Re: Re[4]: OT sidetracked sisters

Hi Brenda

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Brenda <[email protected]> wrote:

 I forgot about the clothing without pockets thing. (More important to women
> because they are more likely to have clothes that don't have pockets.)


I remember their disgust with woman's clothing designers ;-)


> I just read the book. It says that one of them was working for a place that
> did ads. Some advertisers put in ads at 1 week or 2 weeks etc.. so the card
> file was set up so that the advertiser could be called at the appropriate
> time. The system was already in place at the workplace when she arrived.


Makes sense.  A lot of companies that have fixed workflow and lots of
deadlines have progress boards and that sort of thing.


>  >  In AF proper,
> > there is no review or planning or goals (Mark seems to be anti-planning
> for
> > some oddly bizarre reason   but I don't see AF as a stand alone thing ...
> > I use it in conjunction with a calender and planning sessions for goals,
> > etc.  In fact, I don't view any of these as "complete systems" ... I use
> > them more like tools.  I mix and match to find a combination which works
> > best for me.  IOW, *I* am the "system"
>
> It said on the site that he has written books. My library does not have any
> of them.


Nor do I.  His original system was DIT (Do it Tomorrow) wherein he proposed
a "closed list".  IOW, you put on your TO DO list only what you needed to do
(and thought you could do) today, then "closed" the list to further items.
If you finished the list you worked on the "backlog".  So to start you
called EVERYTHING you had to do your "backlog".  This cleared you of having
to do anything, then you made a list and FINISHED it in one day.  You
adjusted until you were able to get it all done.  That way you remained
current, by not having all kinds of new things get in the way of doing
today's tasks.  And face it, most new items can wait a day ... they mostly
do anyway.  Some on his forum are trying to combine the two systems but it
seems as if they are trying to accomplish different things so they probably
don't play well together.


> I don't know enough about AF to say, but he might be assuming you are using
> it in conjunction with other things.


Yes, that is his assumption.


>  > With respect, you don't really know that.  It is not just a long list,
> it is
> > many short closed lists, to use other terminology.  I can only suggest
> that
> > if you don't try it you will never know.  I know this is a lot like
> saying
> > you can't know if drugs are bad until you take them ... but this really
> is a
> > different thing.  It has to do with how you interact with the items on
> the
> > list by following the flow the list.
>
>
> I admit I did not read the whole webpage.
>
> The reason I did not think I could do this system is because it seemed that
> its main point was to write a list. Then review this list. If the thing
> appeals to you, do it right then or rewrite it. If it does not appeal to
> you, then do not rewrite it.


Honestly, I don't think it is possible to convey the full impact of it all
by describing it.  You have to DO it in order to grasp how well it really
works.  In fact, you do write a list, but it is not a single list so much as
it is multiple lists of about 25 items called a page and you are working
from ONE page.  You don't just rewrite it.  You do an item or not.  You must
do at least one item on a page.  You only rewrite it if you start it but
don't complete it.  You do nothing to it if you don't do anything about it.
Really, this can't be described.  It is something you have to do.


> I would have hundreds of items on my list... I would not want to rewrite
> hundreds of items a day.


You would not.  You would rewrite only items you started work on and did not
complete.  Items you completed get crossed off.  Items that are not touched
are left alone.



> If I have 10 books I wanted to read.. just because I am not reading it now
> does not mean I will never read it. I don't want to leave it off the list..
> if I do then I would not remember the title or whatever when it was time to
> read something.


GtD has the "someday/maybe" list.  If you finish most items on the page
(after several passes through your page over several passes through your
entire list and there are still a couple of books to read, you "dismiss the
page".  IOW, you mark the page as "inactive" and don't review it for a
while.  In fact he has you highlight the undone items.  You can go back
later, when reviewing, and decide if you really want to do those things.  If
so, you add it back to the end of the list and it stays there until it gets
done or the page is once again dismissed.  The point being that if you are
not doing it you should not have it on your list getting in your way.  It is
just exactly what you do in GtD when you decide that you are not really
going to read a book before the next review period.  It is "someday/maybe"
until you resolve to do it ... or at least take SOME action on it.


