Discussion Forum > Elastic AF…Or Rather Enhanced AF4!
Background
The original name, Elastic AF, was derived from the book "Elastic Habits" by Stephen Guise which is one of those books inspired by the "Atomic Habits" self-help craze a few years ago. The book's main idea is that we can build a daily habit by maintaining a list of tasks toward building said habit that range in difficulty depending on the motivation we have for that day. By matching tasks to how much we are motivated by that day, we avoid both the feeling of doing too little when we have great amounts of motivation, and also feeling too overwhelmed by hard tasks if we have little motivation, but instead we feel either "epic" or "adequate" in either case by matching difficulty with motivation.
I was interested in the idea of grouping tasks by difficulty and how it would affect a long list, especially since most of Mark Forster's systems already do this at least partially. I was especially intrigued by AF4R, which after some examination already had an in-built rudimentary difficulty-tier system, but the work flow felt wrong.
Before I got to the hospital late February I was able to outline how it would work, to which I built an algorithm on Obsidian.md in my smartphone that I started in the hospital and continued when I got home, and when I was strong enough I started using it. I had to tweak some of the codings in the electronic list along the way, but I was pleasantly surprised how the system stayed essentially the same the whole time, with the benefits I noted in the Introduction. The form of the system was very similar to AF4R so I decided to name it “Enhanced AF4” from “Elastic AF”.
The original name, Elastic AF, was derived from the book "Elastic Habits" by Stephen Guise which is one of those books inspired by the "Atomic Habits" self-help craze a few years ago. The book's main idea is that we can build a daily habit by maintaining a list of tasks toward building said habit that range in difficulty depending on the motivation we have for that day. By matching tasks to how much we are motivated by that day, we avoid both the feeling of doing too little when we have great amounts of motivation, and also feeling too overwhelmed by hard tasks if we have little motivation, but instead we feel either "epic" or "adequate" in either case by matching difficulty with motivation.
I was interested in the idea of grouping tasks by difficulty and how it would affect a long list, especially since most of Mark Forster's systems already do this at least partially. I was especially intrigued by AF4R, which after some examination already had an in-built rudimentary difficulty-tier system, but the work flow felt wrong.
Before I got to the hospital late February I was able to outline how it would work, to which I built an algorithm on Obsidian.md in my smartphone that I started in the hospital and continued when I got home, and when I was strong enough I started using it. I had to tweak some of the codings in the electronic list along the way, but I was pleasantly surprised how the system stayed essentially the same the whole time, with the benefits I noted in the Introduction. The form of the system was very similar to AF4R so I decided to name it “Enhanced AF4” from “Elastic AF”.
April 20, 2023 at 4:32 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Sections of the List
The system is a “long list” divided into 7 sections in the following order:
Waiting For
Dismissed
Backlog
New/Urgent
Unfinished
Recurrent
Circumstantial
“Waiting For” is where I place the tasks that depend on other tasks or events before I can start them. The format is “Task (Contingent Task/Event)”. If there is a contingent task I add the said task to “New/Urgent” section with a reminder that there is a task dependent on it in “Waiting For”
“Dismissed” is where the dismissed tasks go. Dismissed tasks are those that have stayed too long in the main list and should rarely be included in the algorithm.
“Backlog” are where tasks that have stayed for quite a while in the list are. They are in danger of being “Dismissed” by the algorithm if they are left there not done.
“New/Urgent” are tasks that either are newly entered into the list or were tasks that were too urgent to ignore unstarted. Urgent tasks need not be entered there, it can be done without writing in the section, but “in spirit” you treat the urgent task as if it was written there and let the system guide you to do what next after doing it.
“Unfinished” are tasks that were started already but had to be left in the middle of doing it and need a reminder to continue doing it.
“Recurrent” are tasks that have been done before and may be done again in the near future. Tasks that recur too far off into the future or have a definite schedule should be placed in appropriate reminder or calendar systems.
“Circumstantial” are recurring tasks that are too easy, pleasureable, or disruptive to leave in the main list. They are tasks that many consider to be “Time Wasters”.
