Discussion Forum > Which is your most *effective* system? Which moved you fastest towards your Big Goals?
Sbubs - all of my accomplishments that I'm most proud of had very little to do with any system per se. The elements involved had to do with an inner resolve (or frustration), supportive relationships, and quality coaching/therapy.
1. Getting married/having kids (Resolving a decades long struggle with commitment-phobia... some quality therapy, and Family Systems theory. Specifically the ideas in the late Dr. David Schnarch's "Passionate Marriage".
2. Composing the music for an award winning NFB documentary - https://www.nfb.ca/film/exiles_in_lotusland/ - working with a co-composer who complemented my skillset. Taking a risk and saying "yes" to the project.
3. Writing my first book. My wife's support, plus a good writing coach. Also announcing the project on Facebook, holding my feet to the fire via accountability.
4. Leaving non-for-profit work and opening a private practice: Again, wife supported my decision. Again, some helpful therapy and various coaching. Lynn Grodzki's book was very helpful as well: https://a.co/d/h2CKuT9
1. Getting married/having kids (Resolving a decades long struggle with commitment-phobia... some quality therapy, and Family Systems theory. Specifically the ideas in the late Dr. David Schnarch's "Passionate Marriage".
2. Composing the music for an award winning NFB documentary - https://www.nfb.ca/film/exiles_in_lotusland/ - working with a co-composer who complemented my skillset. Taking a risk and saying "yes" to the project.
3. Writing my first book. My wife's support, plus a good writing coach. Also announcing the project on Facebook, holding my feet to the fire via accountability.
4. Leaving non-for-profit work and opening a private practice: Again, wife supported my decision. Again, some helpful therapy and various coaching. Lynn Grodzki's book was very helpful as well: https://a.co/d/h2CKuT9
May 29, 2023 at 19:41 |
avrum
avrum
Avrum,
Love this. The systems-thinking author of Early Retirement Extreme, Jacob Lund Fisker described big accomplishments as only possible by maximizing the area of the triangle made from Vision, Practicality, and Dissatisfaction.
Getting the small stuff done in the midst of your passionate pursuit - it's such a challenge to decide how much counter-balancing and mess you're willing to tolerate for the sake of what you're unwilling to live without. The madman with his eyes on the horizon.
I wonder what Mark would say about inner resolve, dissatisfaction/frustration. Wonder how this ties into the reliance on one's intuition to guide oneself through a long list.
Love this. The systems-thinking author of Early Retirement Extreme, Jacob Lund Fisker described big accomplishments as only possible by maximizing the area of the triangle made from Vision, Practicality, and Dissatisfaction.
Getting the small stuff done in the midst of your passionate pursuit - it's such a challenge to decide how much counter-balancing and mess you're willing to tolerate for the sake of what you're unwilling to live without. The madman with his eyes on the horizon.
I wonder what Mark would say about inner resolve, dissatisfaction/frustration. Wonder how this ties into the reliance on one's intuition to guide oneself through a long list.
May 30, 2023 at 0:27 |
Sbubs
Sbubs
This is a good question, but I have to admit that one of the biggest challenges that I've had is measuring the impact of low level systems on higher level goals. I'm not sure what the best way to do this is, and the problem is also that I've used multiple systems during any time that I've been working on a large goal or dream, so how much of each system was a benefit or a detriment is hard to say.
There's also the question of sustainability. A system that is unsustainable tends to only work in the short term and may produce outsized results, but in the long run result in less productivity.
I don't have any good answers for measuring productivity. That makes it really hard for me to identify which systems have *actually* done me good.
There's also the question of sustainability. A system that is unsustainable tends to only work in the short term and may produce outsized results, but in the long run result in less productivity.
I don't have any good answers for measuring productivity. That makes it really hard for me to identify which systems have *actually* done me good.
May 30, 2023 at 2:55 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
It's been bothering me that I don't have a good answer for this one, so I've been thinking about this over the past few days, and then it hit me that this was actually the answer.
The times when I have been most successful at making forward progress all involved these things:
1. There was clearly a single thing that I needed to focus on.
2. I ruthlessly removed any thing that did not help me make progress towards that thing.
3. I had the whole of my attention on that thing.
In other words, the key to me has been to allow my mind to retain its attention on a given thing, however that happens. I have had many systems over the years, but the ones that seem to have produced the best results seem to succeed in proportion to the degree that they allow me to freely and without compulsion bring my attention towards whatever thing will give me the best progress.
Funnily enough, I think it's the attention that makes the most difference. Everything else, for me at least, seems to take care of itself if I can manage to retain attention on a given thing for any period of time. Taking action seems to follow naturally if attention has been brought to bear.
In addition to this, I think the idea of being able to bring attention consistently and regularly while also allowing for breaks is key to sustaining this capacity. There have been times when I have been hyperfocused in my attention to great productivity, but afterwards I have had to had very long recovery periods. The challenge for me, I think, is to be able to take breaks sufficiently often enough while also ensuring that my attention will return to where I want it to.
Any time that a system has worked well for me in making good forward progress, it has enabled this, and any time a system of mine breaks down, it is because it begins to fail to do this.
Each type of system seems to be slightly better at removing a specific type of impediment to my attention than another system, but no system strikes me as able to fully cover all bases perfectly.
The times when I have been most successful at making forward progress all involved these things:
1. There was clearly a single thing that I needed to focus on.
2. I ruthlessly removed any thing that did not help me make progress towards that thing.
3. I had the whole of my attention on that thing.
In other words, the key to me has been to allow my mind to retain its attention on a given thing, however that happens. I have had many systems over the years, but the ones that seem to have produced the best results seem to succeed in proportion to the degree that they allow me to freely and without compulsion bring my attention towards whatever thing will give me the best progress.
Funnily enough, I think it's the attention that makes the most difference. Everything else, for me at least, seems to take care of itself if I can manage to retain attention on a given thing for any period of time. Taking action seems to follow naturally if attention has been brought to bear.
In addition to this, I think the idea of being able to bring attention consistently and regularly while also allowing for breaks is key to sustaining this capacity. There have been times when I have been hyperfocused in my attention to great productivity, but afterwards I have had to had very long recovery periods. The challenge for me, I think, is to be able to take breaks sufficiently often enough while also ensuring that my attention will return to where I want it to.
Any time that a system has worked well for me in making good forward progress, it has enabled this, and any time a system of mine breaks down, it is because it begins to fail to do this.
Each type of system seems to be slightly better at removing a specific type of impediment to my attention than another system, but no system strikes me as able to fully cover all bases perfectly.
June 2, 2023 at 4:08 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron - I always enjoy reading your comments. I'm not sure if you're using your real name or not. However I'd be interested in speaking about these ideas in greater depth via phone or Zoom. If you're game, you can contact me here: https://nadigel.com
June 2, 2023 at 13:46 |
avrum
avrum
One word - DIT, DIT, DIT.
I have it on steroids now - my system has expanded the ideas in the Do It Tomorrow book massively.
It works,
I aint changin !
I have it on steroids now - my system has expanded the ideas in the Do It Tomorrow book massively.
It works,
I aint changin !
June 3, 2023 at 13:58 |
mrs move forward
mrs move forward
Aaron,
I've been thinking of your last post for a few days and now as I sit down to plan my week I'm thinking about it again! For the longest time I'd strive to get 'inbox zero' and handle all my emails, notes, reminders and all. Now I'm sitting here realizing it would be more fruitful just to flesh out the big thing to focus on instead before any of that.
I wonder which of Mark's systems could be used best to remove impediments to attention. "What is blocking my attention to my main thing more than X?" focusing question? Or maybe "would I get closer to my main thing by acting on it directly or with this to-do?"
