did not get any traction with FVP, both just jump straight into action when presented with a task, whereas I tend to circle around the task a bit to decide whether and how I want to tackle it. They more more of a bias for action, where I have more of a bias for thinking. Sometimes their method is more effective -- they get a lot done, for sure! Sometimes my method is more effective -- sometimes I find better ways to get the results and minimize negative side effects.
January 20, 2022 at 23:39 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim - I suspect my middle child - a bit more self-directed than my eldest - would find his own way.
Today, my eldest is treating the list a bit more like a to-do list. And I think he'll do well with that.
Today, my eldest is treating the list a bit more like a to-do list. And I think he'll do well with that.
January 21, 2022 at 2:30 |
avrum
avrum
I've had some luck, but I think the biggest element here is in how the process is reinforced by the family, and a clear benefit in the system for someone to grasp on to it.
My experience suggests that improving time management and low-level systems tends to benefit even people who appear "not to need it". Working with the people I have, a lot of what I see are people who are very far from "okay" with regards to their systems, and they suffer and struggle a lot because of it.
The problem is that both children and people who could benefit from this stuff often don't know what is out there, are overwhelmed with stuff and feel like they can't do something "extra", and don't intuitively understand how to make use of such systems. This means they need, in essence, someone that they trust to give them information, but also who are able to demonstrate why it matters.
With my own kids, the clearest thing from the "productivity space" that has been valuable is something that should surprise no one, VISION. Establishing clarity in terms of how the world is going to work has been the single most effective tool I've noted so far. It doesn't seem much to matter what that vision is, but at long as the kids clearly understand the rules of the game, they are exceptionally good at making something happen within those rules. The challenge comes when there is any level of uncertainty or that clarity gets lost.
Checklists and routines have been the most helpful in this regard in our own lives. Having a specific set of routines that need to happen at regular points consistently and having that written down somewhere that they can look at, check off, and complete each day (weekly doesn't seem to work as well), seems to make a huge difference.
Likewise, setting down a simple set of things that need to be done is also helpful, but I've found unordered lists to be less effective. When the lists are given in order, it seems to take away a lot of the decision trouble from the kids. Some of the things they have the hardest time with is picking the right task in the moment, but if you sit down with them in advance and ask them how they'd like to proceed, they seem to be able to do just fine with that, and then they can execute on that order easily.
I've also found boredom to be exceptionally powerful. Simply sitting down with one of my kids who already has a set of things that they know needs to get done, but which they are heavily resisting, which usually takes the form of complete mental gridlock, meaning that *no* action stands out, except for avoidance and running away, I just give them the space and freedom to sit there and do nothing. It's the "do nothing" part that seems completely transformative. Giving yourself permission to sit and be bored I think really tends to change things. I've found for my kids that this tends to disable procrastination remarkably quickly and helps to calm them down when they feel overwhelmed, as well as giving them a type of natural draw and motivation towards their work. I strongly prefer this over the results I've seen if I or someone else tries to compel an action immediately via threats or via some sort of negative or positive consequence.
In other words, I think creating the space where things are clear, with good constraints and consequences, but then allowing the kids to have the time and space to work through that themselves without an impending value judgment hanging over them leads to them enjoying the work they do much more.
I have taught some of Mark's stuff to them, and it can help, but I've honestly had more success with teaching them how to be calm, centered, and take things in a specific order (whatever order they want within some constraints) doing one thing at a time, than I have with the other approaches. I think this is partly because the actual set of obligations that the kids have is small enough that they aren't stressed about remembering or organizing lots of things they need to do. I've had more success with no list type approaches, particularly something like 5/2. I haven't tried NL-FVP with them yet. Checklists and Ivy Lee have worked well, with checklists probably the most successful.
One of my kids actually worked out an ordered schedule of tasks for the next day independently, and that was very successful.
The biggest challenge I've had with teaching Mark's stuff to kids is the concept of Little and Often as well as intuitive actioning. We're done a little bit of time boxing MF style with little and often, but it honestly hasn't been as effective as ordered task execution. I think one of the biggest challenges is that if you allow for lots of little "breaks" from the hard work and allow for the "fun stuff" to enter in there, I find that the attention residue created by that completely destroys their ability to focus on their work. Instead, large blocks of focused time around a set of tasks that are in the "work category" followed by freedom to then have fun after that seems to be much more effective.
Thus, we generally divide the day into "growth part, play part" and they don't generally mix those two. This makes it pretty simple, and it also provides a lot of positive incentives for optimizing how they get their work done. However, we don't have specific schedules as to when that happens at what specific time, so we're still pretty flexible on times.