The system is a “long list” divided into 7 sections in the following order:
Waiting For
Dismissed
Backlog
New/Urgent
Unfinished
Recurrent
Circumstantial
“Waiting For” is where I place the tasks that depend on other tasks or events before I can start them. The format is “Task (Contingent Task/Event)”. If there is a contingent task I add the said task to “New/Urgent” section with a reminder that there is a task dependent on it in “Waiting For”
“Dismissed” is where the dismissed tasks go. Dismissed tasks are those that have stayed too long in the main list and should rarely be included in the algorithm.
“Backlog” are where tasks that have stayed for quite a while in the list are. They are in danger of being “Dismissed” by the algorithm if they are left there not done.
“New/Urgent” are tasks that either are newly entered into the list or were tasks that were too urgent to ignore unstarted. Urgent tasks need not be entered there, it can be done without writing in the section, but “in spirit” you treat the urgent task as if it was written there and let the system guide you to do what next after doing it.
“Unfinished” are tasks that were started already but had to be left in the middle of doing it and need a reminder to continue doing it.
“Recurrent” are tasks that have been done before and may be done again in the near future. Tasks that recur too far off into the future or have a definite schedule should be placed in appropriate reminder or calendar systems.
“Circumstantial” are recurring tasks that are too easy, pleasureable, or disruptive to leave in the main list. They are tasks that many consider to be “Time Wasters”.
April 20, 2023 at 4:34 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Workflow
(Note: I am using the terms “move/delete” instead of “cross-out/rewrite” since I am doing this electronically and is easier for me to describe as such)
1. Start from “Waiting For”. If there are tasks there that have been made possible to do by this time, either do them from there or move them to “New/Urgent”. If it was done, delete the task or move to “Recurrent” or “Unfinished” if appropriate.
2. Skip “Dismissed” and go directly to “Backlog”. You can treat the sections “Backlog”, “New/Urgent”, and “Unfinished” as one big section to scan or treat each section separately; it does not matter as long as you scan them in order. Scan whichever task “stands out” then mark and do it. When done for that moment, either delete or move to “Recurrent” or “Unfinished” as appropriate. You can keep on circulating here or move to the next section whether you did a task from any of the above sections or not.
3. If there are urgent tasks to be done that are out of order from where you are on the list, you have the option to move it to “New/Urgent” and process it from there, or do it “in spirit”; that is, just do it then proceed as if you were in the “New/Urgent” section.
4. If you are going to “Recurrent” without doing any task from “Backlog”, then go to step 5. Otherwise go to step 7.
5. Dismissal happens if you do not do a “Backlog” task before proceeding to “Recurrent”. However, dismissal can be delayed by doing one or more “Dismissed” tasks: scan the “Dismissed” section, and if one “stands out”, do it, then delete it or move to “Recurrent” or “Unfinished”. This counts as doing a “Backlog” task. You can keep scanning “Dismissed”, then if you have done at least one task go back to step 2.
6. Dismissal happens as follows:
a. “Backlog” becomes part of “Dismissed”;
b. “New/Urgent” and “Recurrent” together becomes the new “Backlog”;
c. “Waiting for”, “Unfinished”, and “Circumstantial” remain untouched.
7. Unlike the previous sections, scanning “Recurrent” is done in only one direction: down. There is no recirculating here. Scan the tasks going down, and then mark and do the task that “stands out”; delete or move to “Recurrent” or “Unfinished” as appropriate. Once you reach the end of the list, go to “Circumstantial”
8. You can add anytime any task, new or old, from any section that is too easy or disruptive for the main list, basically tasks that become “Time Wasters”, to “Circumstantial”. Once there a “Circumstantial” task cannot be moved to any other section.
9. You process “Circumstantial” thus:
a. Decide first if you are going to even scan it in the first place. “Circumstantial” is completely optional, and you can go directly back to step 1.
b. Scan the section for the tasks that “stand out” and mark up to three tasks. Note that it is not required to choose three tasks, only up to three or even none at all.
c. Once done, either delete or move to the end of this same section.
d. Once all marked tasks are done, you cannot do more tasks from here. Go back to step 1.