Perhaps a version of autofocus where instead of building a chain of things you want to do more than the previous, you compare each item with your 'main thing.' Or ask "does this item get me closer to my mission than the previous item?" These are variations of a sort of 'fixed-comparable' autofocus as opposed to the shifting-comparable of the previous dotted item. A long-list system with a focusing question based on your values or big priorities. This would of course neglect the million small things needing done in daily life which is half the reason I need a system in the first place as I work on my own sense of "good-enough" in the other areas of my life besides my mission.
I've been thinking of your last post for a few days and now as I sit down to plan my week I'm thinking about it again! For the longest time I'd strive to get 'inbox zero' and handle all my emails, notes, reminders and all. Now I'm sitting here realizing it would be more fruitful just to flesh out the big thing to focus on instead before any of that.
I wonder which of Mark's systems could be used best to remove impediments to attention. "What is blocking my attention to my main thing more than X?" focusing question? Or maybe "would I get closer to my main thing by acting on it directly or with this to-do?"
Perhaps a version of autofocus where instead of building a chain of things you want to do more than the previous, you compare each item with your 'main thing.' Or ask "does this item get me closer to my mission than the previous item?" These are variations of a sort of 'fixed-comparable' autofocus as opposed to the shifting-comparable of the previous dotted item. A long-list system with a focusing question based on your values or big priorities. This would of course neglect the million small things needing done in daily life which is half the reason I need a system in the first place as I work on my own sense of "good-enough" in the other areas of my life besides my mission.
June 4, 2023 at 22:58 |
Sbubs
Sbubs
If I'm sticking within Mark's systems, the main thing I'd focus on is how a given system allows you to "hide" work that you don't want to distract you until you have made sufficient progress on your one thing. There are various ways to do that, but here are some thoughts.
If we go with a long list, it's hard to argue against FVP-NQ. The ability to essentially "pause" a large section of the list while driving home a specific set of things is very powerful and useful. As Mark has written about previously, it has the ability to work every well in a sort of "no list" fashion if you want to use it that way. Most other long list systems are better at keeping more balls in the air, IMO, but that only works well if all of that work contributes to your overall forward progress. if you have a few things that really move the needle, and most of the other stuff is more like fluff or speculative or aspirational or "down time" work, then touching all of that all the time is probably not the best use of time. On the other hand, if you're working in an environment that creates many small, one off tasks that need to be tackled with more efficiency, then some of the other systems might be better, like Re:Zero.
An issue I have when using FVP-NQ is the number of times that an important thing that I want to work on ends up hidden from me somewhere in the middle of the list because I didn't pay attention to it when I saw it on the list. Because there are so many other things that could draw my attention on the list, I'm not thinking about that thing and I can tend to forget about it for longer than I would like.
However, when it comes to focus, I'm more inclined to look at SoPP and no-list methods. No list methods are more concentrated because they encourage you to keep specific repeat projects in your head more often, at the cost of letting other things drift out of your head more easily. If you take adequate notes and use an authorized commitments list that you review as needed, then it's hard to get more concentrated than a no-list method. The trick with such methods, for me at least, is to make sure that I have anchored specific systems for processing incoming work (email, inboxes, etc.) and created reasonable buckets for things that I can't afford to forget, so that I can safely ignore all of that most of the time, and only review that every so often. This allows my brain to not freak out that I've forgotten something essential, while still putting most of it entirely out of my head.
In fact, the system I'm using right now (Time Surfing), is essentially a no-list type of system, but using a type of meditative practice to handle task engagement rather than a specific paper method like 5/2 or NL-FVP. I also think the questioning emphasis and systems/routines emphasis from SoPP is essential for allowing focus. When things are automated appropriately with routine, and you've gained proper clarity on your work, no-list methods are very effective for keeping attention on the things you intuitively know are most important to you.
Of course, a big part of a no-list system, IMO, is saying no. The benefit of a long list system is that you gain a little psychological freedom by delaying the need to say no to something quickly, because it can languish on your list instead, without you really committing one way or another. That's a neat feature of long lists, but I think a no-list system demands that you take each new thing and brutally examine it with respect to your existing authorized commitments.
If you properly assess your authorized commitments when potentially taking on new work, the result is that you should never introduce so many outcomes to your mind that you start to strain your memory, but that only works by you being able to say no to things and let things go. That can be *very* hard to do.
Now, if I were using one of Mark's no-list systems, I would say that I would probably use NL-FVP, with 5/2 in second place. 5/2 is just a good overall system, but the ordering requirements sometimes just don't quite feel right to me, and cause me to sometimes feel like I'm out of synch with the system. NL-FVP, on the other hand, is *really* good about highlighting your "big things" for a day, and helping to remind you constantly that you should be moving towards them. I like that. It also feels exceptionally natural to use. The only thing that is somewhat funky with that system is when I have nothing that I want to do before task X, but I am avoiding task X. I hit that often enough, and then I have to really sit there and "confront" myself and allow my mind to embrace things, which can sometimes take a surprising amount of time. But the fact that NL-FVP can get me there is one of the valuable parts of that method, IMO.
So, right now, I'm using Time Surfing, and if I weren't using that, I'd be highly tempted to use NL-FVP, FVP-NQ, or 5/2. But none of those systems work if you aren't willing to do the work to eliminate things or say no.
If we go with a long list, it's hard to argue against FVP-NQ. The ability to essentially "pause" a large section of the list while driving home a specific set of things is very powerful and useful. As Mark has written about previously, it has the ability to work every well in a sort of "no list" fashion if you want to use it that way. Most other long list systems are better at keeping more balls in the air, IMO, but that only works well if all of that work contributes to your overall forward progress. if you have a few things that really move the needle, and most of the other stuff is more like fluff or speculative or aspirational or "down time" work, then touching all of that all the time is probably not the best use of time. On the other hand, if you're working in an environment that creates many small, one off tasks that need to be tackled with more efficiency, then some of the other systems might be better, like Re:Zero.
An issue I have when using FVP-NQ is the number of times that an important thing that I want to work on ends up hidden from me somewhere in the middle of the list because I didn't pay attention to it when I saw it on the list. Because there are so many other things that could draw my attention on the list, I'm not thinking about that thing and I can tend to forget about it for longer than I would like.
However, when it comes to focus, I'm more inclined to look at SoPP and no-list methods. No list methods are more concentrated because they encourage you to keep specific repeat projects in your head more often, at the cost of letting other things drift out of your head more easily. If you take adequate notes and use an authorized commitments list that you review as needed, then it's hard to get more concentrated than a no-list method. The trick with such methods, for me at least, is to make sure that I have anchored specific systems for processing incoming work (email, inboxes, etc.) and created reasonable buckets for things that I can't afford to forget, so that I can safely ignore all of that most of the time, and only review that every so often. This allows my brain to not freak out that I've forgotten something essential, while still putting most of it entirely out of my head.
In fact, the system I'm using right now (Time Surfing), is essentially a no-list type of system, but using a type of meditative practice to handle task engagement rather than a specific paper method like 5/2 or NL-FVP. I also think the questioning emphasis and systems/routines emphasis from SoPP is essential for allowing focus. When things are automated appropriately with routine, and you've gained proper clarity on your work, no-list methods are very effective for keeping attention on the things you intuitively know are most important to you.
Of course, a big part of a no-list system, IMO, is saying no. The benefit of a long list system is that you gain a little psychological freedom by delaying the need to say no to something quickly, because it can languish on your list instead, without you really committing one way or another. That's a neat feature of long lists, but I think a no-list system demands that you take each new thing and brutally examine it with respect to your existing authorized commitments.
