Discussion Forum > System "rules" impact on life patterns over time.
I'm convinced that the mastery of small micro-habits is the key to what some people view in others as "superhuman powers". In so far as I possess any unique special thing over my peers, often I can trace the result of this back to a small decision I made long ago that shaped how I approached the world.
Just to take a small example, I'm way more flexible than average. Yes, I trained in gymnastics when I was younger, but that was because I had already mastered flexibility by then. Even compared to many gymnasts, flexibility has always been a strong suite of mine. When I look back into why this might be the case, I can begin to uncover a systemic pattern in my movements throughout the day that systematically caused me to stretch as a simple part of my life, from little things like how I chose to pick something up off the ground or how I chose to sit to bigger things like what sort of beds or activities I participated in. Even looking at how I chose to walk. I am convinced that this has a lot to do with why I have maintained my flexibility pretty much unchanged despite not having done gymnastics in years. In fact, in some ways I've improved.
I just recently reviewed some of my old notebooks to see when I last used GTD as a methodology, and when I looked back at those notebooks, I found a surprising difference in how I was formulating my projects and next action lists. Clearly, I've been making subtle changes to the way I approach thinking about my work that has had a material effect on how easy or hard it is to use GTD.
I think the big insight from my perspective here, is the classic "power of habit" but taken even smaller in scope. Looking at results from various psychologists and the like, I'm convinced at the moment that goals are only useful to help drive direction, and very little more. Many people try to use them as planning devices or ways to breakdown action roadmaps. However, when I look at what has always been effective in my life and what has not, I've noticed that the most effective things have been these seemingly trivial micro habits that have compounded over time, *not* any of my plans.
This is a little like the "Kaizen self-development" of Mauer or J. Peterson's "Clean up your room" ideas, or even Mark's Little and Often, reoriented. It's those small, incremental adjustments to how we think or see the world that have the biggest impact, I think. They are what lead to the huge apparent innovations and transformations.
For example, many people recognize that thinking from first principles and avoiding bias is a good thing, but often people literally can't do that, because they've never cultivated the set of small micro-habits in mental processing that would enable them to even tap into that. So telling something to think strategically won't help, since they don't even have the mechanical systems to be able to do so. This is something Mark has pointed out in SoPP, in which he emphasizes the importance of low level systems.
Just to take a small example, I'm way more flexible than average. Yes, I trained in gymnastics when I was younger, but that was because I had already mastered flexibility by then. Even compared to many gymnasts, flexibility has always been a strong suite of mine. When I look back into why this might be the case, I can begin to uncover a systemic pattern in my movements throughout the day that systematically caused me to stretch as a simple part of my life, from little things like how I chose to pick something up off the ground or how I chose to sit to bigger things like what sort of beds or activities I participated in. Even looking at how I chose to walk. I am convinced that this has a lot to do with why I have maintained my flexibility pretty much unchanged despite not having done gymnastics in years. In fact, in some ways I've improved.
I just recently reviewed some of my old notebooks to see when I last used GTD as a methodology, and when I looked back at those notebooks, I found a surprising difference in how I was formulating my projects and next action lists. Clearly, I've been making subtle changes to the way I approach thinking about my work that has had a material effect on how easy or hard it is to use GTD.
I think the big insight from my perspective here, is the classic "power of habit" but taken even smaller in scope. Looking at results from various psychologists and the like, I'm convinced at the moment that goals are only useful to help drive direction, and very little more. Many people try to use them as planning devices or ways to breakdown action roadmaps. However, when I look at what has always been effective in my life and what has not, I've noticed that the most effective things have been these seemingly trivial micro habits that have compounded over time, *not* any of my plans.
This is a little like the "Kaizen self-development" of Mauer or J. Peterson's "Clean up your room" ideas, or even Mark's Little and Often, reoriented. It's those small, incremental adjustments to how we think or see the world that have the biggest impact, I think. They are what lead to the huge apparent innovations and transformations.