(Note: I am using the terms “move/delete” instead of “cross-out/rewrite” since I am doing this electronically and is easier for me to describe as such)
1. Start from “Waiting For”. If there are tasks there that have been made possible to do by this time, either do them from there or move them to “New/Urgent”. If it was done, delete the task or move to “Recurrent” or “Unfinished” if appropriate.
2. Skip “Dismissed” and go directly to “Backlog”. You can treat the sections “Backlog”, “New/Urgent”, and “Unfinished” as one big section to scan or treat each section separately; it does not matter as long as you scan them in order. Scan whichever task “stands out” then mark and do it. When done for that moment, either delete or move to “Recurrent” or “Unfinished” as appropriate. You can keep on circulating here or move to the next section whether you did a task from any of the above sections or not.
3. If there are urgent tasks to be done that are out of order from where you are on the list, you have the option to move it to “New/Urgent” and process it from there, or do it “in spirit”; that is, just do it then proceed as if you were in the “New/Urgent” section.
4. If you are going to “Recurrent” without doing any task from “Backlog”, then go to step 5. Otherwise go to step 7.
5. Dismissal happens if you do not do a “Backlog” task before proceeding to “Recurrent”. However, dismissal can be delayed by doing one or more “Dismissed” tasks: scan the “Dismissed” section, and if one “stands out”, do it, then delete it or move to “Recurrent” or “Unfinished”. This counts as doing a “Backlog” task. You can keep scanning “Dismissed”, then if you have done at least one task go back to step 2.
6. Dismissal happens as follows:
a. “Backlog” becomes part of “Dismissed”;
b. “New/Urgent” and “Recurrent” together becomes the new “Backlog”;
c. “Waiting for”, “Unfinished”, and “Circumstantial” remain untouched.
7. Unlike the previous sections, scanning “Recurrent” is done in only one direction: down. There is no recirculating here. Scan the tasks going down, and then mark and do the task that “stands out”; delete or move to “Recurrent” or “Unfinished” as appropriate. Once you reach the end of the list, go to “Circumstantial”
8. You can add anytime any task, new or old, from any section that is too easy or disruptive for the main list, basically tasks that become “Time Wasters”, to “Circumstantial”. Once there a “Circumstantial” task cannot be moved to any other section.
9. You process “Circumstantial” thus:
a. Decide first if you are going to even scan it in the first place. “Circumstantial” is completely optional, and you can go directly back to step 1.
b. Scan the section for the tasks that “stand out” and mark up to three tasks. Note that it is not required to choose three tasks, only up to three or even none at all.
c. Once done, either delete or move to the end of this same section.
d. Once all marked tasks are done, you cannot do more tasks from here. Go back to step 1.
April 20, 2023 at 4:42 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Why EAF Works: Accurate Resistance Tiering
As I mentioned in “Background”, my main goal for making this system is to order tasks according to resistance then see how it would affect the flow of processing it. Most of Mark Forster’s systems already attempt to do this, but in my opinion EAF is the best system so far to do this.
1. “Waiting For” tasks are just absolutely impossible to do without the prerequisite tasks or events.
2. “Dismissed” are the tasks most resistant to be done since they stayed the longest in the list without being acted on, followed by “Backlog”.
3. The resistance of “New” tasks are the most variable in resistance because they are, well, new, but that same newness, regardless of difficulty, places a tacked-on resistance on them since we hadn’t taken consideration for them yet and need more time to determine their importance in the grand scheme.
4. “Urgent” tasks on the other hand have both low and high resistance: low because of the urgency itself, high because of how much it disrupts the grand scheme of things, often to the point of breaking our confidence in time and task management systems. This is why I grouped “New” and “Urgent” tasks together.
5. “Unfinished” tasks are relatively low resistance because usually the hardest part of a task is starting it and unfinished tasks have already passed that hurdle, but not that low since usually the next hardest thing to do is finishing it.