If you properly assess your authorized commitments when potentially taking on new work, the result is that you should never introduce so many outcomes to your mind that you start to strain your memory, but that only works by you being able to say no to things and let things go. That can be *very* hard to do.
Now, if I were using one of Mark's no-list systems, I would say that I would probably use NL-FVP, with 5/2 in second place. 5/2 is just a good overall system, but the ordering requirements sometimes just don't quite feel right to me, and cause me to sometimes feel like I'm out of synch with the system. NL-FVP, on the other hand, is *really* good about highlighting your "big things" for a day, and helping to remind you constantly that you should be moving towards them. I like that. It also feels exceptionally natural to use. The only thing that is somewhat funky with that system is when I have nothing that I want to do before task X, but I am avoiding task X. I hit that often enough, and then I have to really sit there and "confront" myself and allow my mind to embrace things, which can sometimes take a surprising amount of time. But the fact that NL-FVP can get me there is one of the valuable parts of that method, IMO.
So, right now, I'm using Time Surfing, and if I weren't using that, I'd be highly tempted to use NL-FVP, FVP-NQ, or 5/2. But none of those systems work if you aren't willing to do the work to eliminate things or say no.
June 5, 2023 at 0:47 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron:
<<none of those systems work if you aren't willing>>
Publisher's should attach this to the front cover of every productivity book, in the form of a warning.
<<none of those systems work if you aren't willing>>
Publisher's should attach this to the front cover of every productivity book, in the form of a warning.
June 5, 2023 at 19:48 |
avrum
avrum
I've got Time Surfing on order from the library. Meanwhile it looks like NQ-FVP and NL-FVP are top contenders. The way this decision looks to me in terms of which to choose to be most effective, it's along the lines of Jeff Bezos' distinction between the two types of decisions: type 1 and 2. It's the distinction between one-way and two-way doors, whether a decision or its consequences can be reversed or not.
At this point, besides the main thing that defines effectiveness/impact for you, the 'other stuff' you're dealing with will determine which of these is better.
If your intuition says there are irreversible consequences lurking in your 'other stuff', NQ-FVP with a long list will ensure they're not lost.
If your intuition is comfortable that nothing ruinous is in danger of falling through the cracks, you can get a boost in effectiveness by using NL-FVP instead.
The latter is a messier but more effective approach. This absolutely highlights the importance and power of automating, outsourcing, and otherwise delegating any 'miscellaneous and ruinous'. In fact writing this I realize it would be probably worth every penny to share my phone's 'Inbox' note with a VA just to have them extract any potential landmines.
At this point, besides the main thing that defines effectiveness/impact for you, the 'other stuff' you're dealing with will determine which of these is better.
If your intuition says there are irreversible consequences lurking in your 'other stuff', NQ-FVP with a long list will ensure they're not lost.
If your intuition is comfortable that nothing ruinous is in danger of falling through the cracks, you can get a boost in effectiveness by using NL-FVP instead.
The latter is a messier but more effective approach. This absolutely highlights the importance and power of automating, outsourcing, and otherwise delegating any 'miscellaneous and ruinous'. In fact writing this I realize it would be probably worth every penny to share my phone's 'Inbox' note with a VA just to have them extract any potential landmines.
June 7, 2023 at 22:29 |
Sbubs
Sbubs
Mrs Move Forward:
<< One word - DIT, DIT, DIT >>
Your post about DIT is intriguing. Would you be happy tell us a little more about the expansions you've made to your system please? Apologies if you've already done so elsewhere and I've missed it.
<< One word - DIT, DIT, DIT >>
Your post about DIT is intriguing. Would you be happy tell us a little more about the expansions you've made to your system please? Apologies if you've already done so elsewhere and I've missed it.
June 13, 2023 at 11:05 |
Donald
Donald
Sbubs:
<<At this point, besides the main thing that defines effectiveness/impact for you, the 'other stuff' you're dealing with will determine which of these is better.
If your intuition says there are irreversible consequences lurking in your 'other stuff', NQ-FVP with a long list will ensure they're not lost.
If your intuition is comfortable that nothing ruinous is in danger of falling through the cracks, you can get a boost in effectiveness by using NL-FVP instead.>>
I think I'm going to claim something different.
What you're really aiming for is whatever system is going to allow you to come to the best understanding of your own state and allow you to not just know it (that is, know thyself), but also to come to terms with it.
<<At this point, besides the main thing that defines effectiveness/impact for you, the 'other stuff' you're dealing with will determine which of these is better.
If your intuition says there are irreversible consequences lurking in your 'other stuff', NQ-FVP with a long list will ensure they're not lost.
If your intuition is comfortable that nothing ruinous is in danger of falling through the cracks, you can get a boost in effectiveness by using NL-FVP instead.>>
I think I'm going to claim something different.
What you're really aiming for is whatever system is going to allow you to come to the best understanding of your own state and allow you to not just know it (that is, know thyself), but also to come to terms with it.
June 13, 2023 at 11:45 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron,
Could you clarify what you mean by coming to terms with your own state? Is this the bridge between understanding your most important thing and actually doing it?
Could you clarify what you mean by coming to terms with your own state? Is this the bridge between understanding your most important thing and actually doing it?
June 15, 2023 at 22:25 |
Sbubs
Sbubs
Sbubs:
What I mean by coming to terms with your own state is that you have to be able to confront your feelings, what you want to accomplish, and the limitations of your own capacity. The problem is usually people have an issue of not accepting something that they really know:
* Not accepting what they have actually committed to doing (GTD focuses on this)
* Not accepting how much time they have to do things (Pomodoro focuses on this)
* Not accepting how much time something takes to do (Kanban is good at this)
* Not accepting why you want or do not want to do something
* Not accepting your energy levels
* Not accepting that doing one thing means not doing something else
* Not accepting what you feel and what that means
* Not accepting that your feelings don't control you
* Not accepting the costs of a thing
It goes on and on, of course. I think most issues with time management can come down to a lack of clarity and acceptance around these things. For some people the cause of a lack of clarity is a lack of organization, for others it might be ambition or pride, for others fear, and so forth.
What I mean by coming to terms with your own state is that you have to be able to confront your feelings, what you want to accomplish, and the limitations of your own capacity. The problem is usually people have an issue of not accepting something that they really know:
* Not accepting what they have actually committed to doing (GTD focuses on this)
* Not accepting how much time they have to do things (Pomodoro focuses on this)
* Not accepting how much time something takes to do (Kanban is good at this)
* Not accepting why you want or do not want to do something
* Not accepting your energy levels
* Not accepting that doing one thing means not doing something else
* Not accepting what you feel and what that means
* Not accepting that your feelings don't control you
* Not accepting the costs of a thing
It goes on and on, of course. I think most issues with time management can come down to a lack of clarity and acceptance around these things. For some people the cause of a lack of clarity is a lack of organization, for others it might be ambition or pride, for others fear, and so forth.
June 16, 2023 at 7:07 |
Aaron Hsu
Aaron Hsu
Aaron,
Still thinking about this! Will continue to do so and would be thrilled to get Mark's take on this conversation as well.
The clarifying question of what what you're having the most trouble accepting and letting that guide what systems are in place - a good one. I wonder if some system can address all the ones you mentioned at once without having enough drag to be counter-productive.
Still thinking about this! Will continue to do so and would be thrilled to get Mark's take on this conversation as well.
The clarifying question of what what you're having the most trouble accepting and letting that guide what systems are in place - a good one. I wonder if some system can address all the ones you mentioned at once without having enough drag to be counter-productive.