A few times the Little and Often approach to work has been highly effective, but I think it hasn't been as consistently effective unless I maintain the above division between work/play.
The key here seems to be more about ensuring that expectations are clear, predictable, consistent, and "winnable" than anything else.
I've found the same for many adults. Simply working to help them create clear expectations and realities that are consistent and predictable while providing sufficient space to permit reflection and focus seems to be extremely powerful, no matter how you get to it. So many adults and kids that I've seen seem to be working in reactive mode all the time, and while they are able to cope at some level, they aren't really very effective. They do just well enough, but they often stagnate or suffer for it. Simply creating a little breathing room can be tremendous, which is where the low-level systems can really help.
As an example, for adults, I've found simply clarifying expectations around communication rhythms and discussing how it's okay to not have to be instantly available for communication can have a huge impact. Likewise for meetings and all sorts of other things.
I think GTD is the easiest system to *teach* other people. Mark's systems are the hardest to teach, or very high up there on the list of hardest to teach. The problem is simplicity. People who have no experience with productivity improvement often have no way of judging or problem solving or knowing *how* to use systems like Mark has designed (DIT probably being the exception here). With GTD, there's a place you can point at explicitly to help them see how to solve any issue they are struggling with. I think that makes GTD easier to get people started with about how they think about things. Once they kind of have a clearer idea of how we can think about productivity systems, showing them something like Mark's systems, or Deep Work, or Ivy Lee, can help take them from a complex but reified system to a more implicit, but much simpler to use system. I think it can be hard to maximize the simple systems without experience.
My experience suggests that improving time management and low-level systems tends to benefit even people who appear "not to need it". Working with the people I have, a lot of what I see are people who are very far from "okay" with regards to their systems, and they suffer and struggle a lot because of it.
The problem is that both children and people who could benefit from this stuff often don't know what is out there, are overwhelmed with stuff and feel like they can't do something "extra", and don't intuitively understand how to make use of such systems. This means they need, in essence, someone that they trust to give them information, but also who are able to demonstrate why it matters.
With my own kids, the clearest thing from the "productivity space" that has been valuable is something that should surprise no one, VISION. Establishing clarity in terms of how the world is going to work has been the single most effective tool I've noted so far. It doesn't seem much to matter what that vision is, but at long as the kids clearly understand the rules of the game, they are exceptionally good at making something happen within those rules. The challenge comes when there is any level of uncertainty or that clarity gets lost.
Checklists and routines have been the most helpful in this regard in our own lives. Having a specific set of routines that need to happen at regular points consistently and having that written down somewhere that they can look at, check off, and complete each day (weekly doesn't seem to work as well), seems to make a huge difference.
Likewise, setting down a simple set of things that need to be done is also helpful, but I've found unordered lists to be less effective. When the lists are given in order, it seems to take away a lot of the decision trouble from the kids. Some of the things they have the hardest time with is picking the right task in the moment, but if you sit down with them in advance and ask them how they'd like to proceed, they seem to be able to do just fine with that, and then they can execute on that order easily.
I've also found boredom to be exceptionally powerful. Simply sitting down with one of my kids who already has a set of things that they know needs to get done, but which they are heavily resisting, which usually takes the form of complete mental gridlock, meaning that *no* action stands out, except for avoidance and running away, I just give them the space and freedom to sit there and do nothing. It's the "do nothing" part that seems completely transformative. Giving yourself permission to sit and be bored I think really tends to change things. I've found for my kids that this tends to disable procrastination remarkably quickly and helps to calm them down when they feel overwhelmed, as well as giving them a type of natural draw and motivation towards their work. I strongly prefer this over the results I've seen if I or someone else tries to compel an action immediately via threats or via some sort of negative or positive consequence.
In other words, I think creating the space where things are clear, with good constraints and consequences, but then allowing the kids to have the time and space to work through that themselves without an impending value judgment hanging over them leads to them enjoying the work they do much more.
I have taught some of Mark's stuff to them, and it can help, but I've honestly had more success with teaching them how to be calm, centered, and take things in a specific order (whatever order they want within some constraints) doing one thing at a time, than I have with the other approaches. I think this is partly because the actual set of obligations that the kids have is small enough that they aren't stressed about remembering or organizing lots of things they need to do. I've had more success with no list type approaches, particularly something like 5/2. I haven't tried NL-FVP with them yet. Checklists and Ivy Lee have worked well, with checklists probably the most successful.
One of my kids actually worked out an ordered schedule of tasks for the next day independently, and that was very successful.