6. “Recurrent” tasks are some of the easier tasks to do because there is a proven track record of finishing it before: if you’ve done it before, you could do it again. Problem is that usually the further ago you did them last the harder it is to do them again.
7. “Circumstantial” tasks are so easy and pleasurable that they can ruin your day if you don’t control yourself doing them.
I have to say it was conceiving the “Circumstantial” section that convinced me to continue developing this system. The mere action of considering such easy, disruptive tasks as a separate category really made the rest of the list better to use. Heck, if I could convince you all to just even try adding the concept of “Circumstantial” tasks (or whatever you want to call them) into your system I will be content already.
As I mentioned in “Background”, my main goal for making this system is to order tasks according to resistance then see how it would affect the flow of processing it. Most of Mark Forster’s systems already attempt to do this, but in my opinion EAF is the best system so far to do this.
1. “Waiting For” tasks are just absolutely impossible to do without the prerequisite tasks or events.
2. “Dismissed” are the tasks most resistant to be done since they stayed the longest in the list without being acted on, followed by “Backlog”.
3. The resistance of “New” tasks are the most variable in resistance because they are, well, new, but that same newness, regardless of difficulty, places a tacked-on resistance on them since we hadn’t taken consideration for them yet and need more time to determine their importance in the grand scheme.
4. “Urgent” tasks on the other hand have both low and high resistance: low because of the urgency itself, high because of how much it disrupts the grand scheme of things, often to the point of breaking our confidence in time and task management systems. This is why I grouped “New” and “Urgent” tasks together.
5. “Unfinished” tasks are relatively low resistance because usually the hardest part of a task is starting it and unfinished tasks have already passed that hurdle, but not that low since usually the next hardest thing to do is finishing it.
6. “Recurrent” tasks are some of the easier tasks to do because there is a proven track record of finishing it before: if you’ve done it before, you could do it again. Problem is that usually the further ago you did them last the harder it is to do them again.
7. “Circumstantial” tasks are so easy and pleasurable that they can ruin your day if you don’t control yourself doing them.
I have to say it was conceiving the “Circumstantial” section that convinced me to continue developing this system. The mere action of considering such easy, disruptive tasks as a separate category really made the rest of the list better to use. Heck, if I could convince you all to just even try adding the concept of “Circumstantial” tasks (or whatever you want to call them) into your system I will be content already.
April 20, 2023 at 4:47 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Why EAF Works: Fixes AF4 and AF4R’s Flaws, and Makes Dismissal Contributive
Originally I was going to use a token or reward game-like system, but then I realized AF4R’s structure was similar to what I was doing and had a good flow. Problem was, Mark Forster and others found out AF4 and in turn AF4R had an inherent flaw: the longer the Open List was, the longer it took to get back to the Closed List. Not only does this delay dismissing the Closed List, it lessens one of the effects Mark Forster notes about long lists: the more often you see a high resistance task in the list, the lower the resistance becomes. And then people were turning away from dismissal systems, mainly because it usually caused dismissed tasks to just accumulate without a good habit to review those tasks, and developing such a habit in turn feels disruptive because it does not feel to be an inherent part of long list systems.
Therefore I tried to address those issues, and from here the current workflow of EAF was born.
1. I fixed the inherent flaw of AF4 by letting the user go back to the “Backlog” to recirculate even when they have gone past it, only activating dismissal once the user has gone to “Recurrent”.
2. I then fixed the disruptive feeling of dismissal by using the fear of dismissal itself: by threatening to start dismissal, the system forces the user to review “Dismissed”, and by doing at least one previously “Dismissed” task, the user gets rewarded by delaying dismissal. At the same time, because the user starts to feel that “Dismissed” is not a black hole of forgotten “Someday/Maybe” tasks nor is it a disruptive list too bothersome to review, but rather an indispensable part of a task management system, it starts to form a positive feedback loop of feeling good to dismiss tasks.
