Discussion Forum > Union of FV with random
FLWFfan:
I like these two quotes of yours:
"others wish to get their blood moving with a warmup of doing a round or two of pure random as the start" and " I believe it offers the least amount of decision making"
That's a great way to look at it. I find that I spend way to much time deciding what to do instead of just doing *something*. So count me as one that likes to get going with random. I even got a fancy 30 sided die for it :)
After I get going and the momentum is high, I tend to settle into a better intuition of what direction I need to go if it isn't pure random. At that point, I let go of random and do what needs to be done as needed. That is so much easier after I have achieved momentum.
I like your addition of the question of "what would I regret not doing". . Reading through the whole list as you describe is a good way to seed the reminders...
For me, I believe the decisions marinate best in my head while I'm *doing* tasks, rather than staring at a list of tasks. but as you say use whatever system works best for your mind.
Brent
I like these two quotes of yours:
"others wish to get their blood moving with a warmup of doing a round or two of pure random as the start" and " I believe it offers the least amount of decision making"
That's a great way to look at it. I find that I spend way to much time deciding what to do instead of just doing *something*. So count me as one that likes to get going with random. I even got a fancy 30 sided die for it :)
After I get going and the momentum is high, I tend to settle into a better intuition of what direction I need to go if it isn't pure random. At that point, I let go of random and do what needs to be done as needed. That is so much easier after I have achieved momentum.
I like your addition of the question of "what would I regret not doing". . Reading through the whole list as you describe is a good way to seed the reminders...
For me, I believe the decisions marinate best in my head while I'm *doing* tasks, rather than staring at a list of tasks. but as you say use whatever system works best for your mind.
Brent
February 18, 2022 at 0:01 |
Brent
Brent
This sounds really interesting. So let's see if I understand it correctly: This method involves 3 different ways of working this list:
1. FV with one line at the end of the list.
2. After 3-5 tasks are added after the line, draw a second line, box the 3-5 tasks and work through them.
3. After a while, switch to random. Work through the entire list for a few rounds (a maximum number of rounds set by you ahead of time, but you can quit before).
Then, whenever you need to, go back to FV and work the list again. Interesting, It has a lot of flexibility built into it about when to switch methods. Quick question: what do you find is the benefit of 2? Was there a particular reason for it? Could one just bounce between FV and random?
1. FV with one line at the end of the list.
2. After 3-5 tasks are added after the line, draw a second line, box the 3-5 tasks and work through them.
3. After a while, switch to random. Work through the entire list for a few rounds (a maximum number of rounds set by you ahead of time, but you can quit before).
Then, whenever you need to, go back to FV and work the list again. Interesting, It has a lot of flexibility built into it about when to switch methods. Quick question: what do you find is the benefit of 2? Was there a particular reason for it? Could one just bounce between FV and random?
February 18, 2022 at 0:25 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
My dream system would be an angel that led me on the optimal path for my own and the world's highest good. It would supernaturally indicate my course by controlling the random numbers. My only decision is what to put on the list. So my path will never be perfect even with an angel selecting tasks, as I may have left out better tasks altogether.
FV is the antidote to the fault of pure randomizer without angelic assist. Number 2 keeps me working on only the highest ranked by FV. Keeps me out of harm's way by ensuring there is adequate attention given to my most important tasks. Lower ranked are not truly important. Only relatively so in comparison to those below. They will either bubble up to the top as higher ranking tasks are completed, or be picked by the randomizer occasionally. Also in normal FV, I would have to decide those tasks every single time before working on them. The cycling on a top ranked list skips the extra decisions and the extra strike and rewrite.
If using random half of the time, I cut total decisions in half. Using the boxed in priorities may cut the total further to 90%. More work done. Less brain effort expended on system leaves more to do the work, I believe. Less time managing the method too.
Depending upon the nature of the priorities, it can be taxing to do only those all of the time.
Perhaps one benefit in original FV from working all the way down the list is to give a break from heavy lifting.
When returning to FV from random, go back to the last undone, dotted, high rank. Scan from
there to find new higher ranking. Thus eliminating remaking those prior decisions. If you only get a couple new ones then you will be adding a few of those earlier ignored tasks if putting
5 of them in the cycle box.
The number of max rounds through the entire list with random can change during times you
feel important tasks are well cared for or falling behind. Some folk's intuition or anxiety may not function so well to kick one out of the random early enough if choosing a long number of rounds as the default every time. May rebel. May want to keep avoiding the onerous stuff of FV ranking.
Another tweak could be to put an initial, like T for town, near tasks that require a specific place,
such as I am in town. If doing one town task, I scan for others to do, ignoring the rank or random. Places can be conceptual, such as a state of health, mood, already have some special clothing on, etc. I found that idea long ago on a different forum.
Use whatever suits you. "Git er done" is a phrase some here say.
