Discussion Forum > The one thing I still can't figure out about no-list
I can't say that I understand everything in your post yet. I don't understand what you are referring to by "accounting list."
The difficulty I have with the term "no-list" is that, I think as I remember, you are still dealing with a list, but it is shorter than a "long list".
One could spontaneously do something without referring to a list. We do this all the time throughout life.
One no-list method, perhaps the simplest, is to write down one task at a time and then do it. Someone wrote a whole book based on this method. (I will sometimes do this and add it to my long list.) However, for a long period of time as your major method, you have to make a new decision of what to do each time you do something, and in order to decide, you begin thinking up options, which becomes tiring and anxiety-producing. If the first time you wrote down the options of what to do, you save yourself the time of having to think them up again. It often doesn't matter what order you do the options. Then instead of comparing mentally the options, and holding them in your memory, you look at the list of options of what to do. You can then manipulate the items on the list. If it is a closed list, it will become smaller as you do the items on the list, and the decision of what to do becomes easier. The short list is short enough to be able to mentally absorb it as a whole, especially if the number of items is limited (10-20 items?) or all on one page, or can be done in one sitting, or in the next hour.
However, eventually there will be items remaining on the short list, and the more short lists you create, the more the potential, if you save the lists to do later, to have the makings of a long list now. At some point the list will be so long that it cannot be mentally absorbed as a whole. So the Autofocus lists are in chronological order, but there are many items that are granular items that are probably unrelated to each other. Mark Forster recommends using one's intuition to decide what item to do. For many projects that is sufficient, but some projects need planning and hard thinking. I have not found the long lists methods or the no-list methods alone to be good at dealing with these type of projects, long-term, difficult, that require more than intuition to get them done.
So to understand the long list you can begin to categorize the items to make sense of them and decide what to do next. So you have a calendar, a projects list, project notes, a list of next actions. So instead of deciding what to do next each time, to save planning time, you plan the whole day, or week, or month.
Still, once you have all this in place, you still have to decide what to do next. There are time management systems that treat this in detail, with a specific order or a flowchart or a decision matrix. I have tried to follow these, but they get some complicated that I give up. However, it is likely that if I did it enough times, I would not have to refer to the book, but be able to do it automatically.
Perhaps Mark Forster's latest methods are not as suitable for this type of top-down time management. Earlier he dealt more with projects, working more on the project level, but the Autofocus-related methods are more bottom-up.
David Allen treats of all these problems in detail in his books, and he seems to have a good grasp of them intellectually. Perhaps the bottom-up methods are easier to implement and continue, but the top-down methods might be more difficult but more effective.
I am not sure that you can get all your time management system from a no-list alone.
The difficulty I have with the term "no-list" is that, I think as I remember, you are still dealing with a list, but it is shorter than a "long list".
One could spontaneously do something without referring to a list. We do this all the time throughout life.
One no-list method, perhaps the simplest, is to write down one task at a time and then do it. Someone wrote a whole book based on this method. (I will sometimes do this and add it to my long list.) However, for a long period of time as your major method, you have to make a new decision of what to do each time you do something, and in order to decide, you begin thinking up options, which becomes tiring and anxiety-producing. If the first time you wrote down the options of what to do, you save yourself the time of having to think them up again. It often doesn't matter what order you do the options. Then instead of comparing mentally the options, and holding them in your memory, you look at the list of options of what to do. You can then manipulate the items on the list. If it is a closed list, it will become smaller as you do the items on the list, and the decision of what to do becomes easier. The short list is short enough to be able to mentally absorb it as a whole, especially if the number of items is limited (10-20 items?) or all on one page, or can be done in one sitting, or in the next hour.
However, eventually there will be items remaining on the short list, and the more short lists you create, the more the potential, if you save the lists to do later, to have the makings of a long list now. At some point the list will be so long that it cannot be mentally absorbed as a whole. So the Autofocus lists are in chronological order, but there are many items that are granular items that are probably unrelated to each other. Mark Forster recommends using one's intuition to decide what item to do. For many projects that is sufficient, but some projects need planning and hard thinking. I have not found the long lists methods or the no-list methods alone to be good at dealing with these type of projects, long-term, difficult, that require more than intuition to get them done.
So to understand the long list you can begin to categorize the items to make sense of them and decide what to do next. So you have a calendar, a projects list, project notes, a list of next actions. So instead of deciding what to do next each time, to save planning time, you plan the whole day, or week, or month.
Still, once you have all this in place, you still have to decide what to do next. There are time management systems that treat this in detail, with a specific order or a flowchart or a decision matrix. I have tried to follow these, but they get some complicated that I give up. However, it is likely that if I did it enough times, I would not have to refer to the book, but be able to do it automatically.
Perhaps Mark Forster's latest methods are not as suitable for this type of top-down time management. Earlier he dealt more with projects, working more on the project level, but the Autofocus-related methods are more bottom-up.
David Allen treats of all these problems in detail in his books, and he seems to have a good grasp of them intellectually. Perhaps the bottom-up methods are easier to implement and continue, but the top-down methods might be more difficult but more effective.
I am not sure that you can get all your time management system from a no-list alone.
December 10, 2022 at 14:35 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Aaron,
I am not sure I understand your question.
One could have a list of projects, and if the list is short enough, you could use the Final Version on it, or the Spinning Plates method ( in TM systems. )
However, if you look at No-list methods, they mostly apply to tasks, and not projects per se.
I am not sure I understand your question.
One could have a list of projects, and if the list is short enough, you could use the Final Version on it, or the Spinning Plates method ( in TM systems. )
However, if you look at No-list methods, they mostly apply to tasks, and not projects per se.
December 11, 2022 at 3:56 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark H:
If you follow Mark's writings about no-list, largely founded around stuff written in Secrets of Productive People and writing on his blog about no-list methods, you'll note that the no-list method was always envisioned as something of a complete philosophical approach to time management. Combined with the ever-present calendar, the idea was that you completely gave up todo lists, and instead operating primarily out of your head using some no-list method (of which a variety were invented and iterated on). The support structure to enable this work was primarily the authorized commitments list (c.f., SoPP).
The idea at least in part encompassed a philosophy of "staying right on top of your work" and rapidly diagnosing issues that arose through systems thinking via questioning method (SoPP). It was very intertwined with the idea of working Inbox Zero. The whole concept is that long running lists of things to do were not retained, and everything was worked "afresh" daily.
Additional tools that aided this kind of working were the dynamic list (a spontaneously generated list that "self-destructed" after a day and was restricted to a specific topic/question) and the accounting list (a long running topically focused list used to record ideas and future possibilities into a list that could be pulled from when working on a specific project, the quintessential example being a list of blog post ideas), though I kind of felt like the account list could easily become a todo list if one weren't careful.
You managed projects in this same way, and you usually weren't expecting to retain long lists of tasks associated with a project, but would generate tasks relating to a project daily and afresh, using a dynamic list, if needed, but more often, the expectation was that you would already know what needed to be done, and you would just write that down directly into your no-list.
Under these constraints, there's a systems level answer to how to deal with almost any type of work that comes your way, and at least in theory, the system is able to manage all of that work from a systems capability standpoint.
My question was about the one type of incoming work that I feel I don't have a satisfactory answer for how a no-list system would address it without violating the aesthetic, ethos, philosophy, and typical mechanics of a no-list system.
If you follow Mark's writings about no-list, largely founded around stuff written in Secrets of Productive People and writing on his blog about no-list methods, you'll note that the no-list method was always envisioned as something of a complete philosophical approach to time management. Combined with the ever-present calendar, the idea was that you completely gave up todo lists, and instead operating primarily out of your head using some no-list method (of which a variety were invented and iterated on). The support structure to enable this work was primarily the authorized commitments list (c.f., SoPP).
The idea at least in part encompassed a philosophy of "staying right on top of your work" and rapidly diagnosing issues that arose through systems thinking via questioning method (SoPP). It was very intertwined with the idea of working Inbox Zero. The whole concept is that long running lists of things to do were not retained, and everything was worked "afresh" daily.
Additional tools that aided this kind of working were the dynamic list (a spontaneously generated list that "self-destructed" after a day and was restricted to a specific topic/question) and the accounting list (a long running topically focused list used to record ideas and future possibilities into a list that could be pulled from when working on a specific project, the quintessential example being a list of blog post ideas), though I kind of felt like the account list could easily become a todo list if one weren't careful.
You managed projects in this same way, and you usually weren't expecting to retain long lists of tasks associated with a project, but would generate tasks relating to a project daily and afresh, using a dynamic list, if needed, but more often, the expectation was that you would already know what needed to be done, and you would just write that down directly into your no-list.