The biggest challenge I've had with teaching Mark's stuff to kids is the concept of Little and Often as well as intuitive actioning. We're done a little bit of time boxing MF style with little and often, but it honestly hasn't been as effective as ordered task execution. I think one of the biggest challenges is that if you allow for lots of little "breaks" from the hard work and allow for the "fun stuff" to enter in there, I find that the attention residue created by that completely destroys their ability to focus on their work. Instead, large blocks of focused time around a set of tasks that are in the "work category" followed by freedom to then have fun after that seems to be much more effective.
Thus, we generally divide the day into "growth part, play part" and they don't generally mix those two. This makes it pretty simple, and it also provides a lot of positive incentives for optimizing how they get their work done. However, we don't have specific schedules as to when that happens at what specific time, so we're still pretty flexible on times.
A few times the Little and Often approach to work has been highly effective, but I think it hasn't been as consistently effective unless I maintain the above division between work/play.
The key here seems to be more about ensuring that expectations are clear, predictable, consistent, and "winnable" than anything else.
I've found the same for many adults. Simply working to help them create clear expectations and realities that are consistent and predictable while providing sufficient space to permit reflection and focus seems to be extremely powerful, no matter how you get to it. So many adults and kids that I've seen seem to be working in reactive mode all the time, and while they are able to cope at some level, they aren't really very effective. They do just well enough, but they often stagnate or suffer for it. Simply creating a little breathing room can be tremendous, which is where the low-level systems can really help.
As an example, for adults, I've found simply clarifying expectations around communication rhythms and discussing how it's okay to not have to be instantly available for communication can have a huge impact. Likewise for meetings and all sorts of other things.
I think GTD is the easiest system to *teach* other people. Mark's systems are the hardest to teach, or very high up there on the list of hardest to teach. The problem is simplicity. People who have no experience with productivity improvement often have no way of judging or problem solving or knowing *how* to use systems like Mark has designed (DIT probably being the exception here). With GTD, there's a place you can point at explicitly to help them see how to solve any issue they are struggling with. I think that makes GTD easier to get people started with about how they think about things. Once they kind of have a clearer idea of how we can think about productivity systems, showing them something like Mark's systems, or Deep Work, or Ivy Lee, can help take them from a complex but reified system to a more implicit, but much simpler to use system. I think it can be hard to maximize the simple systems without experience.
January 21, 2022 at 2:36 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
I bought a book a while ago called "GTD for Teens". It was a much simpler explanation. It had plenty of diagrams.
One thing that this book had perhaps is new is "checklists" for routine items. I don't recall that being much a part of GTD, and I just looked at David Allen's "Making It All Work" and the only place for checklists is regarding Areas of Focus.
One thing that this book had perhaps is new is "checklists" for routine items. I don't recall that being much a part of GTD, and I just looked at David Allen's "Making It All Work" and the only place for checklists is regarding Areas of Focus.
January 21, 2022 at 4:58 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark H:
GTD has always had a pretty strong checklists element, and in fact I first came to appreciate their power through GTD, but it's a part that I think a lot of people "skip over" because they think that somehow they'll be fine with the other stuff. In fact, checklists are, in my interpretation, *the* way that GTD recommends dealing with routines. Or, put another way, recurring items are done with checklists in GTD according to my reading. I think they *seem* straightforward to people, though, so they are easy to gloss over in the whole GTD scheme of things, even though I consider them an essential component.
GTD has always had a pretty strong checklists element, and in fact I first came to appreciate their power through GTD, but it's a part that I think a lot of people "skip over" because they think that somehow they'll be fine with the other stuff. In fact, checklists are, in my interpretation, *the* way that GTD recommends dealing with routines. Or, put another way, recurring items are done with checklists in GTD according to my reading. I think they *seem* straightforward to people, though, so they are easy to gloss over in the whole GTD scheme of things, even though I consider them an essential component.
January 21, 2022 at 6:45 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
<<I think GTD is the easiest system to *teach* other people. Mark's systems are the hardest to teach>>
Not in my experience. It took me a few minutes to explain to my eldest to throw anything and everything at his Simple Scanning list. He was able to follow the directions, and had a pretty robust list of items.
The hard part - for me (adult) and him - will be developing the habit of working the system. To date, I don't know of any system - GTD, 7 Habits, Time Blocking, etc - that works any other way.
The trickiest discipline/practice is to develop confidence in using intuition** to pick the best thing to do right now. For some people, this comes naturally (I hate you people). For others (me), this takes a lot of work.
** All productivity systems encourage this type of thinking:
Seth Godin: “Intuition isn’t guessing. It’s sophisticated pattern matching, honed over time. You can get better at it by practicing.”
David Allen: "Every decision to act is an intuitive one. The challenge is to migrate from hoping it's the right choice to trusting it's the right choice.”