3. At first glance, this approach may seem to have the same problem as before, delaying dismissal, but in fact the difference is night and day. My EAF “Backlog” is several times shorter upon dismissal than an ordinary AF4’s Closed List when I tried it before, and there is no feeling of trepidation upon doing dismissal. The result is that dismissal feels natural and beneficial for me, and therefore lessens resistance in using the whole system itself.
Originally I was going to use a token or reward game-like system, but then I realized AF4R’s structure was similar to what I was doing and had a good flow. Problem was, Mark Forster and others found out AF4 and in turn AF4R had an inherent flaw: the longer the Open List was, the longer it took to get back to the Closed List. Not only does this delay dismissing the Closed List, it lessens one of the effects Mark Forster notes about long lists: the more often you see a high resistance task in the list, the lower the resistance becomes. And then people were turning away from dismissal systems, mainly because it usually caused dismissed tasks to just accumulate without a good habit to review those tasks, and developing such a habit in turn feels disruptive because it does not feel to be an inherent part of long list systems.
Therefore I tried to address those issues, and from here the current workflow of EAF was born.
1. I fixed the inherent flaw of AF4 by letting the user go back to the “Backlog” to recirculate even when they have gone past it, only activating dismissal once the user has gone to “Recurrent”.
2. I then fixed the disruptive feeling of dismissal by using the fear of dismissal itself: by threatening to start dismissal, the system forces the user to review “Dismissed”, and by doing at least one previously “Dismissed” task, the user gets rewarded by delaying dismissal. At the same time, because the user starts to feel that “Dismissed” is not a black hole of forgotten “Someday/Maybe” tasks nor is it a disruptive list too bothersome to review, but rather an indispensable part of a task management system, it starts to form a positive feedback loop of feeling good to dismiss tasks.
3. At first glance, this approach may seem to have the same problem as before, delaying dismissal, but in fact the difference is night and day. My EAF “Backlog” is several times shorter upon dismissal than an ordinary AF4’s Closed List when I tried it before, and there is no feeling of trepidation upon doing dismissal. The result is that dismissal feels natural and beneficial for me, and therefore lessens resistance in using the whole system itself.
April 20, 2023 at 4:51 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Why EAF Works: Leverages Decision Fatigue
Upon further use of the above workflow, I realized why it feels so good to use: On the higher resistance sections, there are easier, more pleasant, and fewer decisions to make, and as you go down the list you make more and harder decisions. That is, you reserve your best decisive powers in the higher resistance tasks. This made me consider how to further effectively process the “Circumstantial” section, and thus EAF becomes its complete form.
1. “Waiting For” has the easiest decision: is it possible to do or not? If not, go to the next section; if yes, do it or do it later.
2. “New/Urgent”, and “Unfinished” being some of the more resistant tasks has the least consequences in doing them in that one can keep recirculating in these sections. It also feels good to do them because I know these sections help me in doing more “Backlog” tasks since I keep recirculating into it.
3. “Backlog” unfortunately feels more mentally draining to process, but just barely, because of the threat of dismissal. However, this is lessened by the amount of recirculation one does in the normal workflow of the system, and you just need to do one task which can be the push needed to do it.
4. “Dismissed” however feels really good to process. The knowledge that one is doing this to delay dismissal by doing just one, especially if “Dismissed” has grown quite a lot, makes it a pleasure to scan and do something from it, especially considering these tasks were once considered “impossible” to do.
5. “Recurrent” entails a harder-feeling decision process in that you can choose while going only one direction: down. Compounded by the fact that it is slower to get to this section than in ordinary AF4 or AF4R, it feels more stressful to get through here, which is not bad since these tasks are less resistant to me.
6. Experiences with the previous sections gave me the current workflow in “Circumstantial”, which is to add as much mental and decisive stress as possible in going through it.
a. The first decision is whether to go to the section in the first place: it is completely optional, and the memory of the stress in going through it can already make me not waste my time there, even though
b. The second decision is to choose only up to three of the various tasks there.
c. The third decision is to decide if I really want to choose three. I can choose only one or two or even none at all. There is also added stress in realizing it does take a relatively long time to get here again after I leave it.
d. Then once those decisions are done, I have to stick to those decisions, doing only the chosen one to three tasks before leaving.
e. All this added stress, though, is alleviated by the pleasure of doing these “Circumstantial” tasks, so it feels like a good tradeoff. Moreover, the effort of getting to those decisions makes me want to enjoy those tasks even more, creating another positive feedback loop that results in my wanting to keep using the system.