Under these constraints, there's a systems level answer to how to deal with almost any type of work that comes your way, and at least in theory, the system is able to manage all of that work from a systems capability standpoint.
My question was about the one type of incoming work that I feel I don't have a satisfactory answer for how a no-list system would address it without violating the aesthetic, ethos, philosophy, and typical mechanics of a no-list system.
December 12, 2022 at 1:54 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron,
Thank you so much for replying.
It would be good for me to read the Secrets book, in order to intelligently reply to your post. (That's what I get for not reading the latest Mark Forster book!)
I have read the Get Everything Done book, and Do It Tomorrow, and have been following the forum for years.
I am using a long list with Simple Scanning, and using short lists (no-list sometimes with FV), and dynamic lists.
So, it sounds like the Secrets book has a whole different method/system. I didn't know that the no-list was meant to be complete, and gave up to-do lists. That must mean that the long list, like Autofocus is not used.
Thank you so much for replying.
It would be good for me to read the Secrets book, in order to intelligently reply to your post. (That's what I get for not reading the latest Mark Forster book!)
I have read the Get Everything Done book, and Do It Tomorrow, and have been following the forum for years.
I am using a long list with Simple Scanning, and using short lists (no-list sometimes with FV), and dynamic lists.
So, it sounds like the Secrets book has a whole different method/system. I didn't know that the no-list was meant to be complete, and gave up to-do lists. That must mean that the long list, like Autofocus is not used.
December 12, 2022 at 3:56 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
OK, I have the Secrets book online now.
I searched for the word "accounting" and I didn't find any place where "accounting list" is used.
I see that he writes not to use a to-do list. I take that to refer to a long list like Autofocus or any of variants. And that's what he means by no-list. I didn't think that after writing about these long lists, he could possibly mean that, but I guess he does.
I'll keep an open mind.
So, Aaron, have you tried the no-list method in this book, and do you think it better than the previous Mark Forster methods?
I searched for the word "accounting" and I didn't find any place where "accounting list" is used.
I see that he writes not to use a to-do list. I take that to refer to a long list like Autofocus or any of variants. And that's what he means by no-list. I didn't think that after writing about these long lists, he could possibly mean that, but I guess he does.
I'll keep an open mind.
So, Aaron, have you tried the no-list method in this book, and do you think it better than the previous Mark Forster methods?
December 12, 2022 at 19:54 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark H:
I have mis-labelled the term "Accounting List". It's called an Accumulating List:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/18/how-to-write-a-blog-post-a-day.html
I'm afraid the answer to what is better isn't so simple when it comes to Mark Forster's work, and moreover, I assume you already realize this, but Mark F moves around almost continuously through various approaches, mediated by larger overarching principles as he explores a given space. This means he's always exploring local optima for a given set of principles around doing work, rather than coming to any conclusions about a holistic/total strategy. This makes most of his advice much more tactical than strategic in practice.
MF also revisits ideas from time to time to see whether there is any new ground to explore, or to refine understanding of previous concepts. Thus, it's never accurate, really, to say that Mark has abandoned or "deprecated" any of his advice in the normal sense.
As for a time line, here's the way that I divide up a lot of Mark's work in summary:
GET EVERYTHING DONE: This era is dominated by the advice in the book and Mark's work with clients. He's exploring very tactical solutions and beginning to hone in on some general principles that will inform the rest of his work going forward.
DREAMS: At this point, driven by an emphasis on vision and goals, Mark goes a completely different way, and develops a systematic approach to driving one's life without the reified low level systems at all. This is Mark's first in-depth exploration of what I would call "no list" approaches. The underlying question that drives these methods are, "How can I create a life in which I can succeed while only ever doing what I feel like doing?" It is such a different approach and flies in the face of so many prevailing approaches, but as Mark says, he used it to build a highly successful business.
DO IT TOMORROW: Reflecting on the work of DREAMS and realizing that people had some issues with actually being willing to implement the somewhat nebulous introspective work that DREAMS requires ("People love their lists") as well as recognizing that exploring those concepts further would take Mark down the path of more Guru/Spiritualist rather than practical consultant, Mark returns to systematic methods and tries to tame the to-do list by leveraging the principle of the closed list and managing work in progress. In so doing, he invents what is probably the system that most closely competes directly with GTD in feel and overall aesthetic/strategy.
AUTOFOCUS: Seeing the challenge with keeping their systems well weeded and under control, Mark begins exploring ideas of leveraging intuition and the whole mind (c.f. DREAMS) to help manage to do lists in a process-driven way that doesn't depend on the up-front discipline required by traditional systems like DIT or GTD. The key driving design constraint here is whether a system can be created that allows for universal capture but somehow embed the rest of a system's management process in the act of working through the list, rather than requiring lots of overhead and up-front process before one even gets to doing something. After lots of exploration, the Autofocus system is born, and it represents a massive shift in perspective, becuase now one is using an algorithmic approach to list management that combines what used to be very discrete, separate processes into one that was driven by intuition and "standing out". The era of "trust the system" is born.
FV/FVP: While there are many other systems that are developed throughout this time, FV and FVP represent a key turning point, in that they are at least, what Mark envisioned would be his last systems before "getting out of the game" as it were. They dig into the ideas of delay and structured procrastination as well as intuitive task ordering as a way to help manage the intensity that can sometimes come from AF-style systems. They represent one of the most enduring set of algorithms around which many other systems are based.
NO-LIST: By this time, Mark has pushed "catch-all" list systems a very far way, and he begins to return to the question that he asks every so often, "do we even need the list?" Having already explored these concepts a little bit in DREAMS and "Predicting your day" methods, Mark integrates low-level systems, DIT concepts of the closed/WIP-limited list, and the intuitive elements of trusting your own mind's sense of what needs doing to produce the no-list methods. He writes SoPP as a collection of strategies for improving efficiency and productivity as well as creativity without "writing another book on time management." The no-list methods go well with the Inbox Zero craze and also inspire others to create some of the most successful systems explored here by others, such as Serial No-list by Seraphim. They also begin to embrace the concept of "don't do it all" in a different way. The no-list methods prove one of the most "fast" systems available, able to process vast amounts of work rapidly and efficiently because of their extremely low overhead and high focus/concentration.
INTUITIVE LISTS: After exploring no-list, Mark begins to re-evaluate the very idea of the function of a list. Previously, there was a bit of an assumption that your list represented, at least psychologically, the set of all the things that you intended, wanted, or needed to do, and so, the longer it got, the worse you felt, and not finishing the whole list, or at least processing it all, felt something like a failure. Mark subverted these expectations within his own frame of reference by instead thinking of the list as a "seed bed" of possibilities, and treating the list as a potential for action, under the explicit assumption that it doesn't matter how much or how little on the list gets done as long as the right things get done. This will continue to inform Mark's work pretty much the rest of the time on this blog.
----
So, at present, Mark still tends to find a long list system (provided that it is actioned intuitively as above) his preferred way of working, and most others also find this to be their preferred way of working. However, many on this forum have also discovered that a combination of the right routines and things like journaling and structured days have allowed them to remove or eliminate most of their lists entirely (much in the way that a no-list or DREAMS method might work). Mark is known to take advantage of no-list systems for various things from time to time, and he isn't afraid to move from system to system to try out new things. Though, he does recommend against a constant switching of systems in general.
So, there are really a few distinct phases of "lists" in Mark's body of work. The DIT methods, the AF methods pre-"Intuition", and the post-Intuition long lists (which include all previous long list methods refactored for intuitive action) such as NQ-FVP. Mark's no-list methods are primarily documented in DREAMS and SoPP as well as supported by his explorations on this blog.
As for which is best? Well, I don't think there's any consensus on that here or in Mark's own mind! Mark has said multiple times before that the book on the intuitive long list never got written because he couldn't nail down the right system for the book.
I have mis-labelled the term "Accounting List". It's called an Accumulating List:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/18/how-to-write-a-blog-post-a-day.html
I'm afraid the answer to what is better isn't so simple when it comes to Mark Forster's work, and moreover, I assume you already realize this, but Mark F moves around almost continuously through various approaches, mediated by larger overarching principles as he explores a given space. This means he's always exploring local optima for a given set of principles around doing work, rather than coming to any conclusions about a holistic/total strategy. This makes most of his advice much more tactical than strategic in practice.
MF also revisits ideas from time to time to see whether there is any new ground to explore, or to refine understanding of previous concepts. Thus, it's never accurate, really, to say that Mark has abandoned or "deprecated" any of his advice in the normal sense.