June 28, 2023 at 16:40 |
Sbubs
Sbubs
I have always thought that the random method was by far the most motivating of all Mark's systems, for me. The problem is the pressure that builds up when deadlines approach, so I usually went away from it in favour of simple scanning or FVP or even, lately, time surfing. However, in recent days I went back to random just for fun and I got more done in several hours of using random than I had the entire previous week! I think for me I probably struggle with procrastination more than I usually admit, but with random there was tons of stuff I go knocked off my list and feel great about it. Stuff I probably wouldn't have touched with any other method (like clearing a huge pile of cardboard boxes that I thought would take days - 45 minutes). Also, with the random method I feel a boost in confidence because more things get "handled," (i.e. little and often) so I have a much clearer sense of what my work is.
July 2, 2023 at 0:14 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil:
Yes, the random method has always been one of my favourites too. The main problem with is that it's not good with time-sensitive tasks. But it's relatively easy to work around that.
Inspired by your post, I started using it this morning. In less than half-an-hour I've done ten tasks, and writing this will be my eleventh!
Yes, the random method has always been one of my favourites too. The main problem with is that it's not good with time-sensitive tasks. But it's relatively easy to work around that.
Inspired by your post, I started using it this morning. In less than half-an-hour I've done ten tasks, and writing this will be my eleventh!
July 2, 2023 at 8:44 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
„The main problem with is that it's not good with time-sensitive tasks. But it's relatively easy to work around that.“
Could you please share your most recent way of managing this problem? I would like to give random method a try.
Could you please share your most recent way of managing this problem? I would like to give random method a try.
July 2, 2023 at 19:51 |
Laby
Laby
Enjoying this conversation. I have had similar success with singular goals and randomization. I have also had success with:
time blocking (writing for 2 hours in the morning)
accountability (Zoom focus sessions)
scheduling the whole day when I have time pressure
theme days (e.g., finance tasks on Thursdays)
What I am seeking now is an approach that balances my desire to know when I’m going to get things done (an advantage of DIT and a weekly schedule) with my desire for novelty. As soon as I schedule my tasks, I’m bored and resistant.
I’m wondering if I could marry my time blocking/theme days/schedule with a randomizer (built in to Amazing Marvin) with Avrum’s 3 strikes (the anti-procrastination strategy marks incomplete scheduled tasks with a ! each day). I could also mark them with a / as Avrum suggests if skipped when the randomizer selects them. Once I process everything on the day’s list, I would allow myself the reward task. This presupposes that the previous day’s tasks are rolled over. Tasks skipped for 3 days could go to the back burner—a separate list that I rarely remember to check.
This approach may solve another problem with schedules I have—no reward for working quickly. I won’t be able to give this a proper test until the week of the 10th, but I’ll put it on my list to report back.
time blocking (writing for 2 hours in the morning)
accountability (Zoom focus sessions)
scheduling the whole day when I have time pressure
theme days (e.g., finance tasks on Thursdays)
What I am seeking now is an approach that balances my desire to know when I’m going to get things done (an advantage of DIT and a weekly schedule) with my desire for novelty. As soon as I schedule my tasks, I’m bored and resistant.
I’m wondering if I could marry my time blocking/theme days/schedule with a randomizer (built in to Amazing Marvin) with Avrum’s 3 strikes (the anti-procrastination strategy marks incomplete scheduled tasks with a ! each day). I could also mark them with a / as Avrum suggests if skipped when the randomizer selects them. Once I process everything on the day’s list, I would allow myself the reward task. This presupposes that the previous day’s tasks are rolled over. Tasks skipped for 3 days could go to the back burner—a separate list that I rarely remember to check.
This approach may solve another problem with schedules I have—no reward for working quickly. I won’t be able to give this a proper test until the week of the 10th, but I’ll put it on my list to report back.
July 2, 2023 at 21:34 |
Melanie Wilson
Melanie Wilson
Melanie Wilson... THE Melanie Wilson. Wow - it's been a while, huh?
I'm no longer using the 3 strike system. Similar to your observation:
<<As soon as I schedule my tasks, I’m bored and resistant. >>
I find the same happens to me with self imposed rules. However...
I'm partial to a sexy tool, and have found success combining a tool with a workflow that allows me to use the cool tool. For the past few weeks, here's what I've been doing:
I purchased an nice pen, and international pocket briefcase (for index cards):
https://www.levenger.com/collections/all/products/international-pocket-briefcase?variant=42555245166741
Every evening, I create two index cards:
1. A "catch all" long-list of things I want to do, wish to do. I rewrite this list every single night. Very important to weed out done tasks, stale tasks and keep current tasks fresh in my mind
2. A blank index card goes in my Levenger briefcase. I update this card all day with things I'm going to do, things I've done and things I need to do. It's like a mini portable whiteboard that is always by my side.
At the end of the day, I turn the #2 index card into a daily narrative. I do this by using Apple's dictate feature, and speak about my day into Mac's Pages. A couple of month's ago, I posted this, and how I print my journals at the end of the year. Any tasks not actioned get transferred to my fresh "catch all" index card.
So far, this analog approach to tasks/projects has provided me with much needed relief from my digital toys. My journal is digital (Pages, Mac), so all of my projects are searchable, etc.
I'm no longer using the 3 strike system. Similar to your observation:
<<As soon as I schedule my tasks, I’m bored and resistant. >>
I find the same happens to me with self imposed rules. However...
I'm partial to a sexy tool, and have found success combining a tool with a workflow that allows me to use the cool tool. For the past few weeks, here's what I've been doing:
I purchased an nice pen, and international pocket briefcase (for index cards):
https://www.levenger.com/collections/all/products/international-pocket-briefcase?variant=42555245166741
Every evening, I create two index cards:
1. A "catch all" long-list of things I want to do, wish to do. I rewrite this list every single night. Very important to weed out done tasks, stale tasks and keep current tasks fresh in my mind
2. A blank index card goes in my Levenger briefcase. I update this card all day with things I'm going to do, things I've done and things I need to do. It's like a mini portable whiteboard that is always by my side.
At the end of the day, I turn the #2 index card into a daily narrative. I do this by using Apple's dictate feature, and speak about my day into Mac's Pages. A couple of month's ago, I posted this, and how I print my journals at the end of the year. Any tasks not actioned get transferred to my fresh "catch all" index card.
So far, this analog approach to tasks/projects has provided me with much needed relief from my digital toys. My journal is digital (Pages, Mac), so all of my projects are searchable, etc.
July 2, 2023 at 23:41 |
avrum
avrum
Although I'm hesitant to experiment with a system that works so well (well, not really, I do that way too often!), I'm trying random without the "slide." When I went back to random, I rewrote my list, it was about maybe 4 pages of tasks, with none of them crossed off. When I started the random method with this fresh list, I was pleasantly surprised by how quickly I got to the end of the list. So I wondered if the slide was actually creating drag on the list. I know that the slide was designed to favour the older tasks, but I'm wondering what happens if I just did straight random by only counting tasks that are unfinished and ignoring tasks that are crossed off. Here goes.
July 3, 2023 at 12:00 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
<< I'm trying random without the "slide." >>
Your method would work fine on a closed list, where the number of tasks is reducing as you do them. But I assume that you are adding/re-entering new tasks at about the same speed that you are doing them, so that the total number of tasks remains about the same.
The slide wasn't designed to favour older tasks. It was designed to ensure that *every* task gets its chance within a reasonable period of time.
Four pages of tasks? Lets say 25 tasks per page. That's 100 tasks. Try this experiment with your randomizer:
1. Write out the numbers 1-5. See how many "throws" of the randomizer it takes to come up with each of the five numbers. I've just done it and it took me 14 throws.