Mark Forster: "... chose the next task in AF [...] reading through a list of tasks until one feels ready to be done."
Etc.
<<I think GTD is the easiest system to *teach* other people. Mark's systems are the hardest to teach>>
Not in my experience. It took me a few minutes to explain to my eldest to throw anything and everything at his Simple Scanning list. He was able to follow the directions, and had a pretty robust list of items.
The hard part - for me (adult) and him - will be developing the habit of working the system. To date, I don't know of any system - GTD, 7 Habits, Time Blocking, etc - that works any other way.
The trickiest discipline/practice is to develop confidence in using intuition** to pick the best thing to do right now. For some people, this comes naturally (I hate you people). For others (me), this takes a lot of work.
** All productivity systems encourage this type of thinking:
Seth Godin: “Intuition isn’t guessing. It’s sophisticated pattern matching, honed over time. You can get better at it by practicing.”
David Allen: "Every decision to act is an intuitive one. The challenge is to migrate from hoping it's the right choice to trusting it's the right choice.”
Mark Forster: "... chose the next task in AF [...] reading through a list of tasks until one feels ready to be done."
Etc.
January 21, 2022 at 15:31 |
avrum
avrum
avrum --
<< ** All productivity systems encourage this type of thinking: Seth Godin ... David Allen ... Mark Forster ..."
That's a really nice succinct summary of quotes on intuition in time management!
Somehow GTD always felt like a system that a computer could work just fine, but didn't address the human elements of intuition, conflict, resistance, etc. The focus always seemed to be on the "data model" -- next actions, contexts, projects, etc. -- which David Allen described as "it's as simple as possible but no simpler" or something like that. David Allen would drop these quotes on intuition etc., but never seemed to tie it into the basic mechanics of the system. Maybe he does that in his later books, which I haven't read.
<< ** All productivity systems encourage this type of thinking: Seth Godin ... David Allen ... Mark Forster ..."
That's a really nice succinct summary of quotes on intuition in time management!
Somehow GTD always felt like a system that a computer could work just fine, but didn't address the human elements of intuition, conflict, resistance, etc. The focus always seemed to be on the "data model" -- next actions, contexts, projects, etc. -- which David Allen described as "it's as simple as possible but no simpler" or something like that. David Allen would drop these quotes on intuition etc., but never seemed to tie it into the basic mechanics of the system. Maybe he does that in his later books, which I haven't read.
January 21, 2022 at 21:24 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim - David Allen has a wild background. He got addicted to heroin and was briefly institutionalized.. He was an actor, a magician, waiter, and held various jobs in different industries. He obtained a black belt in a martial art, and is an ordained minister with the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness. At the height of GTDs success, he left America/California and moved to Europe.
My hunch is an editor downplayed the intuitive parts of his thinking, and highlighted the more practical productivity bits.
My hunch is an editor downplayed the intuitive parts of his thinking, and highlighted the more practical productivity bits.
January 21, 2022 at 22:42 |
avrum
avrum
I think the big difference in teachability comes down to the ease of system-level introspection.
It's trivial to explain Mark's systems, but how do you actually *use* them? I don't think it counts as teaching Mark's systems if you just say, "Throw everything into a list and then follow these rules." Others will disagree with me here, but I think that's the least important part of Mark's systems, and why a lot of people will read Mark's systems and say, "That's it? Big whoop." The rules are an aid, but in my experience, the real trick of them comes when you are able to understand the systems and processes behind them, of which there are many.
The problem with every system is that at some point there's something that isn't working. In Mark's systems, there's very little systematized, externalized meta-processes to help you to pinpoint how and why you might be misusing or improperly applying that system. Keep in mind here that we're not talking about people who already know what and how they need to work, and these tools are just an aid, we're talking about people who *don't* have these skills. They don't know themselves or what they are doing, why they are doing it, or how it may or may not be negatively affecting their work. They can't look at their MF long list and say, "Oh, I'm falling behind, it's probably because I'm not leveraging little and often enough and I need to alter the way I trigger intuitively to help me work through my list more incrementally." Or, "Oh, I'm resisting this task a lot, I wonder why that is? I think it's probably because I don't really know what I want from this, so I should let myself daydream a little about this, so I'll rewrite this in my list to frame it as a daydream instead of as a must do." They don't know what little and often is, they don't know what task level resolutions are, they don't know about questioning or the like. They don't understand resistance principles or anything like that.
These types of introspection are at the heart of making a MF long list system work, IMO. If you're going to teach the system, then, IMO, these are the sorts of things that are at the forefront of what matters most. In other words, there's a ton of implicit knowledge and experience that has to be communicated in order for someone to make the most of a MF long list, IME, especially with kids or people who are very low Trait Conscientiousness (Big 5). The algorithms are just a highly sophisticated, low-overhead way of reaching in and bringing some of those things out.