As for a time line, here's the way that I divide up a lot of Mark's work in summary:
GET EVERYTHING DONE: This era is dominated by the advice in the book and Mark's work with clients. He's exploring very tactical solutions and beginning to hone in on some general principles that will inform the rest of his work going forward.
DREAMS: At this point, driven by an emphasis on vision and goals, Mark goes a completely different way, and develops a systematic approach to driving one's life without the reified low level systems at all. This is Mark's first in-depth exploration of what I would call "no list" approaches. The underlying question that drives these methods are, "How can I create a life in which I can succeed while only ever doing what I feel like doing?" It is such a different approach and flies in the face of so many prevailing approaches, but as Mark says, he used it to build a highly successful business.
DO IT TOMORROW: Reflecting on the work of DREAMS and realizing that people had some issues with actually being willing to implement the somewhat nebulous introspective work that DREAMS requires ("People love their lists") as well as recognizing that exploring those concepts further would take Mark down the path of more Guru/Spiritualist rather than practical consultant, Mark returns to systematic methods and tries to tame the to-do list by leveraging the principle of the closed list and managing work in progress. In so doing, he invents what is probably the system that most closely competes directly with GTD in feel and overall aesthetic/strategy.
AUTOFOCUS: Seeing the challenge with keeping their systems well weeded and under control, Mark begins exploring ideas of leveraging intuition and the whole mind (c.f. DREAMS) to help manage to do lists in a process-driven way that doesn't depend on the up-front discipline required by traditional systems like DIT or GTD. The key driving design constraint here is whether a system can be created that allows for universal capture but somehow embed the rest of a system's management process in the act of working through the list, rather than requiring lots of overhead and up-front process before one even gets to doing something. After lots of exploration, the Autofocus system is born, and it represents a massive shift in perspective, becuase now one is using an algorithmic approach to list management that combines what used to be very discrete, separate processes into one that was driven by intuition and "standing out". The era of "trust the system" is born.
FV/FVP: While there are many other systems that are developed throughout this time, FV and FVP represent a key turning point, in that they are at least, what Mark envisioned would be his last systems before "getting out of the game" as it were. They dig into the ideas of delay and structured procrastination as well as intuitive task ordering as a way to help manage the intensity that can sometimes come from AF-style systems. They represent one of the most enduring set of algorithms around which many other systems are based.
NO-LIST: By this time, Mark has pushed "catch-all" list systems a very far way, and he begins to return to the question that he asks every so often, "do we even need the list?" Having already explored these concepts a little bit in DREAMS and "Predicting your day" methods, Mark integrates low-level systems, DIT concepts of the closed/WIP-limited list, and the intuitive elements of trusting your own mind's sense of what needs doing to produce the no-list methods. He writes SoPP as a collection of strategies for improving efficiency and productivity as well as creativity without "writing another book on time management." The no-list methods go well with the Inbox Zero craze and also inspire others to create some of the most successful systems explored here by others, such as Serial No-list by Seraphim. They also begin to embrace the concept of "don't do it all" in a different way. The no-list methods prove one of the most "fast" systems available, able to process vast amounts of work rapidly and efficiently because of their extremely low overhead and high focus/concentration.
INTUITIVE LISTS: After exploring no-list, Mark begins to re-evaluate the very idea of the function of a list. Previously, there was a bit of an assumption that your list represented, at least psychologically, the set of all the things that you intended, wanted, or needed to do, and so, the longer it got, the worse you felt, and not finishing the whole list, or at least processing it all, felt something like a failure. Mark subverted these expectations within his own frame of reference by instead thinking of the list as a "seed bed" of possibilities, and treating the list as a potential for action, under the explicit assumption that it doesn't matter how much or how little on the list gets done as long as the right things get done. This will continue to inform Mark's work pretty much the rest of the time on this blog.
----
So, at present, Mark still tends to find a long list system (provided that it is actioned intuitively as above) his preferred way of working, and most others also find this to be their preferred way of working. However, many on this forum have also discovered that a combination of the right routines and things like journaling and structured days have allowed them to remove or eliminate most of their lists entirely (much in the way that a no-list or DREAMS method might work). Mark is known to take advantage of no-list systems for various things from time to time, and he isn't afraid to move from system to system to try out new things. Though, he does recommend against a constant switching of systems in general.
So, there are really a few distinct phases of "lists" in Mark's body of work. The DIT methods, the AF methods pre-"Intuition", and the post-Intuition long lists (which include all previous long list methods refactored for intuitive action) such as NQ-FVP. Mark's no-list methods are primarily documented in DREAMS and SoPP as well as supported by his explorations on this blog.
As for which is best? Well, I don't think there's any consensus on that here or in Mark's own mind! Mark has said multiple times before that the book on the intuitive long list never got written because he couldn't nail down the right system for the book.
December 12, 2022 at 20:55 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron
I am really impressed with how quickly you can come with an entire timeline of Mark Forster's evolutionary development. I will have to really read this in depth later.
I have noticed that Mark Forster is not posting much lately.
You wouldn't happen to be Mark Forster under a pseudonym? (I am joking. You seem to have a different writing style.)
I am really impressed with how quickly you can come with an entire timeline of Mark Forster's evolutionary development. I will have to really read this in depth later.
I have noticed that Mark Forster is not posting much lately.
You wouldn't happen to be Mark Forster under a pseudonym? (I am joking. You seem to have a different writing style.)
December 12, 2022 at 21:17 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
I have read it again. This is as good a summary of Mark Forster's development as I have seen, although I can't say I have read everything on the forum.
I would suggest putting this in a separate thread so it gets noticed, and can be commented on, and found later. Perhaps we could encourage Mark Forster to comment on it, or put it in his blog.
I would suggest putting this in a separate thread so it gets noticed, and can be commented on, and found later. Perhaps we could encourage Mark Forster to comment on it, or put it in his blog.
December 12, 2022 at 22:15 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
I don't understand the distinction between No-List and Intuitive List.
I have begun searching for "Intuitive List" and maybe I missed something here.
It is difficult to understand some of these methods unless one tries them and actually does them.
I have skimmed the Secrets book and I recognize ideas from previous books - Do It Tomorrow and Getting Everything Done - they appear to be reworked, such as Timeboxing and projects.
Also there ideas from blog posts and posts to the forum, with similar language, possibly reworked for the book.
I have begun searching for "Intuitive List" and maybe I missed something here.
It is difficult to understand some of these methods unless one tries them and actually does them.
I have skimmed the Secrets book and I recognize ideas from previous books - Do It Tomorrow and Getting Everything Done - they appear to be reworked, such as Timeboxing and projects.
Also there ideas from blog posts and posts to the forum, with similar language, possibly reworked for the book.
December 12, 2022 at 22:26 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark Forster appears to contradict earlier assumptions, ideas, and methods, or comes back to them again, so that pre-Autofocus things seem to be reappearing in the Secrets book. Perhaps a sign of a creative mind. Perhaps there is only an appearance of contradiction. Perhaps it is like card games, where you have a deck of cards, and have the game of Solitaire with variations, and then Poker, and Blackjack - same deck, but different rules.
I cannot find the Awesomeness book.
I cannot find the Awesomeness book.
December 12, 2022 at 22:38 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
I searched "intuitive list" and "intuitive lists" but the phrase doesn't occur on this website.
Do you have a TM system in mind for this?
"Stand alone" is used for a number of methods, which I would equate with "intuition", while algorithms are used for others.
Very good insight on how the No-List combines several earlier principles.
Do you have a TM system in mind for this?
"Stand alone" is used for a number of methods, which I would equate with "intuition", while algorithms are used for others.
Very good insight on how the No-List combines several earlier principles.
December 12, 2022 at 23:20 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
I meant "standing out".
December 12, 2022 at 23:22 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
The following post established a sort of "new era" of the "intuitive" list based on standing out, especially under the concepts around not expecting to do everything on the list.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/2/6/the-natural-selection-of-tasks.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/2/7/natural-selection-changes-the-emphasis.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/6/17/thoughts-on-the-long-list.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/10/6/thoughts-on-the-long-list-accepting-that-it-wont-all-get-don.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/10/9/thoughts-on-the-long-list-making-everything-easy.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/10/3/thoughts-on-the-long-list-update.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/7/25/standing-out.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/2/6/the-natural-selection-of-tasks.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/2/7/natural-selection-changes-the-emphasis.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/6/17/thoughts-on-the-long-list.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/10/6/thoughts-on-the-long-list-accepting-that-it-wont-all-get-don.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/10/9/thoughts-on-the-long-list-making-everything-easy.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/10/3/thoughts-on-the-long-list-update.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2017/7/25/standing-out.html
December 13, 2022 at 3:17 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron,
Thanks. I've read now all the links you sent.