For example, many people recognize that thinking from first principles and avoiding bias is a good thing, but often people literally can't do that, because they've never cultivated the set of small micro-habits in mental processing that would enable them to even tap into that. So telling something to think strategically won't help, since they don't even have the mechanical systems to be able to do so. This is something Mark has pointed out in SoPP, in which he emphasizes the importance of low level systems.
April 2, 2022 at 20:50 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Cafe655:
<< I look at the significant differences between the builds of different elite athletes. All of them are decided to excel, work hard, hit milestones and achieve difficutl goals, but the specifics of the sports lead to radically different body types.>>
That's a very interesting subject that you've raised. And as well as your remarks about the difference a simple change in time management system makes to someone's life, I started wondering whether one's time management system also makes a change to one's physical body. For instance do some TM systems tend to make people more or less physically active?
And speaking purely for myself, I think the answer is "yes". There are definitely some systems which are more likely to get me walking or running, doing strength exercises, eating healthy food and so on.
<< I look at the significant differences between the builds of different elite athletes. All of them are decided to excel, work hard, hit milestones and achieve difficutl goals, but the specifics of the sports lead to radically different body types.>>
That's a very interesting subject that you've raised. And as well as your remarks about the difference a simple change in time management system makes to someone's life, I started wondering whether one's time management system also makes a change to one's physical body. For instance do some TM systems tend to make people more or less physically active?
And speaking purely for myself, I think the answer is "yes". There are definitely some systems which are more likely to get me walking or running, doing strength exercises, eating healthy food and so on.
April 3, 2022 at 19:01 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Aaron Hsu:
<< I've noticed that the most effective things have been these seemingly trivial micro habits that have compounded over time, *not* any of my plans. >>
Yes, this is absolutely true for me too. And I think that some time management systems are better at establishing micro-habits than others. As I have recently said in another thread, the system I come back to most is NQ-FVP. And I think this is because it is a great system for establishing these micro-habits.
<< I've noticed that the most effective things have been these seemingly trivial micro habits that have compounded over time, *not* any of my plans. >>
Yes, this is absolutely true for me too. And I think that some time management systems are better at establishing micro-habits than others. As I have recently said in another thread, the system I come back to most is NQ-FVP. And I think this is because it is a great system for establishing these micro-habits.
April 3, 2022 at 19:11 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I was deeply engrossed recently in playing around with small changes in the variable used to create visual representations of math formulas (think the rule behind the Fibonacci sequence...add the previous 2 numbers leading to the Fibonacci spiral in all of its unique and kinda mysterious attractiveness) Take, for example, one of the equations that lead to one of the Sierpinski fractals. Change just one of the variables slightly, and it doesn't go fractal...it stops or become random...but if you find just the right configuration, it suddenly becomes kind of magic, and goes fractal forever...but if you stop before you find the right configuration, it just appears to be an interesting problem with no really interesting outcome.
And in our lives, there are variables we can play with...a nearly infinite variety of variables with often nearly infinite possible positions or instances of how to "set" each of the variable.
Sometimes just adjusting for one variable has a dramatic and lifelong impact, as Aaron Hsu did when adjusting life for flexibility and letting that be one of his parameters.
This is a big sandbox of thought to play in!
And in our lives, there are variables we can play with...a nearly infinite variety of variables with often nearly infinite possible positions or instances of how to "set" each of the variable.
Sometimes just adjusting for one variable has a dramatic and lifelong impact, as Aaron Hsu did when adjusting life for flexibility and letting that be one of his parameters.
This is a big sandbox of thought to play in!
April 3, 2022 at 20:00 |
Cafe655
Cafe655
This conversation reminds me of Andy Core's book, "Change Your Day, Not Your Life".
http://www.amazon.com/Change-Your-Day-Not-Life/dp/111881598X
This way of thinking has had a very positive impact on me.
Mark wrote:
<< the system I come back to most is NQ-FVP. And I think this is because it is a great system for establishing these micro-habits >>
Every now and then, we have a discussion about the purpose of TM systems. Usually it's about "getting the right stuff done" or something like that. Most TM book titles reveal this implicit assumption.
I like the way you are reframing it here.