> I have read a book called "Time Management For Unmanageable People" by
> Anne-McGee Cooper. She talks in there about how some people are comfortable
> with tons of items on their possible to do list while others will freak out
> if there are more than a few. The person that likes so many things just sees
> them as "options".. they know they are not going to do them all. They don't
> expect to do them all. The person who only likes to see a few things freaks
> at the other person's list because they see everything on that list as a
> "must do" item. She found out because her partner Duane would get concerned
> that he could not do all the items she had for him to do. (She had never
> expected for him to do them all.)
>
> Anyway I am like Anne if you have not already figured that out.


Well, as I say, GtD and DIT and AF all remove from the list those things
that are not ACTUALLY going to get done so that you can focus on what you
WILL do.  The whole reason I thought GtD would work for me was the idea of
"someday/maybe".  I was the person who felt guilty (or maybe distracted is
more like it) when I continually saw that I wanted to do X, Y, and Z but
they never seem to get done.  The nagging distracted me from doing what I
WAS going to do.  One does not lose options with "someday/maybe" or
"dismissing" items ... one just clears them from view until their time has
come.  It is like clearing the surface of your desk of all papers but the
ones you are doing RIGHT NOW, so they don't get in the way.


> The Sidetracked Sisters talk about a concept of people being naturally
> organized or not. They call those that are naturally organized BO for "born
> organized". They were not BO. They had to have cards in their system for
> every conceivable thing. They had their mom go to one of their seminars.
> (She is a BO.) They told her that she would not have to make any cards
> except for things she could not remember to do. They said their mom only had
> 3 cards at the end.


There are all kinds of variables.  Remembering is one.  Motivation is
another.  Some people find that having a page where they don't have to do
everything on it (but only one thing) to remove the negatives that cause
them to procrastinate.  They find that the psychological difficulty of a
task is not absolute, but relative.  IOW, mowing the yard is repugnant when
compared to watching TV, but seems attractive when the alternative is doing
the taxes, for example.  So when you have a page full of random items the
easier things are more appealing and get done first.  The less appealing get
done when they compete with the ever WORSE ones.  In the end, you have only
a few things left on the page (after circulating through all the pages
several times.)  If you have 30 items on a page, the rule is you have to do
only ONE of them before you can move to the next page.  If you do only ONE
of them, you will have "looked at" all the last undone item on the page at
most 30 times.  At that point you have to confront it.  Will you DO at least
SOMETHING on it or will you admit that you are not going to do it in the
foreseeable future?  If it is important to you then you will find SOMETHING
you can do.  Then you are allowed to finally cross it off and write it again
at the end of the list to be reviewed until you find something MORE to do on
it.  It is the multiple views and reconsideration that help move it along.
And the list rules cause things to be mixed like pancake batter ;-)  Once
you have done something on the task and rewritten it at the end of the list,
it is now in a "new neighborhood".  Some of the tasks on that new page might
be relatively much more difficult so it may be much easier to take the next
step ... or even complete it.

That is why it is not JUST another To Do list.  It is a to do list in the
sense that it is a list, and those are things to do.  But it is different
because the rules structure HOW you manage the list.  You do not just browse
it randomly to pick things from anywhere on it.  You must do certain things
and those rules are what make the system work.


> > That said, do what you think best.  I'm only here to offer my suggestion
> and
> > you can take or leave it based on how sensible I may seem as you read my
> > posts.
>
> thanks for the suggestion. I like to learn about new stuff.


As do I. I have a library of time management books, as do many others who
are on these lists.  Some others on the list have sold off all of their time
management books or given them away.  I am with them.  This is the LAST time
management system I'll ever use.  This one actually works.


>
> >> This list does not allow someone to have a "mind like water" like DA
> >> recommends.
>
> > That is a bit of drug induced crap, so far as I'm concerned.     One
> > achieves inner peace in so far as one connects with one's inner self.  A
> > better TO DO list is not going to get anyone there.  But I suppose it
> sells
> > books.
>
> I agree that some of the DA stuff is fishy.


Yeah, and when you read his biography you see that he is a bit flaky as a
person as well.  Not that being flaky makes the IDEA bad.  But the idea is
bad because it is just stupid ;-)  DA seems to be a troubled person who
never had a sense of himself.  That seems to have led him into drugs and
cults and that sort of thing that people with a weak ego get sucked into.
So now he talks about "mind like water" ... whatever that could possibly
mean ;-)  He also seems to have an almost paranoid fear of forgetting
things.  Add to that a big does of OCD (with all of his rules about using a
labeler and not using hanging files and ....) and you have a system that
reflects someone who is a bit unravelled.