I've been aware of this, because I've been Simple Scanning over the last few years on a long list. I didn't know it was another phase, however. Mark Forster wasn't talking about Simple Scanning before then (?). I did a search of "simple scanning" and I don't find it before the late part of 2017.
I notice on those links that Mark Forster uses the term "catch-all list" and "long list". That's my understanding of what Autofocus and the variants are. I don't see any use of the "long list" in the Secrets book. So it appears that the "no-list" is named such because there is no "long list".
It is not the basis of work. He recommends throwing out each day's list and starting afresh the next day.
I suppose one could integrate the "no-list" method with the "long list" method, but he doesn't attempt to do it in the Secrets book.
This is one point of confusion that I have had.
The other is what is on the "long list". Here in these posts it is a catch-all list, but at other times it only contains items that will be actioned in a few days, or active commitments.
It appears that some methods are mutually exclusive, while others can be combined.
Thanks. I've read now all the links you sent.
I've been aware of this, because I've been Simple Scanning over the last few years on a long list. I didn't know it was another phase, however. Mark Forster wasn't talking about Simple Scanning before then (?). I did a search of "simple scanning" and I don't find it before the late part of 2017.
I notice on those links that Mark Forster uses the term "catch-all list" and "long list". That's my understanding of what Autofocus and the variants are. I don't see any use of the "long list" in the Secrets book. So it appears that the "no-list" is named such because there is no "long list".
It is not the basis of work. He recommends throwing out each day's list and starting afresh the next day.
I suppose one could integrate the "no-list" method with the "long list" method, but he doesn't attempt to do it in the Secrets book.
This is one point of confusion that I have had.
The other is what is on the "long list". Here in these posts it is a catch-all list, but at other times it only contains items that will be actioned in a few days, or active commitments.
It appears that some methods are mutually exclusive, while others can be combined.
December 13, 2022 at 4:35 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Going back to your original post:
That is one drawback in using a No-List method. I don't see how I could possibly remember all the little things without some sort of a catch-all list.
On page 57 of Secrets:
"Don’t feed your list from another larger list. The contents of the list should come fresh from your head. This is essential if the method is to work properly. You can use reminders for specific items you don’t want to forget, but that is all."
Perhaps a reminder list is not the same as a catch-all list.
The way I see to integrate these is to start with a fresh list each day and work from that list, and at some time refer back to the other lists, for reference, but not as your working list. (This has to be implied from the quote above. You have to look at the reminders at some point.) This is different from using the long list as your working list.
That is one drawback in using a No-List method. I don't see how I could possibly remember all the little things without some sort of a catch-all list.
On page 57 of Secrets:
"Don’t feed your list from another larger list. The contents of the list should come fresh from your head. This is essential if the method is to work properly. You can use reminders for specific items you don’t want to forget, but that is all."
Perhaps a reminder list is not the same as a catch-all list.
The way I see to integrate these is to start with a fresh list each day and work from that list, and at some time refer back to the other lists, for reference, but not as your working list. (This has to be implied from the quote above. You have to look at the reminders at some point.) This is different from using the long list as your working list.
December 13, 2022 at 4:54 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Simple scanning wasn't given a name until around 2017 as you mention. I believe 2016 was about the highlight and crest of Mark's work on no-list systems. See also these posts:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2777843
http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2764356
A "catch all" list was what things were called for a while, but the term "long list" is associated with Mark's explorations of catch-all lists in the context of intuitive actioning. That is, the long list methods are methods that leverage catch all lists, but they also tend to involve additional expectations when terming them "MF Long List" methods. GTD is a catch-all method as well, but quite a different one.
Here's a post on what a no-list is:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/12/what-is-a-no-list-system.html
And then a series on types of lists:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/25/types-of-lists-i-the-catch-all-list.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/26/types-of-lists-ii-daily-and-weekly-lists.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/27/types-of-lists-iii-the-daily-open-list.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/28/types-of-lists-iv-no-list-lists.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/29/types-of-list-v-using-no-list-at-all.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/30/types-of-list-vi-so-which-is-best.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/31/types-of-list-vii-what-do-we-need-in-a-no-list-system.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/1/types-of-lists-viii-the-dynamic-list.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/2/types-of-lists-ix-an-effective-no-list-system.html
However, before no-list methods were created, Mark had spent significant time working on various types of long list systems. No-list methods were presented as a fundamental alternative to the long list, and so "integrating" the two of them, while some people try to do it, isn't really philosophically feasible.
However, before really settling in on the no-list idea for a while, Mark did integrate the two with the concept of the feeder list, which was what I think of as a transitional system design. He does this in his work on the 3T system, which he tended to feed from a long list.
Systems like DIT are not really long list methods, and predate the concept.
The other thing is that prior to no-list, Autofocus explored the concept of standing out, but Mark hadn't put an emphasis on "Natural selection of tasks" via standing out in quite the same way. Instead, systems like FVP and FV leverage very systematic, rational questioning as a way to select tasks. Later, integrating intuition via standing out came through systems like NQ-FVP and Re:Zero.
Mark has said before that he only puts things on a long list that are going to be active. As with most of Mark's methods, there is an expectation that you have a calendar and tickler system that can store things which aren't relevant right now. The time management systems that Mark focuses on are specifically about managing the actions you can take right now, not planning or scheduling as a project discipline. They are all designed to integrate into some system of information organization and calendaring, but they are agnostic to how you do any of that.
Mark has also in the past advocated for a strong separation between things that are on your authorized projects list or commitments list, and those things that are not. However, with the switch to "natural selection" or intuitive lists, he explored the possibility that some things may want to get on your list so that you can evaluate them for commitment. However, there is always the danger that something sits around on your list taking up useless time and energy. This is why Mark puts emphasis on weeding your list appropriately when you are doing an intuitive long list, and this is the long list equivalent of pruning your commitments in prior systems.
When you combine active weeding of your list and intuition, then you end up with a catch-all list that contains a whole bunch of potential things that get weeded down to your current commitments through working the system. It's still a catch-all system, but the intent is that things which are going nowhere will be happily and intentionally left to either lay fallow on the list or be removed entirely as not mattering. Mark has always strongly opposed the concept of the "Someday/Maybe" list or any other list that represents your unfulfilled wishes in a form that promises you that someday you'll get to them.
Put another way, the catch-all nature of any long list isn't intended to retain all possible information, but rather, that you should be able to have the system catch all *incoming* tasks/items/ideas/thoughts, and that the system will "handle" them in some meaningful way, often times (maybe even most of the time!) dropping them off the list entirely to be blissfully forgotten for now and intentionally neglected. In this context, catch-all is about catching stuff coming at you, not keeping stuff after you've caught it.
There's a lot of common principles across Mark's work, but there are many ideas that were intentionally explored as diametric opposites, specifically as alternatives to one another and different ways of working. Mark has always professed himself an experimenter.
Case in point, Mark has consistently revisited Autofocus over the years through different lenses, and goes in and out of favor with it as one of the "best systems". Lately he has seemed to determine, again, that the problems with the system outweigh the benefits, but the point is that he is always ready to revisit something if he thinks he's found a new way to go at it.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2777843
http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2764356
A "catch all" list was what things were called for a while, but the term "long list" is associated with Mark's explorations of catch-all lists in the context of intuitive actioning. That is, the long list methods are methods that leverage catch all lists, but they also tend to involve additional expectations when terming them "MF Long List" methods. GTD is a catch-all method as well, but quite a different one.
Here's a post on what a no-list is:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/12/what-is-a-no-list-system.html
And then a series on types of lists:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/25/types-of-lists-i-the-catch-all-list.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/26/types-of-lists-ii-daily-and-weekly-lists.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/27/types-of-lists-iii-the-daily-open-list.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/28/types-of-lists-iv-no-list-lists.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/29/types-of-list-v-using-no-list-at-all.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/30/types-of-list-vi-so-which-is-best.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/31/types-of-list-vii-what-do-we-need-in-a-no-list-system.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/1/types-of-lists-viii-the-dynamic-list.html
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/2/types-of-lists-ix-an-effective-no-list-system.html
However, before no-list methods were created, Mark had spent significant time working on various types of long list systems. No-list methods were presented as a fundamental alternative to the long list, and so "integrating" the two of them, while some people try to do it, isn't really philosophically feasible.
However, before really settling in on the no-list idea for a while, Mark did integrate the two with the concept of the feeder list, which was what I think of as a transitional system design. He does this in his work on the 3T system, which he tended to feed from a long list.
Systems like DIT are not really long list methods, and predate the concept.