Thus, I find that kids can easily "follow the rules" of a long list system, but they often fail to be able to leverage it to help them address some of their problems without significantly more assistance and coaching. It's harder for them to think at the self-awareness level that might be needed to make the most use of it.
Contrast this with teaching someone GTD, especially young kids. There's a clear, step-by-step process. You can have a print out that tells them exactly what they should be doing. You can progressively implement the system a lime with each next step a clearly concrete one that the kids can "self direct" on. And when something goes wrong, there are usually very specific touch points that you can point to and say, "You're not doing this, start doing this. Stop doing that." It's very concrete.
GTD has more rules to follow but it's easier to see when you are breaking them. MF long lists have less rules to follow, but it's much harder to understand why a system might be breaking down.
I think consistently working a system is a universal difficulty, but I think it's easier to teach how to "fix" a system in GTD than it is with MF's systems at the beginning, and that's where I think the teachability hinges.
Of course, this completely ignores long term effectiveness, which is different than teachability.
It's trivial to explain Mark's systems, but how do you actually *use* them? I don't think it counts as teaching Mark's systems if you just say, "Throw everything into a list and then follow these rules." Others will disagree with me here, but I think that's the least important part of Mark's systems, and why a lot of people will read Mark's systems and say, "That's it? Big whoop." The rules are an aid, but in my experience, the real trick of them comes when you are able to understand the systems and processes behind them, of which there are many.
The problem with every system is that at some point there's something that isn't working. In Mark's systems, there's very little systematized, externalized meta-processes to help you to pinpoint how and why you might be misusing or improperly applying that system. Keep in mind here that we're not talking about people who already know what and how they need to work, and these tools are just an aid, we're talking about people who *don't* have these skills. They don't know themselves or what they are doing, why they are doing it, or how it may or may not be negatively affecting their work. They can't look at their MF long list and say, "Oh, I'm falling behind, it's probably because I'm not leveraging little and often enough and I need to alter the way I trigger intuitively to help me work through my list more incrementally." Or, "Oh, I'm resisting this task a lot, I wonder why that is? I think it's probably because I don't really know what I want from this, so I should let myself daydream a little about this, so I'll rewrite this in my list to frame it as a daydream instead of as a must do." They don't know what little and often is, they don't know what task level resolutions are, they don't know about questioning or the like. They don't understand resistance principles or anything like that.
These types of introspection are at the heart of making a MF long list system work, IMO. If you're going to teach the system, then, IMO, these are the sorts of things that are at the forefront of what matters most. In other words, there's a ton of implicit knowledge and experience that has to be communicated in order for someone to make the most of a MF long list, IME, especially with kids or people who are very low Trait Conscientiousness (Big 5). The algorithms are just a highly sophisticated, low-overhead way of reaching in and bringing some of those things out.
Thus, I find that kids can easily "follow the rules" of a long list system, but they often fail to be able to leverage it to help them address some of their problems without significantly more assistance and coaching. It's harder for them to think at the self-awareness level that might be needed to make the most use of it.
Contrast this with teaching someone GTD, especially young kids. There's a clear, step-by-step process. You can have a print out that tells them exactly what they should be doing. You can progressively implement the system a lime with each next step a clearly concrete one that the kids can "self direct" on. And when something goes wrong, there are usually very specific touch points that you can point to and say, "You're not doing this, start doing this. Stop doing that." It's very concrete.
GTD has more rules to follow but it's easier to see when you are breaking them. MF long lists have less rules to follow, but it's much harder to understand why a system might be breaking down.
I think consistently working a system is a universal difficulty, but I think it's easier to teach how to "fix" a system in GTD than it is with MF's systems at the beginning, and that's where I think the teachability hinges.
Of course, this completely ignores long term effectiveness, which is different than teachability.
January 21, 2022 at 23:29 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
avrum:
David Allen is totally on the "intuition" bandwagon. A lot of people don't get this, even after they watch his lectures that describe exactly this. If you were to simplify GTD down to its barest essentials, it's probably this: write down everything that has your attention or that otherwise creates mental pressure because of obligations surrounding it into an external system at a resolution and clarity that no further thinking has to be done about that thing with sufficient organization so that you don't have to look at things that you don't want or need to look at until they are maximally relevant so that your mind can be free to let you do whatever you feel like doing in the moment.
The way I interpret it, he's basically a guy who found himself in corporate life but really wanted to live the hippie life, so he created systems that would allow him to feel as much like a hippie as possible while still accomplishing things in the "business" world.