This approach also aligns with my "change matrix" approach, which is all about establishing a core momentum that is generating the positive things you want with no negative side effects. Another way to express "core momentum" would be "micro habits", "daily routine", etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Change-Your-Day-Not-Life/dp/111881598X
This way of thinking has had a very positive impact on me.
Mark wrote:
<< the system I come back to most is NQ-FVP. And I think this is because it is a great system for establishing these micro-habits >>
Every now and then, we have a discussion about the purpose of TM systems. Usually it's about "getting the right stuff done" or something like that. Most TM book titles reveal this implicit assumption.
I like the way you are reframing it here.
This approach also aligns with my "change matrix" approach, which is all about establishing a core momentum that is generating the positive things you want with no negative side effects. Another way to express "core momentum" would be "micro habits", "daily routine", etc.
April 3, 2022 at 20:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark:
One thing I find difficult in a long list system like NQ-FVP is figuring out how much I have done in a given day. Do you have a specific best recommendation for tracking your daily throughput in a long list system in the same way that a system like 5/2 gives you a great retrospective on how you spent your day? I like how 5/2 give you that essentially for free, and in a neat little column.
One thing I find difficult in a long list system like NQ-FVP is figuring out how much I have done in a given day. Do you have a specific best recommendation for tracking your daily throughput in a long list system in the same way that a system like 5/2 gives you a great retrospective on how you spent your day? I like how 5/2 give you that essentially for free, and in a neat little column.
April 3, 2022 at 22:31 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Seraphim:
<< This approach also aligns with my "change matrix" approach, which is all about establishing a core momentum that is generating the positive things you want with no negative side effects. >>
The thing about micro-habits is that they are transferable. They are building blocs rather than results. And as Cafe655 says, the building blocks can come together in many different ways.
<< This approach also aligns with my "change matrix" approach, which is all about establishing a core momentum that is generating the positive things you want with no negative side effects. >>
The thing about micro-habits is that they are transferable. They are building blocs rather than results. And as Cafe655 says, the building blocks can come together in many different ways.
April 3, 2022 at 23:43 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Aaron Hsu:
<< Do you have a specific best recommendation for tracking your daily throughput in a long list system >>
I don't think I do. My tracking is usually confined to counting the number of tasks I have done during a day, and how much work remains in the system. For example, if I have been doing an average of 50 tasks a day and I have 100 tasks on my list, then I have two days' work in the system.
However if you wished to track more exactly, then the simple answer would be to use a different colour pen each day. So you might use red on Monday, black on Tuesday and blue on Wednesday. A task in red crossed out in blue would have been written on Monday and done on Wednesday.
My actual total today is 52 tasks done with 39 remaining on the list, so I have less than one day's work remaining.
I've been using a black pen today. So I might dig out a red or a blue one for tomorrow and see how it goes.
<< Do you have a specific best recommendation for tracking your daily throughput in a long list system >>
I don't think I do. My tracking is usually confined to counting the number of tasks I have done during a day, and how much work remains in the system. For example, if I have been doing an average of 50 tasks a day and I have 100 tasks on my list, then I have two days' work in the system.
However if you wished to track more exactly, then the simple answer would be to use a different colour pen each day. So you might use red on Monday, black on Tuesday and blue on Wednesday. A task in red crossed out in blue would have been written on Monday and done on Wednesday.
My actual total today is 52 tasks done with 39 remaining on the list, so I have less than one day's work remaining.
I've been using a black pen today. So I might dig out a red or a blue one for tomorrow and see how it goes.
April 3, 2022 at 23:57 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
@ Aaron Hsu
Re: Tracking and retrospectives with no fixed list system:
I have a "Daily Capture" node in WorkFlowy that I use an a kind of "enriched journal"...it is not only a catalogue of "things that happened" each day, but as I start a new task, I am often doing the work in the node for that time chunk, recording meeting notes, writing my book, CRM work with a customer, and because of some useful mechanics that WorkFlowy has natively, I can ship that information from the capture log node to the relevant nodes for any topics or people mentioned.
There are some nice side effects to this type of "journal-centric" work cockpit.
I can take a few moments and look at the tasks for the day, and make some predictions about the day.