Upon further use of the above workflow, I realized why it feels so good to use: On the higher resistance sections, there are easier, more pleasant, and fewer decisions to make, and as you go down the list you make more and harder decisions. That is, you reserve your best decisive powers in the higher resistance tasks. This made me consider how to further effectively process the “Circumstantial” section, and thus EAF becomes its complete form.
1. “Waiting For” has the easiest decision: is it possible to do or not? If not, go to the next section; if yes, do it or do it later.
2. “New/Urgent”, and “Unfinished” being some of the more resistant tasks has the least consequences in doing them in that one can keep recirculating in these sections. It also feels good to do them because I know these sections help me in doing more “Backlog” tasks since I keep recirculating into it.
3. “Backlog” unfortunately feels more mentally draining to process, but just barely, because of the threat of dismissal. However, this is lessened by the amount of recirculation one does in the normal workflow of the system, and you just need to do one task which can be the push needed to do it.
4. “Dismissed” however feels really good to process. The knowledge that one is doing this to delay dismissal by doing just one, especially if “Dismissed” has grown quite a lot, makes it a pleasure to scan and do something from it, especially considering these tasks were once considered “impossible” to do.
5. “Recurrent” entails a harder-feeling decision process in that you can choose while going only one direction: down. Compounded by the fact that it is slower to get to this section than in ordinary AF4 or AF4R, it feels more stressful to get through here, which is not bad since these tasks are less resistant to me.
6. Experiences with the previous sections gave me the current workflow in “Circumstantial”, which is to add as much mental and decisive stress as possible in going through it.
a. The first decision is whether to go to the section in the first place: it is completely optional, and the memory of the stress in going through it can already make me not waste my time there, even though
b. The second decision is to choose only up to three of the various tasks there.
c. The third decision is to decide if I really want to choose three. I can choose only one or two or even none at all. There is also added stress in realizing it does take a relatively long time to get here again after I leave it.
d. Then once those decisions are done, I have to stick to those decisions, doing only the chosen one to three tasks before leaving.
e. All this added stress, though, is alleviated by the pleasure of doing these “Circumstantial” tasks, so it feels like a good tradeoff. Moreover, the effort of getting to those decisions makes me want to enjoy those tasks even more, creating another positive feedback loop that results in my wanting to keep using the system.
April 20, 2023 at 4:56 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Weaknesses of EAF and The Future
It is apparent that unfortunately EAF is a rather complicated system to start and set up, so much so that I don’t think the system as it is can be translated into pen and paper. It also looks complicated to use, although I promise when you have the appropriate setup and start using it it is intuitive to use. Even setting up this in Obsidian.md needed me to make several macros and templates.
To be honest it is these weaknesses that made me delay posting this. As you can see the system is quite hard to describe concisely.
In the future I plan to simplify the system without reducing its effectiveness, and I would really appreciate your help too by your comments, but for now I hope you enjoyed this essay on my current system!
It is apparent that unfortunately EAF is a rather complicated system to start and set up, so much so that I don’t think the system as it is can be translated into pen and paper. It also looks complicated to use, although I promise when you have the appropriate setup and start using it it is intuitive to use. Even setting up this in Obsidian.md needed me to make several macros and templates.
To be honest it is these weaknesses that made me delay posting this. As you can see the system is quite hard to describe concisely.
In the future I plan to simplify the system without reducing its effectiveness, and I would really appreciate your help too by your comments, but for now I hope you enjoyed this essay on my current system!
April 20, 2023 at 4:57 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Hi Ed Z,
What an interesting new system!