If you watch him actually talk about his own systems, you'll note that he's not nearly as "crisp" around the edges as many people interpret from reading his books and things. He's remarked on that himself. People take his GTD books and reinterpret them as some sort of dogma in which every aspect of the process is fully expressed, but if you look at the way DA himself actually talks about it, the edges are much less firm. He's talked even about making some daily todo lists for himself whenever they help (he hastens to add that they have to be able to be torn up at any moment, though), and his Weekly Review is something that he does more or less often than Weekly entirely depending on how he's feeling about his system (he points out that it tends to hover around a weekly cadence, which is why it's called the Weekly Review).
I think the biggest challenge when it comes to kids is that intuition isn't really built up, literally. Intuition requires a good sense of temporal discounting and the training to have learned to recognize and work around temporal discounting without abandoning its value. But kids often literally do not have these things fully developed yet. But when it comes to productivity systems, a lot of them rely too heavily on an innate understanding of this principle, and that can make them hard to use for kids.
David Allen is totally on the "intuition" bandwagon. A lot of people don't get this, even after they watch his lectures that describe exactly this. If you were to simplify GTD down to its barest essentials, it's probably this: write down everything that has your attention or that otherwise creates mental pressure because of obligations surrounding it into an external system at a resolution and clarity that no further thinking has to be done about that thing with sufficient organization so that you don't have to look at things that you don't want or need to look at until they are maximally relevant so that your mind can be free to let you do whatever you feel like doing in the moment.
The way I interpret it, he's basically a guy who found himself in corporate life but really wanted to live the hippie life, so he created systems that would allow him to feel as much like a hippie as possible while still accomplishing things in the "business" world.
If you watch him actually talk about his own systems, you'll note that he's not nearly as "crisp" around the edges as many people interpret from reading his books and things. He's remarked on that himself. People take his GTD books and reinterpret them as some sort of dogma in which every aspect of the process is fully expressed, but if you look at the way DA himself actually talks about it, the edges are much less firm. He's talked even about making some daily todo lists for himself whenever they help (he hastens to add that they have to be able to be torn up at any moment, though), and his Weekly Review is something that he does more or less often than Weekly entirely depending on how he's feeling about his system (he points out that it tends to hover around a weekly cadence, which is why it's called the Weekly Review).
I think the biggest challenge when it comes to kids is that intuition isn't really built up, literally. Intuition requires a good sense of temporal discounting and the training to have learned to recognize and work around temporal discounting without abandoning its value. But kids often literally do not have these things fully developed yet. But when it comes to productivity systems, a lot of them rely too heavily on an innate understanding of this principle, and that can make them hard to use for kids.
January 21, 2022 at 23:41 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu --
<< In Mark's systems, there's very little systematized, externalized meta-processes to help you to pinpoint how and why you might be misusing or improperly applying that system. >>
Some of Mark's systems have these kinds of diagnostic features. AF4R is a good example: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1325521
<< In Mark's systems, there's very little systematized, externalized meta-processes to help you to pinpoint how and why you might be misusing or improperly applying that system. >>
Some of Mark's systems have these kinds of diagnostic features. AF4R is a good example: http://markforster.squarespace.com/forum/post/1325521
January 22, 2022 at 5:22 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Aaron:
<<I find that kids can easily "follow the rules" of a long list system, but they often fail to be able to leverage it to help them address some of their problems without significantly more assistance and coaching. >>
Have you tried this with kids? In 30 years of clinical work, I've come across one, maybe two teens (forget about kids younger than 11) who were introduce to any of this. I'd imagine the research re: efficacy of productivity systems among kids is scant. Note: I'm in Canada. In the States, Sean Covey has been quite successful implementing the 7 Habits programs in quite a few elementary schools.
My hunch is that success with any system rests on the enthusiasm of the adult, and the willingness (read: pain) of the kid to adopt the habit.
So far so good, my son is on day 5 with a kid-friendly version of Simple Scanning
<<I find that kids can easily "follow the rules" of a long list system, but they often fail to be able to leverage it to help them address some of their problems without significantly more assistance and coaching. >>
Have you tried this with kids? In 30 years of clinical work, I've come across one, maybe two teens (forget about kids younger than 11) who were introduce to any of this. I'd imagine the research re: efficacy of productivity systems among kids is scant. Note: I'm in Canada. In the States, Sean Covey has been quite successful implementing the 7 Habits programs in quite a few elementary schools.
My hunch is that success with any system rests on the enthusiasm of the adult, and the willingness (read: pain) of the kid to adopt the habit.