Then, because I have a real-time capture of the activities and work of the day, I can then review my prediction and "VOD Review" my day...analyzing what worked, what didn't work, and what experiments I might deploy in the future.
So that is one aspect of tracking and retrospective that fits for someone like me who enjoys longitudinal journaling like that.
Another aspect of my systems is that each task, which is generally a component of a work or persona project, is entered in a way that includes the "story point value" for that task.
Then, no matter what system I am using that day or week to manage my tasks, as each task is completed, the total throughput for the week is tracked easily with a bookmarklet. So that is a more metric-based way that I can track and review my plans and actuals for each day/week.
Re: Tracking and retrospectives with no fixed list system:
I have a "Daily Capture" node in WorkFlowy that I use an a kind of "enriched journal"...it is not only a catalogue of "things that happened" each day, but as I start a new task, I am often doing the work in the node for that time chunk, recording meeting notes, writing my book, CRM work with a customer, and because of some useful mechanics that WorkFlowy has natively, I can ship that information from the capture log node to the relevant nodes for any topics or people mentioned.
There are some nice side effects to this type of "journal-centric" work cockpit.
I can take a few moments and look at the tasks for the day, and make some predictions about the day.
Then, because I have a real-time capture of the activities and work of the day, I can then review my prediction and "VOD Review" my day...analyzing what worked, what didn't work, and what experiments I might deploy in the future.
So that is one aspect of tracking and retrospective that fits for someone like me who enjoys longitudinal journaling like that.
Another aspect of my systems is that each task, which is generally a component of a work or persona project, is entered in a way that includes the "story point value" for that task.
Then, no matter what system I am using that day or week to manage my tasks, as each task is completed, the total throughput for the week is tracked easily with a bookmarklet. So that is a more metric-based way that I can track and review my plans and actuals for each day/week.
April 4, 2022 at 0:33 |
Cafe655
Cafe655
The infinitely variable (or at least lavishly abundant variability, if not infinite) building blocks that are available provides for decades of fun for someone like me who has as a primary source of endorphins: curiosity and learning.
One very enjoyable book for me is "The Productivity Project" where the author chose several "productivity enhancement" concepts and tested them over a couple of years and then wrote each chapter about his observations on the effects of each experiment.
This ties in with a concept that has become a companion to almost all of my thought on almost any topic: the idea of the META (Most Effective Tactic Available) that I encountered in the Fortnite gaming world. At any moment in the situatedness of the game, there is one or more METAs for each situation. As the game variables change over time (new mechanics, materials or tools are added, subtracted, or altered) new METAs are discovered by the 100s of millions of players trying to figure out the game at that point...eventually someone will discover a game dynamic that is the most powerful dynamic in the game at that moment in the games development...then that discovered META is propogated via streamers and content creators...then a week or two later, the developers alter the game in small or large ways, then the quest for the META begins again.
This applies to my life in many ways. What is the META for my work production, for my marketing development, for my coaching and parenting of my 15 year old son right now in his development, for the writing of my novel, for my development of online modules, or for keeping my garage organized.
Playing with the variables to see what produces the most promising results is one way to discover the META IRL.
One very enjoyable book for me is "The Productivity Project" where the author chose several "productivity enhancement" concepts and tested them over a couple of years and then wrote each chapter about his observations on the effects of each experiment.
This ties in with a concept that has become a companion to almost all of my thought on almost any topic: the idea of the META (Most Effective Tactic Available) that I encountered in the Fortnite gaming world. At any moment in the situatedness of the game, there is one or more METAs for each situation. As the game variables change over time (new mechanics, materials or tools are added, subtracted, or altered) new METAs are discovered by the 100s of millions of players trying to figure out the game at that point...eventually someone will discover a game dynamic that is the most powerful dynamic in the game at that moment in the games development...then that discovered META is propogated via streamers and content creators...then a week or two later, the developers alter the game in small or large ways, then the quest for the META begins again.
This applies to my life in many ways. What is the META for my work production, for my marketing development, for my coaching and parenting of my 15 year old son right now in his development, for the writing of my novel, for my development of online modules, or for keeping my garage organized.