The other thing is that prior to no-list, Autofocus explored the concept of standing out, but Mark hadn't put an emphasis on "Natural selection of tasks" via standing out in quite the same way. Instead, systems like FVP and FV leverage very systematic, rational questioning as a way to select tasks. Later, integrating intuition via standing out came through systems like NQ-FVP and Re:Zero.
Mark has said before that he only puts things on a long list that are going to be active. As with most of Mark's methods, there is an expectation that you have a calendar and tickler system that can store things which aren't relevant right now. The time management systems that Mark focuses on are specifically about managing the actions you can take right now, not planning or scheduling as a project discipline. They are all designed to integrate into some system of information organization and calendaring, but they are agnostic to how you do any of that.
Mark has also in the past advocated for a strong separation between things that are on your authorized projects list or commitments list, and those things that are not. However, with the switch to "natural selection" or intuitive lists, he explored the possibility that some things may want to get on your list so that you can evaluate them for commitment. However, there is always the danger that something sits around on your list taking up useless time and energy. This is why Mark puts emphasis on weeding your list appropriately when you are doing an intuitive long list, and this is the long list equivalent of pruning your commitments in prior systems.
When you combine active weeding of your list and intuition, then you end up with a catch-all list that contains a whole bunch of potential things that get weeded down to your current commitments through working the system. It's still a catch-all system, but the intent is that things which are going nowhere will be happily and intentionally left to either lay fallow on the list or be removed entirely as not mattering. Mark has always strongly opposed the concept of the "Someday/Maybe" list or any other list that represents your unfulfilled wishes in a form that promises you that someday you'll get to them.
Put another way, the catch-all nature of any long list isn't intended to retain all possible information, but rather, that you should be able to have the system catch all *incoming* tasks/items/ideas/thoughts, and that the system will "handle" them in some meaningful way, often times (maybe even most of the time!) dropping them off the list entirely to be blissfully forgotten for now and intentionally neglected. In this context, catch-all is about catching stuff coming at you, not keeping stuff after you've caught it.
There's a lot of common principles across Mark's work, but there are many ideas that were intentionally explored as diametric opposites, specifically as alternatives to one another and different ways of working. Mark has always professed himself an experimenter.
Case in point, Mark has consistently revisited Autofocus over the years through different lenses, and goes in and out of favor with it as one of the "best systems". Lately he has seemed to determine, again, that the problems with the system outweigh the benefits, but the point is that he is always ready to revisit something if he thinks he's found a new way to go at it.
December 13, 2022 at 5:12 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Mark H:
<<You have to look at the reminders at some point.>>
Actually, Mark isn't the only one to explore the possibility that you don't actually need long lists of reminders, see the following:
https://www.timesurfing.uk/
<<You have to look at the reminders at some point.>>
Actually, Mark isn't the only one to explore the possibility that you don't actually need long lists of reminders, see the following:
https://www.timesurfing.uk/
December 13, 2022 at 5:15 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Mark H:
<<That is one drawback in using a No-List method. I don't see how I could possibly remember all the little things without some sort of a catch-all list.>>
It's also worth noting that Mark has emphasized that no-list methods are never meant to be "exercises in memory" and that it's not about "remembering all the little things".
<<That is one drawback in using a No-List method. I don't see how I could possibly remember all the little things without some sort of a catch-all list.>>
It's also worth noting that Mark has emphasized that no-list methods are never meant to be "exercises in memory" and that it's not about "remembering all the little things".
December 13, 2022 at 5:34 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron,
Thanks.
I read all the links. I read them when they first appeared.
So MF says that the no-list has 1-5 items on it. (However, as I remember, other no-lists have more 5)
"So it's quite different from a to-do list, which is what I'm talking about with "no list". It doesn't mean no lists of any kind. It means no to-do list."
Somewhere in the links MF refers to the reminders, and it sounded like he was referring to items
in a calendar that have to done on a certain date.
<<There's a lot of common principles across Mark's work, but there are many ideas that were intentionally explored as diametric opposites>>
Yes, so it seems that MF is contradicting himself. So the advice Do what you are most resisting, is countered by Resistance:Zero. Or where we have several years of very long lists, followed by no-lists, and then back to very long lists again. So perhaps it is like the rules of a card game where you play in ascending order, but in another game you play in descending order. But in that case neither order is better than the other.
<<No-list methods were presented as a fundamental alternative to the long list, and so "integrating" the two of them, while some people try to do it, isn't really philosophically feasible.>>
However, it seems from the original post, what are you saying is that there are still long lists which have to be referred to even in the no-list method.
Even though one can try out multiple methods, one can only get proficient at a few. If one has been using a very long list and is skilled at it and for the most part working, it doesn't make sense to abandon it total and switch to a no-list. But there are ways to do both. One could do the long list on work days and the no-list on free days or vacation days. Or do the long list at work and the no-list at home. Or the no-list at a certain time of the day.
Thanks.
I read all the links. I read them when they first appeared.
So MF says that the no-list has 1-5 items on it. (However, as I remember, other no-lists have more 5)
"So it's quite different from a to-do list, which is what I'm talking about with "no list". It doesn't mean no lists of any kind. It means no to-do list."
Somewhere in the links MF refers to the reminders, and it sounded like he was referring to items
in a calendar that have to done on a certain date.
<<There's a lot of common principles across Mark's work, but there are many ideas that were intentionally explored as diametric opposites>>
Yes, so it seems that MF is contradicting himself. So the advice Do what you are most resisting, is countered by Resistance:Zero. Or where we have several years of very long lists, followed by no-lists, and then back to very long lists again. So perhaps it is like the rules of a card game where you play in ascending order, but in another game you play in descending order. But in that case neither order is better than the other.
<<No-list methods were presented as a fundamental alternative to the long list, and so "integrating" the two of them, while some people try to do it, isn't really philosophically feasible.>>
However, it seems from the original post, what are you saying is that there are still long lists which have to be referred to even in the no-list method.
Even though one can try out multiple methods, one can only get proficient at a few. If one has been using a very long list and is skilled at it and for the most part working, it doesn't make sense to abandon it total and switch to a no-list. But there are ways to do both. One could do the long list on work days and the no-list on free days or vacation days. Or do the long list at work and the no-list at home. Or the no-list at a certain time of the day.
December 13, 2022 at 16:05 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark H:
<<However, it seems from the original post, what are you saying is that there are still long lists which have to be referred to even in the no-list method.>>
Mark has always had some lists in his no-list methods, primarily the authorized projects list. However, in my post, my main problem is dealing with a sudden, large influx of tasks that need to be actioned, but cannot possibly be actioned now, which don't seem to fit into the typical no-list method of reminders (which are actioned on specific days and times). My conclusion was that solving this problem using any of the prescribed methods leads to a long list method. That is, in a sense, I was documenting my own issues with what always feels like a contradiction in the system methodology by illustrating what amounts of a Proof by Contradiction. However, I believe if I were to anticipate Mark F. on this, I would observe that he is much less bothered by such things than I am. If he were using a no-list method and then suddenly had to write a long list of things that suddenly came in so that he could remember them, and just happened to sit around for a while, I think he's practical enough to not let that get him down, whereas to me, it would feel like a violation of the system, and interfere with my working the system.
<<But there are ways to do both. One could do the long list on work days and the no-list on free days or vacation days. Or do the long list at work and the no-list at home. Or the no-list at a certain time of the day.>>
I certainly think that's worked well for a lot of people and I think it's a very viable strategy. It's not really satisfying to me personally, because I'm someone who likes holistic "perfect" answers to a question, so I always feel annoyed by little tactical niceties that don't fit within a philosophically unified framework. Yes, I acknowledge that this is my own problems making problems for myself. :-)
<<However, it seems from the original post, what are you saying is that there are still long lists which have to be referred to even in the no-list method.>>
Mark has always had some lists in his no-list methods, primarily the authorized projects list. However, in my post, my main problem is dealing with a sudden, large influx of tasks that need to be actioned, but cannot possibly be actioned now, which don't seem to fit into the typical no-list method of reminders (which are actioned on specific days and times). My conclusion was that solving this problem using any of the prescribed methods leads to a long list method. That is, in a sense, I was documenting my own issues with what always feels like a contradiction in the system methodology by illustrating what amounts of a Proof by Contradiction. However, I believe if I were to anticipate Mark F. on this, I would observe that he is much less bothered by such things than I am. If he were using a no-list method and then suddenly had to write a long list of things that suddenly came in so that he could remember them, and just happened to sit around for a while, I think he's practical enough to not let that get him down, whereas to me, it would feel like a violation of the system, and interfere with my working the system.