So far so good, my son is on day 5 with a kid-friendly version of Simple Scanning
January 22, 2022 at 23:54 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
I come from a family of productivity, you could say, with one side of my family's grandparents leading high productivity lives with a strong emphasis on systems and routine (early computerized mechanical engineering and very meticulous accounting), and the other side as competitive athletes and successful large business owners. I remember from a very early time one of my grandfathers working meticulously from what amounted to a long list system *way* before any of this stuff was standard fare. Then, both my parents demonstrated a propensity for systems building and tweaking, in the academic and entrepreneurial domains.
I can recall being probably around 9 - 10 when I first was read Covey's 7 Habits book by my mother and discussing what it meant and how we would use it in our lives. At the time he was the big hotness. Even younger than that, I was given a journal probably around age 7 and encouraged to write out my thoughts in it every day, how the day went, how I felt, and so forth. I still have that original journal. I think I was maybe 7 or 8 when I was given a loose-leaf Day-Timer style binder with various organizational parts to it, which I immediately put to use as a "detective's case notebook", and I believe I received some coaching on how I might organize my cases best (alphabetically or the like, I don't remember the exact method) using the little tabs. I think I got and started seriously using an actually weekly planner when I was maybe 10 or 11. It was a tiny little thing with all sorts of dates and the like, and I used it to track my daily schedule as well as chores and things of that nature.
My brothers didn't take to the same level of organization that I did, even though they had the same exposure, but they did definitely learn how to apply themselves. My youngest brother learned the art of Focus very early on and cultivated that religiously. During his middle teens, he wanted a sports system developed at a school he was attending that didn't have a very developed sports program. He made a deal with the school that if he managed to arrange for the funding and also make enough space in his schedule that he could play by completing all of his coursework for math before the start of the next semester, that they would put it together.
Well, he did it. He got himself a smooth writing fountain pen (I helped him get that), a large spiral bound notebook, and the entire syllabus of his math course for the next year, and then proceeded to lock himself in his room, pretty much, for a month or so, and came out with all the work done and ready to be graded. He passed, and they gave him his sports team.
My siblings and I are probably examples of "3rd" generation productivity students. When I got my first taste of computers around 11 or 12, I immediately started trying to build an organizational database for storing the types of information that I wanted to keep track of. During my teens I started branching out into different ways to work with todo lists and the like. There wasn't nearly as much information out there as there is today, but I definitely started working with various electronic and paper systems for managing Todo lists before GTD took over the scene later on. I think I even have one of my early sketches in HTML and CSS designed to help me have a richer Todo list than your typical paper.
When I first started into college, I think I started to really appreciate pen and paper and getting into things like GTD, and as my academic career has progressed, that's when I started seeing and working with all sorts of systems.
So, you could say that I took to "productivity systems" very early on and have had firsthand experience of how they felt from an early age.
I've worked with my own kids on this (I guess they're 4th generation), They've taken to journaling and sketching fairly readily. They're learning how to manage inboxes a bit. They also like lists when they have some control over them. :-) Things like checklists have proven highly effective. I've also taught them a number of Mark's things, but I find that the principles are really what matters and are sometimes the hardest to communicate to them. I did find that they liked to use a 5/2 list just fine, and it was fun for them, but even though it was fun, because their temporal discounting was so strong, they didn't really end up with a good result in the end, because it didn't help them to control or mitigate temporal discounting, which is a big factor.
The biggest issues that I've found are two. Firstly, if you don't have both parents totally clear and on board with how the whole thing works, it won't work, because often times one parent could undermine the systems of the kid without understanding it. The systems are so fragile right now with the kids that a parent coming in and "destroying" the system ruins things. Secondly, I've found that while the productivity systems that give clarity and focus all universally seem to create improvement if the kids are using them, particularly around the areas of motivation and fear/procrastination, without an exceptionally clear environment that makes it easy to account for temporal discounting, the system breaks down for the kids almost instantly.
In other words, the proximal zone of development around time management for the kids is so small that parents will often have a tendency to give them way more to chew on than they can handle with a system. I think the systems development and cultivation have to be very deft and gently done to make it work well, and that requires both parents to really understand how these things are working, which is often harder than just teaching the kids.
As an example, timeboxing a kid and using a 5/2 list on their schoolwork can be really effective, but only if they have a time limit on that work and they are only working on their homework. Introduce anything that could create temporal discounting and it breaks down (such as any sort of play time or communications/social media). It's also only effective if they really understand little and often.
I come from a family of productivity, you could say, with one side of my family's grandparents leading high productivity lives with a strong emphasis on systems and routine (early computerized mechanical engineering and very meticulous accounting), and the other side as competitive athletes and successful large business owners. I remember from a very early time one of my grandfathers working meticulously from what amounted to a long list system *way* before any of this stuff was standard fare. Then, both my parents demonstrated a propensity for systems building and tweaking, in the academic and entrepreneurial domains.