Playing with the variables to see what produces the most promising results is one way to discover the META IRL.
April 4, 2022 at 0:46 |
Cafe655
Cafe655
Mark:
<<As I have recently said in another thread, the system I come back to most is NQ-FVP. And I think this is because it is a great system for establishing these micro-habits.>>
Do you think in general that something like NQ-FVP is better at building low-level routines than your no lists methods such as 5/2?
<<As I have recently said in another thread, the system I come back to most is NQ-FVP. And I think this is because it is a great system for establishing these micro-habits.>>
Do you think in general that something like NQ-FVP is better at building low-level routines than your no lists methods such as 5/2?
April 4, 2022 at 4:03 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu:
<< Do you think in general that something like NQ-FVP is better at building low-level routines than your no lists methods such as 5/2? >>
Hmm... I'll have to think about that one. The difficulty with giving a direct answer is that most of my low-level routines are so long established that they just get moved from system to system as I test each new system out.
So if I wanted to incorporate a new once-a-day task called "Check fuel in tank" into my daily routines - and it didn't matter what time of day I did it as long as it was done every day - I would put it on the end of my NQ-FVP list and it would get done every day provided I read the list through regularly (as a once-a-day task it would tend to gravitate towards the beginning/middle of the list). So I would say there was probably a fairly equal chance that it would get done every day compared with 5/2.
However if it was a multi-times-a-day task the task would tend to remain much closer to the end of the NQ-FVP list. So the chances it would get done multiple times a day would increase compared with 5/2 because 5/2 depends on your thinking of the task at the right time.
I'm sure there are other factors which would need to be considered, but that's my off-the-cuff answer.
<< Do you think in general that something like NQ-FVP is better at building low-level routines than your no lists methods such as 5/2? >>
Hmm... I'll have to think about that one. The difficulty with giving a direct answer is that most of my low-level routines are so long established that they just get moved from system to system as I test each new system out.
So if I wanted to incorporate a new once-a-day task called "Check fuel in tank" into my daily routines - and it didn't matter what time of day I did it as long as it was done every day - I would put it on the end of my NQ-FVP list and it would get done every day provided I read the list through regularly (as a once-a-day task it would tend to gravitate towards the beginning/middle of the list). So I would say there was probably a fairly equal chance that it would get done every day compared with 5/2.
However if it was a multi-times-a-day task the task would tend to remain much closer to the end of the NQ-FVP list. So the chances it would get done multiple times a day would increase compared with 5/2 because 5/2 depends on your thinking of the task at the right time.
I'm sure there are other factors which would need to be considered, but that's my off-the-cuff answer.
April 4, 2022 at 12:15 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
So many fascinating ideas in here, it's hard to grasp all of them and form a coherent response to it all.
I completely buy into Aaron's talk of micro habits, which are more frames of mind than concrete actions you might list. I'm currently working on never leaving things messier. This is a very frequent thing during the day that any particular action might add to clutter, and to not do this requires a constant mindset, hopefully until it becomes habitual.
I'm very intrigued by Mark's explanation of NQ-FVP and building routines. What particularly catches my eye is his notion that something he does once a day will migrate to about the middle or top of a long list, because so many other things get done many times a day. It strikes me that I never really grasped the extremity of this Little and Often practice. In my current operation I am quite the opposite: I have a bunch of tasks I will execute on each of them once or twice in a day. Anything tiny enough that I might do a dozen times doesn't make a list. Of course my process is not much like AF or FVP as I look infrequently at my list during the day.
Re Cafe655's META, that sounds to me like a retronym that followed a borrowing and adapting of a term. In my experience, meta was a term in Magic the Gathering, short for metagame. The game is a two-player card battle each with their deck of cards. The metagame (the game above the game) is the hunt for decks that are better able to beat the opponents' decks. This became collectively known as the meta, i.e. the mix of the currently most popular and effective decks, which is the background against which future deck strategies are tested. A different meta will make different strats better.
In life I certainly see a value in being aware of obstacles and opportunities, and continually working out better ways to be able to navigate your day.