<<But there are ways to do both. One could do the long list on work days and the no-list on free days or vacation days. Or do the long list at work and the no-list at home. Or the no-list at a certain time of the day.>>
I certainly think that's worked well for a lot of people and I think it's a very viable strategy. It's not really satisfying to me personally, because I'm someone who likes holistic "perfect" answers to a question, so I always feel annoyed by little tactical niceties that don't fit within a philosophically unified framework. Yes, I acknowledge that this is my own problems making problems for myself. :-)
December 14, 2022 at 6:00 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron,
Thanks for replying. Yes, I agree with you. There are reminders to do something but there is no due date, or it is not relevant when it is done. Anyone who has kept a catch-all list or long list has experienced this, and likely has experienced that they have been reminded by a quick note made on the dash in the hallway from a request by a colleague or boss, that they would have forgotten if they didn't write it down and refer to it again.
It is true that the no-list methods seem to rely on one's own creative brain power, and is likely more exercised. However, not everything that we have to do comes from our own brain, much from information outside of our brain which we need to be reminded of. Also, any list that we ever made comes from our brain, but it seems that many of the no-lists method require the list to be destroyed by the end of the day. But why is that only lists made today are of value? If the brain was useful today, wasn't it useful on other days that have past? Are there no thoughts that are worth preserving, that might not be thought again? Is there no continuity in our life so that each day has to started afresh? There is value to fresh thoughts and ideas certainly, but there is much that remains stable for a period of time, such as a job, marriage, children, exercise. Much of what we do remains constant through life, and doesn't have to be rethought every day.
Also, the brain like any muscle gets tired. There are days that the brain is alive and active. But other days it seems that no good thought comes. Then we can rely on a written record of the brain's activity on better days in the form of a list. I have never tried a no-list method over a period of days. But I have tried the simple method of writing each thing I do down, and then doing it. And I tried to do it as long as I could, but soon my brain got tired of having to think options and then deciding what to do for every little thing.
Many of the no-list methods seem creative and useful. I just doubt that it can be relied on as a system.
You have summarized MF's timeline. However, the fact that there has been periods of long lists and no-list, with enthusiastic support for both - perhaps there is value in each, and it is not a question of either/or but both/and.
Thanks for replying. Yes, I agree with you. There are reminders to do something but there is no due date, or it is not relevant when it is done. Anyone who has kept a catch-all list or long list has experienced this, and likely has experienced that they have been reminded by a quick note made on the dash in the hallway from a request by a colleague or boss, that they would have forgotten if they didn't write it down and refer to it again.
It is true that the no-list methods seem to rely on one's own creative brain power, and is likely more exercised. However, not everything that we have to do comes from our own brain, much from information outside of our brain which we need to be reminded of. Also, any list that we ever made comes from our brain, but it seems that many of the no-lists method require the list to be destroyed by the end of the day. But why is that only lists made today are of value? If the brain was useful today, wasn't it useful on other days that have past? Are there no thoughts that are worth preserving, that might not be thought again? Is there no continuity in our life so that each day has to started afresh? There is value to fresh thoughts and ideas certainly, but there is much that remains stable for a period of time, such as a job, marriage, children, exercise. Much of what we do remains constant through life, and doesn't have to be rethought every day.
Also, the brain like any muscle gets tired. There are days that the brain is alive and active. But other days it seems that no good thought comes. Then we can rely on a written record of the brain's activity on better days in the form of a list. I have never tried a no-list method over a period of days. But I have tried the simple method of writing each thing I do down, and then doing it. And I tried to do it as long as I could, but soon my brain got tired of having to think options and then deciding what to do for every little thing.
Many of the no-list methods seem creative and useful. I just doubt that it can be relied on as a system.
You have summarized MF's timeline. However, the fact that there has been periods of long lists and no-list, with enthusiastic support for both - perhaps there is value in each, and it is not a question of either/or but both/and.
December 14, 2022 at 14:34 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark H:
There is one particular potential benefit of no-list on routine that is quite different than what you might get with a long list. No-list is a form of repeated questioning (c.f. SoPP), and as such, continued use of a no-list method may have some potential effect on routine in the form of increased "myelination". That is, while at first, the generation of what you want to do might require significant brain power, over time, the continual repetition of coming up with what to do over and over are likely to converge to a specific routine in which we are more likely to think of doing one thing over another. Repeating this over and over may result in habit formation and a sort of routine of selection simply because of repeatedly asking the same sort of question day in and day out. If in fact you do begin to converge on repeating the same activities in the same order over and over again, this may have the effect of reducing the effort to think of what you need to do next, even more so than with a long list.
This effect is the same as what you get when you want to improve your ability to memorize something by forcing yourself to generate that content you want to memorize rather than just staring at the thing you wish to memorize. One of them tends to trigger generative memory, whereas the other just trains recognition memory.
In this, a no-list could potentially outperform a long list, which achieves routinization through the chunking and attenuation effects. I haven't personally been able to verify this myself, and I'm not sure that it is worth it, but it's an interesting thought.
There is one particular potential benefit of no-list on routine that is quite different than what you might get with a long list. No-list is a form of repeated questioning (c.f. SoPP), and as such, continued use of a no-list method may have some potential effect on routine in the form of increased "myelination". That is, while at first, the generation of what you want to do might require significant brain power, over time, the continual repetition of coming up with what to do over and over are likely to converge to a specific routine in which we are more likely to think of doing one thing over another. Repeating this over and over may result in habit formation and a sort of routine of selection simply because of repeatedly asking the same sort of question day in and day out. If in fact you do begin to converge on repeating the same activities in the same order over and over again, this may have the effect of reducing the effort to think of what you need to do next, even more so than with a long list.
This effect is the same as what you get when you want to improve your ability to memorize something by forcing yourself to generate that content you want to memorize rather than just staring at the thing you wish to memorize. One of them tends to trigger generative memory, whereas the other just trains recognition memory.
In this, a no-list could potentially outperform a long list, which achieves routinization through the chunking and attenuation effects. I haven't personally been able to verify this myself, and I'm not sure that it is worth it, but it's an interesting thought.
December 14, 2022 at 15:08 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Fascinating thread -- thanks especially for that summary of the development of Mark Forster's thought!
Regarding the original question, when I was doing No-List (which is still one of my favorite methods), and faced with an onslaught of small tasks, I would write them down on a dynamic list. I'd then set it aside and work from my no-list. From time to time, I might feel some anxiety about that dynamic list, so I'd pick it up and read through it again, marking off whatever was finished, and maybe making additional notes or adding a few other items. Then I'd work from my no-list again.
I usually found that I would get all those things done within a day. But if the dynamic list started to hang around longer than that, I had some choices. One, just take out the list and bang through it and get it done. Two, throw the list in my tickler file to review it again in a few days. Three, just throw it away. Or some combination of these.
That usually took care of it. It seemed to keep to the spirit of the no-list method -- rely on your natural intuitive engagement with your work, don't keep things lying around, don't let long lists accumulate, etc.
Regarding the original question, when I was doing No-List (which is still one of my favorite methods), and faced with an onslaught of small tasks, I would write them down on a dynamic list. I'd then set it aside and work from my no-list. From time to time, I might feel some anxiety about that dynamic list, so I'd pick it up and read through it again, marking off whatever was finished, and maybe making additional notes or adding a few other items. Then I'd work from my no-list again.
I usually found that I would get all those things done within a day. But if the dynamic list started to hang around longer than that, I had some choices. One, just take out the list and bang through it and get it done. Two, throw the list in my tickler file to review it again in a few days. Three, just throw it away. Or some combination of these.
That usually took care of it. It seemed to keep to the spirit of the no-list method -- rely on your natural intuitive engagement with your work, don't keep things lying around, don't let long lists accumulate, etc.
December 14, 2022 at 17:41 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I have again read the timeline of MF's development. What an excellent analysis. Aaron, you have good intellectual powers.
Of all the methods of MF, the one that I used the longest is the long list with Simple Scanning.
The only thing I consciously use from Getting Everything Done is time boxing. I never could get DIT, I tried a couple of times but I could hardly get it off the ground.
I did use Autofocus for several months.
Once you have a long list, you can manipulate the items in a variety of ways, and transfer items to other lists.
The methods are of the no-list, although perhaps intended to be used without the long list, as in the Secrets book, are short enough and quick enough that one or two or three of them could be used as a relief from working the long list, and can be used independently. Also, there are ways to do the no-list, and instead of throwing it away, just keeping it at the end of the long list, and reusing anything if valuable.
The questioning method of the Secrets book also seems to be able to be independent of any system.
However, it takes time to develop a long list, and calendar items, etc. and to give it up and start using a no-list method could be disruptive to one's life. I have in the past gone from one software program to another, and generally it was a waste of time because you have to start from scratch each time. If a system works, it is better to keep it, even if it is not the best, and add one thing to it, rather than dump it and trade systems without knowing it is going to work.