As you say, it would be more difficult to implement this system with pen and paper than electronically - and I'm definitely a pen and paper person. Maybe it could be done using a notebook with movable pages. Like most systems, it's probably more difficult to explain than to implement, but I think you've done a good job at that.
As a matter of interest, under Workflow point 2, do you personally scan Backlog, New/Urgent and Unfinished as one list, or do you circulate round Backlog till nothing stands out, then circulate around New/Urgent till nothing stands out, then circulate round Unfinished until nothing stands out?
What an interesting new system!
As you say, it would be more difficult to implement this system with pen and paper than electronically - and I'm definitely a pen and paper person. Maybe it could be done using a notebook with movable pages. Like most systems, it's probably more difficult to explain than to implement, but I think you've done a good job at that.
As a matter of interest, under Workflow point 2, do you personally scan Backlog, New/Urgent and Unfinished as one list, or do you circulate round Backlog till nothing stands out, then circulate around New/Urgent till nothing stands out, then circulate round Unfinished until nothing stands out?
April 26, 2023 at 19:54 |
Margaret1
Margaret1
Hello Margaret1!
Thank you for the kind words. I am actually testing a different workflow process with a slightly different structure that promises to be simpler and able to be used on pen and paper, I just need more time to see if it is viable.
And the normal workflow I usually do is the second one: one section at a time. However there are times that I do Backlog, New/Urgent, and Unfinished as one whole section. That is what I like about the system, it is quite flexible. Elastic even lol.
Thank you for the kind words. I am actually testing a different workflow process with a slightly different structure that promises to be simpler and able to be used on pen and paper, I just need more time to see if it is viable.
And the normal workflow I usually do is the second one: one section at a time. However there are times that I do Backlog, New/Urgent, and Unfinished as one whole section. That is what I like about the system, it is quite flexible. Elastic even lol.
April 28, 2023 at 4:36 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Ez - thanks for sharing your system. I would be interested to know if you manage to stick to it long term. I have tried similar principles to your system but it always falls apart in the end for one reason or another and I have abandoned it trying something new but generally going round in circles. I have sort of given up with systems finding them too difficult to manage. Simply opting now to ignore urgency and just do everything on oldest basis first no matter what and putting in enough time to complete tasks and keep up to date. I think one of Marks principles of only taking on what you can actually do is key to success of any system.
May 5, 2023 at 19:56 |
ZZ
ZZ
Hi ZZ!
Yeah I am still using it and for me it has been very effective.
I think one of the main reasons for my continued use of it is the "Circumstantial" section: I had admitted to myself that there are some tasks that break the system. These are tasks that are so pleasing to do that I automatically do them when I pass through them in any long list. These are what many call "time wasters." This putting them in another list keeps the system from breaking.
In fact, I just might try using a Simple List + Circumstantial list just to see if it works.
Yeah I am still using it and for me it has been very effective.
I think one of the main reasons for my continued use of it is the "Circumstantial" section: I had admitted to myself that there are some tasks that break the system. These are tasks that are so pleasing to do that I automatically do them when I pass through them in any long list. These are what many call "time wasters." This putting them in another list keeps the system from breaking.
In fact, I just might try using a Simple List + Circumstantial list just to see if it works.
May 5, 2023 at 21:35 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
Hi Ed Z, I was wondering if you got round to trying a Simple List + Circumstantial list.
I like the idea of separating out certain tasks, because I frequently use such tasks to avoid working on more worthwhile, indeed urgent, tasks. In my case, these "soothers" would be:
TV catch-up (got hours of programmes recorded and machine is down at 20% free space)
Online puzzles, crosswords etc.
Online searches (items of interest I've noted to follow up)
Catching up with newspaper articles of interest and online articles of interest
Reading for interest (got dozens of Kindle books downloaded, fiction and non-fiction)
Certainly I would categorise these as "time wasters", as you call them, in the sense that they are given priority over more important tasks and projects. For instance, I can waste away literally hours doing online puzzles, when I know it would benefit me to be doing something difficult that I'm avoiding. In themselves, however, they are all worthwhile pursuits - as long as they are not replacing more important work.