I'll stop here. So many more ideas yet.
I completely buy into Aaron's talk of micro habits, which are more frames of mind than concrete actions you might list. I'm currently working on never leaving things messier. This is a very frequent thing during the day that any particular action might add to clutter, and to not do this requires a constant mindset, hopefully until it becomes habitual.
I'm very intrigued by Mark's explanation of NQ-FVP and building routines. What particularly catches my eye is his notion that something he does once a day will migrate to about the middle or top of a long list, because so many other things get done many times a day. It strikes me that I never really grasped the extremity of this Little and Often practice. In my current operation I am quite the opposite: I have a bunch of tasks I will execute on each of them once or twice in a day. Anything tiny enough that I might do a dozen times doesn't make a list. Of course my process is not much like AF or FVP as I look infrequently at my list during the day.
Re Cafe655's META, that sounds to me like a retronym that followed a borrowing and adapting of a term. In my experience, meta was a term in Magic the Gathering, short for metagame. The game is a two-player card battle each with their deck of cards. The metagame (the game above the game) is the hunt for decks that are better able to beat the opponents' decks. This became collectively known as the meta, i.e. the mix of the currently most popular and effective decks, which is the background against which future deck strategies are tested. A different meta will make different strats better.
In life I certainly see a value in being aware of obstacles and opportunities, and continually working out better ways to be able to navigate your day.
I'll stop here. So many more ideas yet.
April 8, 2022 at 15:39 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Mark pointed out in "Do It Tomorrow" that a closed system is outside the pattern of your normal decision making, and introduces a new variable into the equation...now, as a part of your overall decision making formula you have added in "What goes on my closed backlog". How you decide that, what the exact terms of what "closed backlog" means, and what resources you are going to use to complete your closed backlog are all variables that produce a pattern over time. Inside and outside of the closed backlog are a set of rules you consciously or unconsciously adhere to. Mark explained that once a backlog is closed, prioritization no longer matters, because it all must get done and nothing can be added. Outside of the closed system, prioritation patterns dictate what life will look like over time as the ramifications of the rules of the pattern you adhere to materialize. For example, if you typically allow the most urgent tasks to jostle to the top of an open list system, that produces a certain pattern of life. If the easiest tasks float to the top, that produces a different pattern of life over time. Their are known and unknown ramifications of the rules of the systems you use to operate your life.
This is very fascinating to me.
I am curious what your experiences have been...if you move from one of Mark's systems to another, or other systems like GTD or Scrum or gamification, etc...what the unexpected ramifications have been over time.
I know, Mark, that you move around testing out different rules for your systems to see the effect. are you primarily trying to isolate for "what makes me most productive" or are their other variables you are testing for (happiness, stress, AOR management, finances for example)
I tend to look at 3 year/quarter/week/day/now horizons for my decision making and thinking, with the bulk of my practical systems centered around the weekly horizon. I wonder what it would change in my life over time if I looked at a different set of horizons with different rules...like if I focused on 400 year impact/1 year/monthly/daily...how would that impact my life over time viewing life in that pattern rather than the other. Or if I made no plans, and just made a daily task list, then decided what to do next with no longer range thinking.
I look at the significant differences between the builds of different elite athletes. All of them are decided to excel, work hard, hit milestones and achieve difficutl goals, but the specifics of the sports lead to radically different body types. In part this is obvious at the start....tall people typically going into basketball is a jump start toward the goal, but then if you look at basketball players from decade to decade...used to generally be tall, slender guys, but now it is tall and very mucular guys typically in the elite level. The NCAA changes some rules about how the game is played, and slowly the body types of the basketball players morphes over time as some aspect of new rule favors someone who has some specific characteristic.
If I add just one rule into my life, for example: "I try to always pull hard things toward me instead of pushing them away" or "I will say 54321 when I have an action to take"...or any of thousands of rules I could potentially add into my life...the pattern starts to change over time...life gets easier...life gets harder...stress goes up or down...relationships strengthen or weaken...organization increases or decreases in certain areas.
All of this is immensely fascinating to me, and I wonder what others thoughts and experiences are on this topic.