FV is the antidote to the fault of pure randomizer without angelic assist. Number 2 keeps me working on only the highest ranked by FV. Keeps me out of harm's way by ensuring there is adequate attention given to my most important tasks. Lower ranked are not truly important. Only relatively so in comparison to those below. They will either bubble up to the top as higher ranking tasks are completed, or be picked by the randomizer occasionally. Also in normal FV, I would have to decide those tasks every single time before working on them. The cycling on a top ranked list skips the extra decisions and the extra strike and rewrite.
If using random half of the time, I cut total decisions in half. Using the boxed in priorities may cut the total further to 90%. More work done. Less brain effort expended on system leaves more to do the work, I believe. Less time managing the method too.
Depending upon the nature of the priorities, it can be taxing to do only those all of the time.
Perhaps one benefit in original FV from working all the way down the list is to give a break from heavy lifting.
When returning to FV from random, go back to the last undone, dotted, high rank. Scan from
there to find new higher ranking. Thus eliminating remaking those prior decisions. If you only get a couple new ones then you will be adding a few of those earlier ignored tasks if putting
5 of them in the cycle box.
The number of max rounds through the entire list with random can change during times you
feel important tasks are well cared for or falling behind. Some folk's intuition or anxiety may not function so well to kick one out of the random early enough if choosing a long number of rounds as the default every time. May rebel. May want to keep avoiding the onerous stuff of FV ranking.
Another tweak could be to put an initial, like T for town, near tasks that require a specific place,
such as I am in town. If doing one town task, I scan for others to do, ignoring the rank or random. Places can be conceptual, such as a state of health, mood, already have some special clothing on, etc. I found that idea long ago on a different forum.
Use whatever suits you. "Git er done" is a phrase some here say.
February 18, 2022 at 18:22 |
FLWfan
FLWfan
FLWfan: Quik question, are you using FV or FVP?
February 19, 2022 at 12:27 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Paul,
I believe it is FV. I have not reviewed the rules of those in quite a while. I believe what I proposed has some of the same outcome of FVP. Isn't that where after a task is struck you go back to the last dotted to rescan if any others have become high rank with the one just finished out of the way? I too do not rescan from very beginning. Only from the last unactioned, dotted
task.
I just take the highest 3 to 5 in a short list. Cycling through those alone in sequence until I hit a stopping point on every one of them. If I were a robot without the variations of human capability and feeling, I would not use random at all. I would iterate this modified FV only. Highest rated short list all the time. Reduced deciding. More time working.
In emergencies I would do this for as long as I could tolerate. Then start with one round of randomizer before FV again. Gradually able to extend to 2 or 3 random rounds as the backlog of critical items is removed.
Deciding is not so much trouble for others, but it raises stress, and cause me to fall into distractions. I need random to provide a break. To have a chance on what are often the easier tasks to avoid burn out, while keeping productive. Sometimes high value tasks are hit upon.
I believe it is FV. I have not reviewed the rules of those in quite a while. I believe what I proposed has some of the same outcome of FVP. Isn't that where after a task is struck you go back to the last dotted to rescan if any others have become high rank with the one just finished out of the way? I too do not rescan from very beginning. Only from the last unactioned, dotted
task.
I just take the highest 3 to 5 in a short list. Cycling through those alone in sequence until I hit a stopping point on every one of them. If I were a robot without the variations of human capability and feeling, I would not use random at all. I would iterate this modified FV only. Highest rated short list all the time. Reduced deciding. More time working.
In emergencies I would do this for as long as I could tolerate. Then start with one round of randomizer before FV again. Gradually able to extend to 2 or 3 random rounds as the backlog of critical items is removed.
Deciding is not so much trouble for others, but it raises stress, and cause me to fall into distractions. I need random to provide a break. To have a chance on what are often the easier tasks to avoid burn out, while keeping productive. Sometimes high value tasks are hit upon.
February 19, 2022 at 21:07 |
FLWfan
FLWfan
After accumulating 3 to 5 entries after the line, stop normal FV. Place another line at end to separate from new entries that occur in your thoughts as you work. I connect the line above to the line below with a vertical to box this list. Rotate in sequence this short list of priorities. No need to strike and rewrite. Just keep cycling. Strike if actually finished. Put an empty circle if it becomes a waiting for in normal manner, or in waiting for a renewal of the energy for that particular task. Keep at the ones still left until all are circled or struck.
Next switch to standard random selection for a break of sorts. Use an upper limit of rounds through the entire list as the maximum time away from FV. The number of cycles will
be your custom pick. The lower limit for time on "break" will be intuition or anxiety bubbling up
that perhaps it is time to switch back to FV before the random cycles limit is reached.
Repeat this whole explanation. Back and forth is the method. I believe it offers the least amount of decision making and method overhead, while still allowing focus on priorities. My mind struggles more than most people with decisions so after trying many ideas; random skewing in some fashion is my favorite.
Personalities differ. Perhaps others wish to get their blood moving with a warmup of doing a round or two of pure random as the start. Others may find two of the many other methods on this forum complement each other well; making up for each method's cons. Thus all pros all the time by uniting two methods. After years of reading here, my own belief is there will not be a single method that can cover all the bases optimally. At least for my own mind's attributes.
Enjoy if you like it, and find your own way if not. Blessings to you all.