As well as the above, there are other tasks (often recurrent ones) that I could add to Circumstantial because, as you say, they are pleasing to do, and I definitely don't think of as "time wasters" as they are useful and sometime essential tasks. Because they are pleasing to do, they can also interfere with my ability to do difficult, but important, tasks. In my case these would be:
Checking out "What's On" in my local area
Ironing clothes (this used to be one of my biggest bugbears, but now I enjoy it!)
Personal grooming (think nail polish, face-masks etc.)
Systems development (i.e. reading this forum)
I like the idea of separating out certain tasks, because I frequently use such tasks to avoid working on more worthwhile, indeed urgent, tasks. In my case, these "soothers" would be:
TV catch-up (got hours of programmes recorded and machine is down at 20% free space)
Online puzzles, crosswords etc.
Online searches (items of interest I've noted to follow up)
Catching up with newspaper articles of interest and online articles of interest
Reading for interest (got dozens of Kindle books downloaded, fiction and non-fiction)
Certainly I would categorise these as "time wasters", as you call them, in the sense that they are given priority over more important tasks and projects. For instance, I can waste away literally hours doing online puzzles, when I know it would benefit me to be doing something difficult that I'm avoiding. In themselves, however, they are all worthwhile pursuits - as long as they are not replacing more important work.
As well as the above, there are other tasks (often recurrent ones) that I could add to Circumstantial because, as you say, they are pleasing to do, and I definitely don't think of as "time wasters" as they are useful and sometime essential tasks. Because they are pleasing to do, they can also interfere with my ability to do difficult, but important, tasks. In my case these would be:
Checking out "What's On" in my local area
Ironing clothes (this used to be one of my biggest bugbears, but now I enjoy it!)
Personal grooming (think nail polish, face-masks etc.)
Systems development (i.e. reading this forum)
May 16, 2023 at 17:53 |
Margaret1
Margaret1
@Margaret1
Sorry for the delayed reply!
I actually tried using different long lists using Circumstantials:
Simple List has minimal advantage with Circumstantials.
Upon trying reverse AF2 with Mark Forster's suggestion, Circumstantials are redundant.
AF1 and FVP can be significantly improved with Circumstantials.
However, what I found was that "Waiting For" actually has a more significant effect on all the systems I tried.
And yes, all of the examples you've listed can be considered "Circumstantials". It really depends on each person.
Sorry for the delayed reply!
I actually tried using different long lists using Circumstantials:
Simple List has minimal advantage with Circumstantials.
Upon trying reverse AF2 with Mark Forster's suggestion, Circumstantials are redundant.
AF1 and FVP can be significantly improved with Circumstantials.
However, what I found was that "Waiting For" actually has a more significant effect on all the systems I tried.
And yes, all of the examples you've listed can be considered "Circumstantials". It really depends on each person.
June 10, 2023 at 21:48 |
Ed Z
Ed Z
I had mentioned that this system was what I was using over Lent, and I have to say it worked really well! It was the first one I have used consistently everyday and it was excellent at showing me the most appropriate task to do at whatever mood or situation I was in. I also have no resistance whatsoever in using it: what I mean is I didn't feel any trepidation that I would be wasting my time when I use it, nor would I be doing the wrong tasks, nor do I feel anytime I was breaking rules by doing urgent tasks that was interrupting my work flow. It is intuitive to use as well.
There are some disadvantages too, though. For one, there was a lot, and I mean a lot, of pre-start preparations that I had to do in Obsidian.md, the app where I made the system, especially since I am not a programmer by trade or hobby (It was fun though!). Second, I really cannot think of a way to do the system on a pen and paper setup, and I can show why in the subsequent sections.
Indeed, I feel there is no simple way to describe how my current system works, and that is why I severely delayed posting this.
This overly long post is divided into sections: the Background of how I made this system, the different Sections of the List, the Workflow of using the system, the advantages or “Why EAF Works” in three smaller parts, and the Weaknesses and my Future Plans for it.