2. Try the same exercise with the numbers 1-10. It took me 23 throws.
3. With 20 numbers it took me 80 throws to throw all the numbers. One number had come up 9 times before I'd thrown every other one.
4. If you've got a few hours to spare, you might try it with 100 tasks.
Now the point is that if I'd used the "slide" the number of throws would have exactly equalled 5, 10, 20 and 100 respectively.
The moral of this exercise is that if you don't use the slide, some tasks will get done multiple times while some languish for ages and ages.
<< I'm trying random without the "slide." >>
Your method would work fine on a closed list, where the number of tasks is reducing as you do them. But I assume that you are adding/re-entering new tasks at about the same speed that you are doing them, so that the total number of tasks remains about the same.
The slide wasn't designed to favour older tasks. It was designed to ensure that *every* task gets its chance within a reasonable period of time.
Four pages of tasks? Lets say 25 tasks per page. That's 100 tasks. Try this experiment with your randomizer:
1. Write out the numbers 1-5. See how many "throws" of the randomizer it takes to come up with each of the five numbers. I've just done it and it took me 14 throws.
2. Try the same exercise with the numbers 1-10. It took me 23 throws.
3. With 20 numbers it took me 80 throws to throw all the numbers. One number had come up 9 times before I'd thrown every other one.
4. If you've got a few hours to spare, you might try it with 100 tasks.
Now the point is that if I'd used the "slide" the number of throws would have exactly equalled 5, 10, 20 and 100 respectively.
The moral of this exercise is that if you don't use the slide, some tasks will get done multiple times while some languish for ages and ages.
July 3, 2023 at 13:05 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Wow, that was enlightening. I ran the experiment like this: I did two experiments, with and without the slide. For both experiments, I used numbers 1-20 with the randomizer set between 1 and 20 inclusive. For each experiment, no tasks were completed, they were all re-entered, which is not exactly how it works in real life, but with little and often, lots of tasks get reentered. Both experiments were stopped once the original 20 items were re-entered. Here are the results:
Experiment 1, with slide:
32 hits (rolls, whatever) before all 20 original tasks were selected
12 tasks selected once
5 tasks selected twice
3 tasks selected 3 times
A fairly even spread.
Experiment 2, no slide, what a disaster.
96 rolls before all 20 original tasks were selected
4 tasks selected once
2 tasks selected twice
2 tasks selected 9 times
1 task selected 10 times.
the rest were somewhere in between.
That was a wild ride. What it showed me was that random is potentially disastrous without the slide. The chance of hitting my last number seemed less and less as the list grew longer (because of the re-entering). It was so incredibly unbalanced. The slide produced a nice even flow, and everything got hit a third of the time. And my slide experiment didn't include the rule about the end of the page (although t didn't seem to come up in the first experiment), probably because with a short list (20) it just never had the chance to be a factor.
So thank you for pointing this out, back to the slide!
Experiment 1, with slide:
32 hits (rolls, whatever) before all 20 original tasks were selected
12 tasks selected once
5 tasks selected twice
3 tasks selected 3 times
A fairly even spread.
Experiment 2, no slide, what a disaster.
96 rolls before all 20 original tasks were selected
4 tasks selected once
2 tasks selected twice
2 tasks selected 9 times
1 task selected 10 times.
the rest were somewhere in between.
That was a wild ride. What it showed me was that random is potentially disastrous without the slide. The chance of hitting my last number seemed less and less as the list grew longer (because of the re-entering). It was so incredibly unbalanced. The slide produced a nice even flow, and everything got hit a third of the time. And my slide experiment didn't include the rule about the end of the page (although t didn't seem to come up in the first experiment), probably because with a short list (20) it just never had the chance to be a factor.
So thank you for pointing this out, back to the slide!
July 3, 2023 at 16:57 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Avrum, good to hear from you! Interesting hybrid approach. I think rewriting tasks is a good practice for sure, and there is something about a short paper list that makes it feel doable. Is your wife done using 3 strikes also?
Mark, very interesting math application here. I like experimenting with the randomizer in Amazing Marvin. There is no slide feature, of course, but I am wondering if I could have the randomizer choose from procrastinated tasks (those with !). I pray you are in good health.
Mark, very interesting math application here. I like experimenting with the randomizer in Amazing Marvin. There is no slide feature, of course, but I am wondering if I could have the randomizer choose from procrastinated tasks (those with !). I pray you are in good health.
July 3, 2023 at 17:34 |
Melanie Wilson
Melanie Wilson
Sbubs:
If I had to pick one, it would be Dream's GAM!
Like some other posters I want to say that my experience has shown me that it's less about the system. If you work the system and the thing is at least good enough and not some unworkable mess, then the system will do it's part and that's that.
In the SOPP book, MF defines the TMS as a low-level system which purpose is to support the high-level systems and get those going.
This is turn facilitates "consistent, regular, focused attention" which is according to that book (and IMO and others…) the key to success.
Having said all that, Dream's "pull-mode" is a wonder of its own. Its the strongest way I ever felt a TMS influencing me directly. And yes, that was in regards to high-level most-important goals, somehow pull-mode let me just leave many obstacles and less important tasks at the side – in a good way!
If I had to pick one, it would be Dream's GAM!
Like some other posters I want to say that my experience has shown me that it's less about the system. If you work the system and the thing is at least good enough and not some unworkable mess, then the system will do it's part and that's that.
In the SOPP book, MF defines the TMS as a low-level system which purpose is to support the high-level systems and get those going.
This is turn facilitates "consistent, regular, focused attention" which is according to that book (and IMO and others…) the key to success.
Having said all that, Dream's "pull-mode" is a wonder of its own. Its the strongest way I ever felt a TMS influencing me directly. And yes, that was in regards to high-level most-important goals, somehow pull-mode let me just leave many obstacles and less important tasks at the side – in a good way!
July 27, 2023 at 22:17 |
Christopher
Christopher
Christopher,
Interesting! I can't find Dream's GAM anywhere would you mind sharing a link? I'm always interested in trying new TMS.
Hsu's idea of TMS as a tool to overcome a lack of acceptance is still something I"m chewing on from above. Many many successful people just getting out there and 'doing' while many overoptimize for fun. That's what I hope this thread is hoping to prevent!
Interesting! I can't find Dream's GAM anywhere would you mind sharing a link? I'm always interested in trying new TMS.
Hsu's idea of TMS as a tool to overcome a lack of acceptance is still something I"m chewing on from above. Many many successful people just getting out there and 'doing' while many overoptimize for fun. That's what I hope this thread is hoping to prevent!
July 28, 2023 at 19:48 |
Sbubs
Sbubs
Yeah, to implement the GAM == goals achievement method, you'd have to read the Dreams book and do the exercises in there. It's essentially a workbook.
You can download it fro free here:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/2/how-to-make-your-dreams-come-true.html
You can download it fro free here:
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/2/how-to-make-your-dreams-come-true.html
July 28, 2023 at 21:00 |
Christopher
Christopher
A set of rules (i.e. a system) is not sufficient to be effective. I find you have to have a proper mindset to make right decisions, and a firm situation to maintain this mindset. There is a meta layer of seeking to operate better which is not guided by rules, but guided by a sense of how well things are going and applied to adjust the rules and practice to improve things. This is what will keep you effective, and the rules are tools to make aspects of this easier. The rules change.