I can recall being probably around 9 - 10 when I first was read Covey's 7 Habits book by my mother and discussing what it meant and how we would use it in our lives. At the time he was the big hotness. Even younger than that, I was given a journal probably around age 7 and encouraged to write out my thoughts in it every day, how the day went, how I felt, and so forth. I still have that original journal. I think I was maybe 7 or 8 when I was given a loose-leaf Day-Timer style binder with various organizational parts to it, which I immediately put to use as a "detective's case notebook", and I believe I received some coaching on how I might organize my cases best (alphabetically or the like, I don't remember the exact method) using the little tabs. I think I got and started seriously using an actually weekly planner when I was maybe 10 or 11. It was a tiny little thing with all sorts of dates and the like, and I used it to track my daily schedule as well as chores and things of that nature.
My brothers didn't take to the same level of organization that I did, even though they had the same exposure, but they did definitely learn how to apply themselves. My youngest brother learned the art of Focus very early on and cultivated that religiously. During his middle teens, he wanted a sports system developed at a school he was attending that didn't have a very developed sports program. He made a deal with the school that if he managed to arrange for the funding and also make enough space in his schedule that he could play by completing all of his coursework for math before the start of the next semester, that they would put it together.
Well, he did it. He got himself a smooth writing fountain pen (I helped him get that), a large spiral bound notebook, and the entire syllabus of his math course for the next year, and then proceeded to lock himself in his room, pretty much, for a month or so, and came out with all the work done and ready to be graded. He passed, and they gave him his sports team.
My siblings and I are probably examples of "3rd" generation productivity students. When I got my first taste of computers around 11 or 12, I immediately started trying to build an organizational database for storing the types of information that I wanted to keep track of. During my teens I started branching out into different ways to work with todo lists and the like. There wasn't nearly as much information out there as there is today, but I definitely started working with various electronic and paper systems for managing Todo lists before GTD took over the scene later on. I think I even have one of my early sketches in HTML and CSS designed to help me have a richer Todo list than your typical paper.
When I first started into college, I think I started to really appreciate pen and paper and getting into things like GTD, and as my academic career has progressed, that's when I started seeing and working with all sorts of systems.
So, you could say that I took to "productivity systems" very early on and have had firsthand experience of how they felt from an early age.
I've worked with my own kids on this (I guess they're 4th generation), They've taken to journaling and sketching fairly readily. They're learning how to manage inboxes a bit. They also like lists when they have some control over them. :-) Things like checklists have proven highly effective. I've also taught them a number of Mark's things, but I find that the principles are really what matters and are sometimes the hardest to communicate to them. I did find that they liked to use a 5/2 list just fine, and it was fun for them, but even though it was fun, because their temporal discounting was so strong, they didn't really end up with a good result in the end, because it didn't help them to control or mitigate temporal discounting, which is a big factor.
The biggest issues that I've found are two. Firstly, if you don't have both parents totally clear and on board with how the whole thing works, it won't work, because often times one parent could undermine the systems of the kid without understanding it. The systems are so fragile right now with the kids that a parent coming in and "destroying" the system ruins things. Secondly, I've found that while the productivity systems that give clarity and focus all universally seem to create improvement if the kids are using them, particularly around the areas of motivation and fear/procrastination, without an exceptionally clear environment that makes it easy to account for temporal discounting, the system breaks down for the kids almost instantly.
In other words, the proximal zone of development around time management for the kids is so small that parents will often have a tendency to give them way more to chew on than they can handle with a system. I think the systems development and cultivation have to be very deft and gently done to make it work well, and that requires both parents to really understand how these things are working, which is often harder than just teaching the kids.
As an example, timeboxing a kid and using a 5/2 list on their schoolwork can be really effective, but only if they have a time limit on that work and they are only working on their homework. Introduce anything that could create temporal discounting and it breaks down (such as any sort of play time or communications/social media). It's also only effective if they really understand little and often.
January 23, 2022 at 6:12 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu -- I think you make a really important point about the parents being in sync on any TM methods being taught to the children. I would guess this is probably the most important factor, at least in the case of our family.
January 23, 2022 at 20:02 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
It's only day two, so we'll see how this goes. I'd be very curious to hear if any of you have had success teaching a tween/teen these techniques. What worked, what didn't, etc.
p.s. I showed my son a brief clip of Mark on YouTube (the Autofocus video) demoing "standing out". My son remarked: He has that MANY tasks?
****
However this turns out, I'm grateful for Mark's work to provide an opportunity to be a resource to my son.