Of all the methods of MF, the one that I used the longest is the long list with Simple Scanning.
The only thing I consciously use from Getting Everything Done is time boxing. I never could get DIT, I tried a couple of times but I could hardly get it off the ground.
I did use Autofocus for several months.
Once you have a long list, you can manipulate the items in a variety of ways, and transfer items to other lists.
The methods are of the no-list, although perhaps intended to be used without the long list, as in the Secrets book, are short enough and quick enough that one or two or three of them could be used as a relief from working the long list, and can be used independently. Also, there are ways to do the no-list, and instead of throwing it away, just keeping it at the end of the long list, and reusing anything if valuable.
The questioning method of the Secrets book also seems to be able to be independent of any system.
However, it takes time to develop a long list, and calendar items, etc. and to give it up and start using a no-list method could be disruptive to one's life. I have in the past gone from one software program to another, and generally it was a waste of time because you have to start from scratch each time. If a system works, it is better to keep it, even if it is not the best, and add one thing to it, rather than dump it and trade systems without knowing it is going to work.
December 14, 2022 at 20:43 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
I have tried the No-List methods, and I do use several. I keep a long list. However, I think they, along with the Questioning Method, would be useful on a some limited sphere of activity, that doesn't have deadlines, or involve other people, repetitive, some personal leisure activity. And using the Secrets book as a guide, meaning don't refer to a long list, fresh every day.
I am thinking of something like prayer, meditation, journaling, exercise, practicing the piano. Or one Routine like morning routine, bedtime routine, getting home routine. I could put the item in the long list, and then use no-list methods, and keep my long list, etc. intact. That way if it doesn't work, I can abandon methods without disturbing the rest of my life.
Anyone do it like this?
I am thinking of something like prayer, meditation, journaling, exercise, practicing the piano. Or one Routine like morning routine, bedtime routine, getting home routine. I could put the item in the long list, and then use no-list methods, and keep my long list, etc. intact. That way if it doesn't work, I can abandon methods without disturbing the rest of my life.
Anyone do it like this?
December 16, 2022 at 21:10 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
To Aaron Hsu,
The timeline of Mark Forster is so excellent and useful that if you posted it in its thread it might get read more.
Your other posts with links are also good.
I am not having success with going to links posted on this forum however.
The timeline of Mark Forster is so excellent and useful that if you posted it in its thread it might get read more.
Your other posts with links are also good.
I am not having success with going to links posted on this forum however.
December 20, 2023 at 21:17 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Aaron,
I can get to the links on this thread if it links to the blog.
Other links I get the message Domain Not Claimed.
I can get to the links on this thread if it links to the blog.
Other links I get the message Domain Not Claimed.
December 20, 2023 at 21:32 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
I have not seen a reply from Aaron yet, but I have reread the whole thread again, and I am of the same opinion. I prefer the long list as the basic method. Perhaps the Secrets book does not advocate using a long list with the no-list, however the two are quite compatible as methods, and even complimentary. The long list has to maintained over a period of time, likely days, weeks, or even months, and used regularly, probably every day. But the results are cumulative, and they pay off the longer it used.
The no-list, or very short list, is not maintained, is short-lived, and can be independent of any list, although it can be added to a long list, it can also be thrown away.
To me it feels different working from a long list or a very short list. One could use the long list as a feeder to a very short list, and then work from the very short list, but the feel is different.
The holidays are coming up and this could be a good time to try another method for variety.
The no-list, or very short list, is not maintained, is short-lived, and can be independent of any list, although it can be added to a long list, it can also be thrown away.
To me it feels different working from a long list or a very short list. One could use the long list as a feeder to a very short list, and then work from the very short list, but the feel is different.
The holidays are coming up and this could be a good time to try another method for variety.
December 22, 2023 at 5:02 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Mark H. -
I also use the No-List concept within the context of a Long List, but I guess I implement it a little differently.
Within the context of my overall RTM method, I will sometimes do a No-List style brain dump at the end of my New list -- everything currently on my mind -- and then cycle through that short list to get things up and running. I pay no regard to whether an item is already on my other lists somewhere, or whether it's recurring or whatever. If it's on my mind, then it goes onto the list.
It's a good way to recharge and restart when I've been away from my regular routines and systems for a few days, due to travel or holidays or illness or whatever. Once this gets me up and running, it's easy to get back into the regular routine of my RTM process. If I happened to enter any duplicate tasks during this process, they are quickly deleted through the normal course of cycling through things.
I also use the No-List concept within the context of a Long List, but I guess I implement it a little differently.
Within the context of my overall RTM method, I will sometimes do a No-List style brain dump at the end of my New list -- everything currently on my mind -- and then cycle through that short list to get things up and running. I pay no regard to whether an item is already on my other lists somewhere, or whether it's recurring or whatever. If it's on my mind, then it goes onto the list.
It's a good way to recharge and restart when I've been away from my regular routines and systems for a few days, due to travel or holidays or illness or whatever. Once this gets me up and running, it's easy to get back into the regular routine of my RTM process. If I happened to enter any duplicate tasks during this process, they are quickly deleted through the normal course of cycling through things.
December 26, 2023 at 4:34 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark:
Coming up to breath after lots of stuff to do over the past few months.
I tried all the forum and blog links and they all worked for me. Is there a specific one that isn't working for you?
As for the overall methods, I've been very successfully using Time Surfing to great effect. The big secret, if you will, for me, is simply allowing for an ebb and flow in a very selective focus around specific things, one at a time, and to allow other things to "build" into backlogs either in inboxes or on lists.
I generally don't need much in the form of lists, and what I do are literally just reminders that I will visit at some point in the future when I want to refocus onto something new (which might not happen for weeks at a time). In this sense, they aren't a long list or active list at all, but really just represent ideas, backlogs, or other things, and they stay out of sight pretty much all the time.
There's a little bit of similarity in this to the predictive list method in that it is used to get an overview or an idea of things, but it's nothing like it in that I don't need to reference it unless I want to do so or a feel that my intuition on where to focus my time is off.
Combined with simply putting appropriate reminders in a calendar, I find that pretty much everything is handled just fine in this method, provided that I do my part.
So, I essentially do a predictive overview list every so often (sort of like a no-list weekly review if I want to bring in GTD) to get myself anchored and oriented, and then I dump my lists entirely as I work day to day. I'll let inboxes provide the needed spontaneity, but only when I'm feeling the right place.
And in this sense, it has a little bit of a feel of the DREAMS framework, except that much of what you would do in DREAMS I'm doing mentally instead of writing it out.
Overall, I've found this to be exceptionally "sticky" as a method for me, and one that is well aligned to my mental need for intense focus, which happens to be very aligned with what I need to do to produce value, so it all works out. Ironically, the ability to ignore most of everything and let is lie fallow is probably the main power of the whole thing.
So, I guess I kind of found an answer to the above questions. :-)
Coming up to breath after lots of stuff to do over the past few months.
I tried all the forum and blog links and they all worked for me. Is there a specific one that isn't working for you?
As for the overall methods, I've been very successfully using Time Surfing to great effect. The big secret, if you will, for me, is simply allowing for an ebb and flow in a very selective focus around specific things, one at a time, and to allow other things to "build" into backlogs either in inboxes or on lists.
I generally don't need much in the form of lists, and what I do are literally just reminders that I will visit at some point in the future when I want to refocus onto something new (which might not happen for weeks at a time). In this sense, they aren't a long list or active list at all, but really just represent ideas, backlogs, or other things, and they stay out of sight pretty much all the time.
There's a little bit of similarity in this to the predictive list method in that it is used to get an overview or an idea of things, but it's nothing like it in that I don't need to reference it unless I want to do so or a feel that my intuition on where to focus my time is off.
Combined with simply putting appropriate reminders in a calendar, I find that pretty much everything is handled just fine in this method, provided that I do my part.
So, I essentially do a predictive overview list every so often (sort of like a no-list weekly review if I want to bring in GTD) to get myself anchored and oriented, and then I dump my lists entirely as I work day to day. I'll let inboxes provide the needed spontaneity, but only when I'm feeling the right place.
And in this sense, it has a little bit of a feel of the DREAMS framework, except that much of what you would do in DREAMS I'm doing mentally instead of writing it out.
Overall, I've found this to be exceptionally "sticky" as a method for me, and one that is well aligned to my mental need for intense focus, which happens to be very aligned with what I need to do to produce value, so it all works out. Ironically, the ability to ignore most of everything and let is lie fallow is probably the main power of the whole thing.