August 8, 2023 at 21:47 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Ok, so here's where I'm at now. I was using random again; it's a fantastic system for knocking out procrastination. However, I had the same problem as the last time I used it: too many looming deadlines. Also, I had to leave the random system for long periods to "catch up," which is fine, except I was neglecting older tasks. So I switched back to FVP, and I loved the increased control over my tasks, especially the newer and more urgent tasks, but again, the older tasks languished for too long. So... I am now using simple scanning (for about the past week), and I must agree with some of the earlier posts that, so far, it is the best system for me and may well be the best system of all of them. We'll see what kind of trouble it will give me down the road, knowing that there is no perfect system, but I do feel much more in control of all of my work, even the older stuff. I don't think I ever gave simple scanning a good enough try - this is the longest I've used it. But it seems to be such an elegant system. One more point: I think the best system I used was Time Surfing, but the problem was my fear of missing something important (because there is no list). As Mark had said once before, "intuition" is not some magical, mystical thing; it's a response to or is fed by (I forget how he worded it) what we are aware of consciously or perhaps even unconsciously. Simple scanning comes closest to time surfing in terms of the flexibility of following my intuition about what to do next. It also "populates" my awareness without overburdening it (I have about 90 tasks on my list at any one time). I feel that as systems become increasingly complex, the more they interfere with intuition. Maybe the large list size doesn't matter as much as the complexity of the system used.
August 22, 2023 at 17:12 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Paul - here's why I hate/love this site. So I'm going about my day, doing what I do, and then I read your post. I think:
"Maybe I should give Simple Scanning another shot."
So I read the rules, inspiration hits, and I think:
"I need to find my pen and journal and restart Simple Scanning"
And now I'm here... again.
But here's where I've always fallen off the AF/SS and other long list wagon. I've never found a practical way to work from a list-based system, and for how long. For example: Paul, do you wake up in the morning, and start scanning your list? Do you include "brush teeth" on your list, or no? If "no" how do you discern between the regular/mundane tasks that need to be added to your SS list i.e. email, vs "brush teeth". Why does one get added, and one does not? And if you don't work from the list all day - when do you decide to work FROM the list, and AWAY from the list?
Very curious to hear your (or other) answers.
"Maybe I should give Simple Scanning another shot."
So I read the rules, inspiration hits, and I think:
"I need to find my pen and journal and restart Simple Scanning"
And now I'm here... again.
But here's where I've always fallen off the AF/SS and other long list wagon. I've never found a practical way to work from a list-based system, and for how long. For example: Paul, do you wake up in the morning, and start scanning your list? Do you include "brush teeth" on your list, or no? If "no" how do you discern between the regular/mundane tasks that need to be added to your SS list i.e. email, vs "brush teeth". Why does one get added, and one does not? And if you don't work from the list all day - when do you decide to work FROM the list, and AWAY from the list?
Very curious to hear your (or other) answers.
August 22, 2023 at 19:44 |
avrum
avrum
Avrum,
I have been writing "brush teeth" every day, and kept it up for months.
I had been writing and rewriting my daily routine items. I counted 50 of them. So I decided to make a daily checklist instead, and kept it up for about 15 days, but then forgot to look at the list.
I lately have been brushing my teeth without looking at a list, however, there have been times I couldn't remember, and either neglected it or did it twice.
Your questions are a good case for doing something like Simple Scanning, where there is a great deal of freedom on what's on the list and how it is maintained.
I can go for a long time, maybe several weeks, working a long list, which I mean that it was what I was working from. I feel very productive.
However, I can't maintain it indefinitely. It is too rigid for long-term. Also I need to have a still and quiet mind and in good health to maintain the focus. If I become sick or underpar, or get mentally absorbed or distracted, it gets more difficult.
I use a composition book, and basically write free form, and mix my notes with my tasks. Sometimes I write without referring back, which can cause duplicates.
If the question is whether to have a list or no list, and the decision is to have a list, perhaps the best way to keep it going long-term is to set limits. Have some time when the list is not followed, have some interests that do not use a list.
I have tried workarounds for all of your questions. Some work for a while. There is no perfect list system.
I have been writing "brush teeth" every day, and kept it up for months.
I had been writing and rewriting my daily routine items. I counted 50 of them. So I decided to make a daily checklist instead, and kept it up for about 15 days, but then forgot to look at the list.
I lately have been brushing my teeth without looking at a list, however, there have been times I couldn't remember, and either neglected it or did it twice.
Your questions are a good case for doing something like Simple Scanning, where there is a great deal of freedom on what's on the list and how it is maintained.
I can go for a long time, maybe several weeks, working a long list, which I mean that it was what I was working from. I feel very productive.
However, I can't maintain it indefinitely. It is too rigid for long-term. Also I need to have a still and quiet mind and in good health to maintain the focus. If I become sick or underpar, or get mentally absorbed or distracted, it gets more difficult.
I use a composition book, and basically write free form, and mix my notes with my tasks. Sometimes I write without referring back, which can cause duplicates.
If the question is whether to have a list or no list, and the decision is to have a list, perhaps the best way to keep it going long-term is to set limits. Have some time when the list is not followed, have some interests that do not use a list.
I have tried workarounds for all of your questions. Some work for a while. There is no perfect list system.
August 22, 2023 at 22:30 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
It could be that just an arbitrary limit would be enough. This type of task is on the list, this type is note.
If one list is too big, then have more than one list, or have a list for each one of different activities.
But one can have too many lists.
I think if I am tiring of my lists, I think I should to listen that, and make some sort of a change. Probably cut back on using lists.
This is where a time managment system might not have the flexibility to deal with psychological seasons of life that ebb and flow.
If one list is too big, then have more than one list, or have a list for each one of different activities.
But one can have too many lists.
I think if I am tiring of my lists, I think I should to listen that, and make some sort of a change. Probably cut back on using lists.
This is where a time managment system might not have the flexibility to deal with psychological seasons of life that ebb and flow.
August 22, 2023 at 22:40 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
I've had good results in the past with a daily checklist as well. Especially have a section for morning routine. Generally speaking, anything on the checklist means "spend at least 1 minute on it" (or something of similar effort). In reality you end up being motivated to reset things back to a good state for the day before moving on, or leave things where you can continue them the next day.
It started one day with the most obvious task that I wasn't keeping up with: take out the trash. I started with a handwritten list since I was starting with scratch, and then made a simple text file from that and printed it out each morning. The first task each day was to make any needed edits (as noted on the previous day's list) then save and print it.
I've been thinking about it lately and I need to get back to doing that, and I think it might help to also have a weekly or bi-weekly list, and a monthly list, etc. to supplement it.
It started one day with the most obvious task that I wasn't keeping up with: take out the trash. I started with a handwritten list since I was starting with scratch, and then made a simple text file from that and printed it out each morning. The first task each day was to make any needed edits (as noted on the previous day's list) then save and print it.
I've been thinking about it lately and I need to get back to doing that, and I think it might help to also have a weekly or bi-weekly list, and a monthly list, etc. to supplement it.
August 22, 2023 at 22:47 |
Don R
Don R
I should also note that you can mindfully skip items in the checklist if it's not applicable or just impractical to work on that day by putting "N" (for "no" or "n/a") next to it. Or cross it off, but for some reason I want to show that I didn't work on it, vs crossing it out for things I actually did. Not sure it matters.
August 22, 2023 at 22:50 |
Don R
Don R
One thing I thought of - that with eating there is feast days and fast days, intermittent fasting and mealtimes. That can be applied to lists. One could have days with no lists or reduce it to only when necessary, perhaps days off from work. A sabbath rest from a list. Or certain times of the day, when you work the list, and other times of the day not looking at a list.
I find it useful at times to work from the list from the beginning to the end, perhaps spending a block of time on this. One could a day of maximalism use of the list.
I find it useful at times to work from the list from the beginning to the end, perhaps spending a block of time on this. One could a day of maximalism use of the list.
August 22, 2023 at 23:29 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
I've never used a daily list, at least not since my Franklin Covey days or pure GTD (before I discovered Mark's systems.) I list all my routine items on one list, including feeding my cats, showering, daily meditation, etc. I feel very comfortable just putting anything and everything on it so far. My relatively lengthy experience with the time surfing method has helped me. Time surfing relies only on intuition with no list at all. I used it for several months, but some things were missed, especially things that came in quickly or all at once that I didn't get a chance to note in a reminder system. Still, I think it helped me learn how to listen to my gut more effectively; simple scanning seems to balance pure intuition and rationality. And it's great at reminders.
August 23, 2023 at 0:54 |
Paul MacNeil
Paul MacNeil
Spent a few minutes with SS... and remembered why I long lists don't work for me.
Still, I enjoyed reading your original post, and response, Paul.
Still, I enjoyed reading your original post, and response, Paul.
August 23, 2023 at 1:07 |
avrum
avrum
Paul Macneil
Going back to the subject of random methods, "Random Halving" is even faster at getting stuff done within a timeframe than "Randomizer".
It is however a bit more fiddly because you have to change the number of tasks each throw.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2021/8/24/a-new-random-method.html
Going back to the subject of random methods, "Random Halving" is even faster at getting stuff done within a timeframe than "Randomizer".
It is however a bit more fiddly because you have to change the number of tasks each throw.
http://markforster.squarespace.com/blog/2021/8/24/a-new-random-method.html
August 23, 2023 at 11:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Don R -
One thing you might consider is using a sheet protector and a dry erase marker for checklists. This allows repeated reuse of a single print-out.
You can also use 'magazine-sized' bags and boards (for preserving magazines). Just tape the bag shut with the checklist inside. This has the advantage of not needing anything else, since the board is hefty enough to write on.
When your checklist changes, print out a new copy and slide it into the sheet protector.
One thing you might consider is using a sheet protector and a dry erase marker for checklists. This allows repeated reuse of a single print-out.
You can also use 'magazine-sized' bags and boards (for preserving magazines). Just tape the bag shut with the checklist inside. This has the advantage of not needing anything else, since the board is hefty enough to write on.
When your checklist changes, print out a new copy and slide it into the sheet protector.
August 23, 2023 at 14:41 |
Daniel M
Daniel M
I'm using my intuition more to pick the tool/system I want to use, and then secondarily to select the tasks.
Urgent or important tasks insist on their being done, so I don't often write those down unless they're exceptional or I put them on the calendar.
Routine tasks I also don't bother writing down. I'm also trusting more that my managerial mind will prompt my intuition (or vice versa) to let me know when to get to something or to write something down.
So, on letting my intuition pick a tool/system...I have stopped looking for the perfect list-processing system. They all have pros/cons. I've used and enjoyed them all. But there are busy days where it seems everything is happening at once, and so what I do is a variation of Cal Newport's planning system, where I make a rough schedule on the left side of the page and block out everything I need to do, every place I need to be. The right side of the page is a no-list of everything on my mind. Throughout the day, I update the schedule with recording my actual work, marking off tasks, etc.
But today, the decks really are clear. Nothing urgent, no fires. This is the kind of day I dread because I know I can spiral out of control watching Youtube or moving all my desktop icons one pixel to the right, or whatever. (Maybe I'm not really busy enough to need all these time management systems? Discuss!)
My intuition tells me that I benefit from a day like this when my mind is mostly in neutral and I'm feeling light-hearted -- it's a good day for long-term planning. But I do need to still record billable work. So I make a schedule on the left side of the page and block out time for doing task processing, planning, lunch, etc. Then I go to my composition notebook where I have a page of $dayjob tasks I've collected from emails, past no-lists, etc. I let my intuition tell me whether to use simple scanning or FVP or randomizer (usually the latter on a day like this), set a timer, and simply get started on something. As I think of things, I'll write them down on the right side of the schedule page as a no-list or in the notebook, doesn't really matter.
I have lots of little tools and systems and habits-of-mind I've collected from Mark and forum members that work for me (for example, the Current Initiative is a power tool I pull out when needed but not something I use daily).
In short, I let my intuition reassure me that we're both doing ok and that we have the tools we need to take care of what needs doing when it needs to be done. My life is getting too short to worry about clearing these damn lists.
Urgent or important tasks insist on their being done, so I don't often write those down unless they're exceptional or I put them on the calendar.
Routine tasks I also don't bother writing down. I'm also trusting more that my managerial mind will prompt my intuition (or vice versa) to let me know when to get to something or to write something down.
So, on letting my intuition pick a tool/system...I have stopped looking for the perfect list-processing system. They all have pros/cons. I've used and enjoyed them all. But there are busy days where it seems everything is happening at once, and so what I do is a variation of Cal Newport's planning system, where I make a rough schedule on the left side of the page and block out everything I need to do, every place I need to be. The right side of the page is a no-list of everything on my mind. Throughout the day, I update the schedule with recording my actual work, marking off tasks, etc.
But today, the decks really are clear. Nothing urgent, no fires. This is the kind of day I dread because I know I can spiral out of control watching Youtube or moving all my desktop icons one pixel to the right, or whatever. (Maybe I'm not really busy enough to need all these time management systems? Discuss!)
My intuition tells me that I benefit from a day like this when my mind is mostly in neutral and I'm feeling light-hearted -- it's a good day for long-term planning. But I do need to still record billable work. So I make a schedule on the left side of the page and block out time for doing task processing, planning, lunch, etc. Then I go to my composition notebook where I have a page of $dayjob tasks I've collected from emails, past no-lists, etc. I let my intuition tell me whether to use simple scanning or FVP or randomizer (usually the latter on a day like this), set a timer, and simply get started on something. As I think of things, I'll write them down on the right side of the schedule page as a no-list or in the notebook, doesn't really matter.
I have lots of little tools and systems and habits-of-mind I've collected from Mark and forum members that work for me (for example, the Current Initiative is a power tool I pull out when needed but not something I use daily).
In short, I let my intuition reassure me that we're both doing ok and that we have the tools we need to take care of what needs doing when it needs to be done. My life is getting too short to worry about clearing these damn lists.
August 23, 2023 at 16:42 |
Mike Brown
Mike Brown
One factor is how much brain power one has available on a given day. Some days I am more alert mentally than others and able to focus. Today was one of those days and I was able to go for several hours working with a long list. But eventually I got fatigue and stopped. It takes time to develop a long list so once you have one it pays to keep it going. However other days I just don't feel like doing that and I might just write each next task down. Or do some version of a no-list. Or not look at a list at all. I think it also depends on how list-making you're doing besides. Or writing or typing. If your mental mode of time management is similar to your predominant mental mode when working or in leisure one might tire sooner. There's a philosophy that in leisure one I should use different parts of oneself than in one's work.
August 24, 2023 at 2:23 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
I might want to go back to having a daily checklist. Perhaps, answering Avrum, one could have items under 2 minutes. Brushing teeth takes two minutes, so that could go on a daily checklist, but answering email (at least for me) takes longer, so perhaps that can go on a long list.
Also, it might be good to separate the notes from the tasks, and separate the catch-all list from items that are ready to do, or started.
I am still, a la Autofocus, using a catch-all list as the basis of a long list. However, it seems like others, including Mark Forster, use items that are going to be done soon. I am not sure then where people park the items before they are ready to be done.
I am mostly writing in chronological, free flow order which is easy on the entry stage, but takes longer later on, in processing and reviewing and weeding.
Also, it might be good to separate the notes from the tasks, and separate the catch-all list from items that are ready to do, or started.