So, I guess I kind of found an answer to the above questions. :-)
January 9, 2024 at 1:59 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron,
Thank you for replying. I was referring to your posts describing Mark Forster's development, that they are so good that they really should be read more, but they might be hidden in this thread, and if you put them together they might be referenced.
I am referring to this post beginning:
<<I have mis-labelled the term "Accounting List". It's called an Accumulating List:>>
and then continuing with the other posts on Mark Forster.
Also on this thread
http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2787144
you have a very long post on this thread that should really belong in its own thread, or put together with the other one.
This is very heavy intellectual work, and perhaps you were writing these posts over a period of time, but if not, it is astonishing. Although I have following the forum from perhaps 2009, there are some things that I have not understood. That the no-list method abandoned the long list method surprised me. I have not followed everything, I am not familiar with Dreams book. But it is interesting that Mark Forster comes back and reworks thoughts and combines them.
Thank you for replying. I was referring to your posts describing Mark Forster's development, that they are so good that they really should be read more, but they might be hidden in this thread, and if you put them together they might be referenced.
I am referring to this post beginning:
<<I have mis-labelled the term "Accounting List". It's called an Accumulating List:>>
and then continuing with the other posts on Mark Forster.
Also on this thread
http://markforster.squarespace.com/fv-forum/post/2787144
you have a very long post on this thread that should really belong in its own thread, or put together with the other one.
This is very heavy intellectual work, and perhaps you were writing these posts over a period of time, but if not, it is astonishing. Although I have following the forum from perhaps 2009, there are some things that I have not understood. That the no-list method abandoned the long list method surprised me. I have not followed everything, I am not familiar with Dreams book. But it is interesting that Mark Forster comes back and reworks thoughts and combines them.
January 9, 2024 at 5:18 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Aaron:
<<I generally don't need much in the form of lists, and what I do are literally just reminders that I will visit at some point in the future when I want to refocus onto something new>>
I'm in a very similar place as you. To keep on top of things, I've created one note per project (in Apple Notes) a la GTD. It's more of a visual reminder of what I've committed to, and helps orient my weekly planning/narrative session. But during the day, I use a journaling method I developed to commit to things and update my efforts, observations, etc.
No lists. No scanning. No next actions. I've been working this way more/less for two years.
<<I generally don't need much in the form of lists, and what I do are literally just reminders that I will visit at some point in the future when I want to refocus onto something new>>
I'm in a very similar place as you. To keep on top of things, I've created one note per project (in Apple Notes) a la GTD. It's more of a visual reminder of what I've committed to, and helps orient my weekly planning/narrative session. But during the day, I use a journaling method I developed to commit to things and update my efforts, observations, etc.
No lists. No scanning. No next actions. I've been working this way more/less for two years.
January 9, 2024 at 16:18 |
avrum
avrum
avrum, could you please say more about this journaling method? I’m intrigued. I have been looking for ways to use Time Surfing / no-list but still feel like I need a method to guide or track my work and projects.
January 11, 2024 at 1:21 |
erik
erik
Hi Erik:
<< could you please say more about this journaling method?>>
At some point, I'm going to record a video/screencast demoing the process. For now, here's how it works:
Upon waking up, I create a blank page in Apple Notes (on an iPad mini). I write out my hard landscape items (mostly client appts), and identify my discretionary time. When I have discretionary time, I use a gut/energy/intuition check and commit to something. I tap my Apple Pencil on the iPad screen and it automatically opens today’s page in Apple Notes. I write the time and what I'm committing to i.e. 9:12am, Gym - upper Strength Workout.
Whenever I have a new idea, task… anything really, those go on a Quick Note (Apple Notes). At night, I have a Smart Folderthat grabs all the notes that were edited or created today. Every note is processed before shutting down. Notes that are projects are tagged like so #project. My handwritten daily page is transcribed into text, and pasted into Pages (my journal) and if a note is a “must do at a certain time” it is created in iCal or Reminders.
<< could you please say more about this journaling method?>>
At some point, I'm going to record a video/screencast demoing the process. For now, here's how it works:
Upon waking up, I create a blank page in Apple Notes (on an iPad mini). I write out my hard landscape items (mostly client appts), and identify my discretionary time. When I have discretionary time, I use a gut/energy/intuition check and commit to something. I tap my Apple Pencil on the iPad screen and it automatically opens today’s page in Apple Notes. I write the time and what I'm committing to i.e. 9:12am, Gym - upper Strength Workout.
Whenever I have a new idea, task… anything really, those go on a Quick Note (Apple Notes). At night, I have a Smart Folderthat grabs all the notes that were edited or created today. Every note is processed before shutting down. Notes that are projects are tagged like so #project. My handwritten daily page is transcribed into text, and pasted into Pages (my journal) and if a note is a “must do at a certain time” it is created in iCal or Reminders.
January 11, 2024 at 3:39 |
avrum
avrum
Hi avrum:
Thank you for this. Yours seems like an interesting system. I might give something like this a try. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Thank you for this. Yours seems like an interesting system. I might give something like this a try. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
January 11, 2024 at 18:09 |
erik
erik
Talking of journalling, people may be interested in trying this free software.
https://rednotebook.app/
It could be used for planning, no list, and just writing about the day.
https://rednotebook.app/
It could be used for planning, no list, and just writing about the day.
January 11, 2024 at 21:24 |
Chris
Chris
Abstractly, it goes basically like this: how do you manage the sudden influx of many, many small details and little tasks that are all discretionary and are not urgent but do represent items within your present commitments and that cannot all be dispatched immediately?
The tools that I know of to work with things in no-list are:
1. The authorized projects list
2. The dynamic list
3. The accounting list
4. The no-list itself
5. Project files
6. The calendar or tickler system
7. Inboxes
Now, the interesting thing here is that the above work is all essentially "equally important". It's all stuff that you want to do "as soon as possible," but there's simply no way you can do it all at once or within the span of your memory around those tasks or the lifespan of a dynamic list. Since they are all part of projects on your authorized projects list, this means that you can't shunt some of them off based on a pruning of your commitments. This means that the projects list, dynamic list, and the no-list itself doesn't inherently let you manage these items at all.
So what's left? Reminders in the form of project notes, accounting lists, inboxes, or tickler items on a calendar.
The issue with project notes is that project notes aren't supposed to become just another long list of tasks to do (SoPP specifically warns about this), and putting these tasks into a Project (even if they were all part of the same project) would essentially just constitute a giant long list of work. It would just be an organized task list around projects.
The calendar represents an issue because if you have a bunch of these tasks, they essentially all become "relevant" at the same time, so you then, again, just have a long list that comes up on a daily basis, because you're going to be taking action on these things all the time, so delaying them to the future seems moot. You could say, well, let's just delay some of them, but this then undermines the fluidity of the system, because now you're trying to divide up the work, prioritize it, and worst of all, *estimate* how much you can do in a given period, which is everything no-list is *not*.
In some sense, the accounting list and the inboxes are the same thing for these items, in that they represent non-volatile storage of things that could use our attention, but that are not presently being actioned. The issue with inboxes is that no-list is really supposed to represent an inbox-zero style of working.
This basically just leaves the accounting list. But, at what point is a big accounting list just a long list that you're working off of instead of your time management system? When an accounting list is *really* focused on something like ideas for a blog post or something narrow in scope like that, then in some sense it's like a tray of cookies that you can just pick any one of them without much care, even though you might be drawn to one more than another for some reason. And using it as a way of building up ideas means that the list is also serving to help anchor your thinking by giving you the opportunity to encourage questioning around a topic.
But in this case, if the accounting list just becomes a giant long list of many different things that all have to be done as soon as you can, but that are not all related in the same way, it looses that crispness, and starts to become a long list, IMO, especially when "what am I going to do today?" basically turns into, "What am I going to do today off of my accounting list?"
If I were to define what the "ideal" solution ought to look like, the idea of the no-list is that I would be able to somehow choose to work on one of these items without having to look at a long list of things to do and without having to "remember" all of these tasks in my head. But how would that work?
The best I've come up with right now is that you'd need to use a project-specific accounting list. This is basically like an inbox of your backlog around whatever projects you're working on. And then you'd choose to action specific projects. This at least has the benefit of keeping the accounting lists a little bit more precise and topical, but you're still losing, IMO, a lot of the whole point of a no-list system, which is rapid action taken intuitively without the overhead of looking at a list. In this case, when you decide on a project, you're still going to need to look at a long list of items for that project and decide which of those items you want to do. That's still essentially a long list system, it's just that you are now using a no-list system to decide which long list you want to work from at the moment or go "off list" with something else. That doesn't feel like the no-list promise, to me, and that's where I'm stuck, because I can't see to get any better than that.