I am still, a la Autofocus, using a catch-all list as the basis of a long list. However, it seems like others, including Mark Forster, use items that are going to be done soon. I am not sure then where people park the items before they are ready to be done.
I am mostly writing in chronological, free flow order which is easy on the entry stage, but takes longer later on, in processing and reviewing and weeding.
August 24, 2023 at 3:19 |
Mark H.
Mark H.
Daniel M -
That’s an interesting idea. Coincidentally I was just re-bagging and -boarding some old (1991) comics into new protective bags and boards last night. I never thought of using them for that type of thing. Like you said they come in larger size for magazines as well.
That’s an interesting idea. Coincidentally I was just re-bagging and -boarding some old (1991) comics into new protective bags and boards last night. I never thought of using them for that type of thing. Like you said they come in larger size for magazines as well.
August 24, 2023 at 3:21 |
Don R
Don R
I often wonder what inner need drives me back to this site and Mark's methods. By any measure, things are going very well in my life (thank God). I guess there's a little itch... a recurring thought that things could be better. More efficient... more creative... more effective.
A wiser part of me knows two things:
1. Any system works some of the time, not all of the time, and that's ok.
2. Chronic anxiety - existential, relationships, financial, etc - is very uncomfortable for human beings. It's during these times that we seek out quick solutions. Productivity books/systems can temporarily provide relief from some of this.
Maybe I just like talking to productivity nerds ;)
A wiser part of me knows two things:
1. Any system works some of the time, not all of the time, and that's ok.
2. Chronic anxiety - existential, relationships, financial, etc - is very uncomfortable for human beings. It's during these times that we seek out quick solutions. Productivity books/systems can temporarily provide relief from some of this.
Maybe I just like talking to productivity nerds ;)
August 24, 2023 at 13:51 |
avrum
avrum
@avrum
It might be the fantasy that you can control life that brings you back. I found Oliver Burkeman a good antidote to the desire to take productivity too far. Perhaps also Alain de Boton.
It might be the fantasy that you can control life that brings you back. I found Oliver Burkeman a good antidote to the desire to take productivity too far. Perhaps also Alain de Boton.
October 26, 2023 at 15:49 |
michael
michael
avrum:
<< Maybe I just like talking to productivity nerds >>
Yeah, there's that. Especially the particular group that hangs out here. :)
We live near a Greek Orthodox monastery whose basic routine of life is essentially the same as it has been in coenobitic Christian monasteries for 1800+ years, since the era of Saint Chariton and Saint Pachomius. It's always been fascinating to me to compare/contrast the monks' "time management" to all these different modern time management systems, and to see what I can glean from their methods that apply to my world of email, IMs, meetings, management issues, data analysis, product development, business strategy, options markets, doctor appointments, and children, grandchildren, and animals. It's also interesting because many of the monks, for all their core of ancient disciplined routines and all-night vigils, also do a lot of hard and overwhelming physical and knowledge work, publishing and translating on the computer, construction and IT work, managing modern construction techniques and solar power operations, charitable community work, etc. Some of them use reminder and task-tracking apps on their smart phones, etc. But their core still remains unchanged and very focused. They don't let anything interfere with those precious quiet hours of intense midnight prayer vigil when they are praying hard for the whole world.
It makes me wonder -- what is my core? How do I establish it, in the face of all the demands of the modern world, the need for an income, to support and raise a family, to deal with health issues, etc.
It's a struggle, and we all engage with it in one way or another.
I think a lot of us are drawn to time management systems because it's more natural for some personality types to rely on things like this, where others don't need them as much, and are perfectly fine with a basic schedule, a strong intuitive sense of what needs to be done, and an occasional to-do list. Actually I find those people a lot more baffling than I find the draw to TM systems hahaha. I want to know their secret.
<< Maybe I just like talking to productivity nerds >>
Yeah, there's that. Especially the particular group that hangs out here. :)
We live near a Greek Orthodox monastery whose basic routine of life is essentially the same as it has been in coenobitic Christian monasteries for 1800+ years, since the era of Saint Chariton and Saint Pachomius. It's always been fascinating to me to compare/contrast the monks' "time management" to all these different modern time management systems, and to see what I can glean from their methods that apply to my world of email, IMs, meetings, management issues, data analysis, product development, business strategy, options markets, doctor appointments, and children, grandchildren, and animals. It's also interesting because many of the monks, for all their core of ancient disciplined routines and all-night vigils, also do a lot of hard and overwhelming physical and knowledge work, publishing and translating on the computer, construction and IT work, managing modern construction techniques and solar power operations, charitable community work, etc. Some of them use reminder and task-tracking apps on their smart phones, etc. But their core still remains unchanged and very focused. They don't let anything interfere with those precious quiet hours of intense midnight prayer vigil when they are praying hard for the whole world.
It makes me wonder -- what is my core? How do I establish it, in the face of all the demands of the modern world, the need for an income, to support and raise a family, to deal with health issues, etc.
It's a struggle, and we all engage with it in one way or another.
I think a lot of us are drawn to time management systems because it's more natural for some personality types to rely on things like this, where others don't need them as much, and are perfectly fine with a basic schedule, a strong intuitive sense of what needs to be done, and an occasional to-do list. Actually I find those people a lot more baffling than I find the draw to TM systems hahaha. I want to know their secret.
October 27, 2023 at 6:32 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
michael -
Thanks for mentioning Oliver Burkeman and Alain de Boton! I had a very interesting conversation with ChatGPT about them and their works.
Thanks for mentioning Oliver Burkeman and Alain de Boton! I had a very interesting conversation with ChatGPT about them and their works.
October 27, 2023 at 6:33 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
I just wanted to say I'm delighted this question has brought up months of very fruitful discussion. The perspectives here are unique and insightful!
People are simply different in many ways - we can have the same goals, but if we all pursued them in the same way it just wouldn't work! Which would be a disservice to the goal itself.
Frameworks and simplicity, principles in short, can help bring these different approaches together. I keep reflecting on the question of what one is refusing to accept as a central idea. And having a purpose-driven approach. Loving this.
People are simply different in many ways - we can have the same goals, but if we all pursued them in the same way it just wouldn't work! Which would be a disservice to the goal itself.
Frameworks and simplicity, principles in short, can help bring these different approaches together. I keep reflecting on the question of what one is refusing to accept as a central idea. And having a purpose-driven approach. Loving this.
October 29, 2023 at 19:25 |
Sbubs
Sbubs
Seraphim:
<<It makes me wonder -- what is my core? How do I establish it, in the face of all the demands of the modern world, the need for an income, to support and raise a family, to deal with health issues, etc.>>
The monks' core you told me were the scheduled prayers and rituals. I think that can be the same for you. I've identified three for myself, none of which I've been totally consistent at but generally I find useful: Rising, Finished Work, and Bedtime. Certain things I would do at these set times. I also suggest for you Family Mealtime, which if it's not a thing now could be hard to establish but is worth it.
<<It makes me wonder -- what is my core? How do I establish it, in the face of all the demands of the modern world, the need for an income, to support and raise a family, to deal with health issues, etc.>>
The monks' core you told me were the scheduled prayers and rituals. I think that can be the same for you. I've identified three for myself, none of which I've been totally consistent at but generally I find useful: Rising, Finished Work, and Bedtime. Certain things I would do at these set times. I also suggest for you Family Mealtime, which if it's not a thing now could be hard to establish but is worth it.
October 30, 2023 at 18:14 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I've been using Mark's systems forever, but can never quite settle into one.
I wanted to ask: what is your most effective system? I don't mean the one you like, or the one with the least resistance. I mean which one gave you the most rapid progress towards your biggest Someday/2-3-5-Year Goal, your Purpose, etc.