> I agree with the concept that if you put it in a trusted system, then you
> can be more relaxed because you do not have to feel guilty about not doing
> something right now instead of what you are doing. For example some people
> might feel guilty for going to a movie... but if they have it all planned
> out in their system for here is when I go to the movies and here is when I
> do A B and C.. then they don't have to feel guilty. They know that other
> stuff is being taken care of.


I like DA's terminology there .. "Trusted System".  It does manage to get a
handle on the idea that one has to have only ONE place for things and to
rely on it completely.  It makes sense.  I used to write things in multiple
places and then not know where I could find it again.  I used to have a
smart phone, my desk top computer, my laptop, a PDA and a notebook.  I might
have someone's phone number in any of those places.  OY.  Where to look?
Then the problem became how to synchronize them all so all of the contact
lists had the ALL of the contacts.  Much easier to have only ONE contact
list and use that.

But I differ with DA in so many ways that he just got in my way.  I can
REMEMBER things ... and do.  I have, in my mind, a visual calendar going off
into the future ... I literally SEE a long list of cards ... tabs, actually,
and I can visually pull up any date and see what is on the card for that
date off into the infinite future.  It is fairly easy to do.  I also know
the day of any date this year ... that is a simple trick as well.  I have my
appointments memorized and I only need consult my mental calendar/Rolodex to
get to anything.  This is not rocket science.  The ancient Greeks wrote
about how to do it.  I took a course in it when I was a kid because I was
forgetting stuff and my mother would not stand for it so she sent me ;-)
Well you can imagine how much DA rubs me the wrong way when he harps on my
not being able to remember things.  How my mind is not reliable.  Why would
I listen so such a person?  Why would I let anyone tell me that my mind is
not adequate ... when I know it is ... when I've trained it ... when I rely
on it?  Just nuts.  Yeah, I write it down ... but I seldom need to look at
it.  For many years I've written TO DO lists but seldom needed to consult
them.  I'd look at them in the morning.  Then I'd look at lunch and see that
I could cross six things off.  Then at the end of the day see that almost
everything else had gotten done.  What did not get done did not get done
because there were more important things that came up .... not because I
forgot them!


>  > The list is indeed all one needs to do.  If you use the system, you
> write it
> > all down there ... except appointments.
>
> If you wrote down that you wanted to build a deck, but it is now winter..
> when you read.. "build a deck" it is not going to "jump out at you." So from
> how I understand AF, it would be dropped from your list. Meaning when spring
> or summer comes.. you have to try to remember it so you can add it back to
> your list.


No.  In the first place, I'd not even write on the list something I knew
that I'd not get to for a while.  But let's suppose I did.  Then it would
wind up being the last item (or few) on a page and I'd dismiss the page.
That would mean that I'd highlight "build deck" and close the page ... mark
it as inactive and not go back to it during my normal processing.  Then
periodically, I'd review those closed pages and look at the highlighted
items and when Spring was around the corner, I'd see "build deck" and add it
BACK to the end of the list.  On one of my passes through the list (in
April) I'd decided to search the Internet for deck plans or books about
building decks.  Then I'd scratch off "build deck" and at the end of my list
I'd write "build deck" because I took some action on it.  Actually, most of
us reword the item because taking the first step has clarified what we
really need to do next.  So I'd probably write: "Lay out Deck in Yard".  I'd
then do that and cross it off and at the end of the list I'd write:
"Calculate amount of lumber needed".  Etc.

That is how Mark describes it.  I don't do it exactly that way.  I do what
GtD has you do ... at least partially.  I have a note in my project files:
"Build Deck".  Then I have all of the steps I think I need to do and it
remains in my files in "someday/maybe" status until on a weekly review I
realize that I want to get started ... and THEN I put it on my AF list for
the first time.  As I say, I view all things as tools and use them as they
work best for me.  I don't highlight undone items and review pages later,
for example.  I rip out the page and trash it after putting the open items
on my "someday/maybe" list on my computer.  They live there until during a
review they look ready to get back on the AF list.


> If you were doing it using the SHE system, you would put a card in your
> April divider that said "build deck". when it got to april you would see
> your card.


Yes.  Or I could put it on my calendar to remind me.  I don't do that,
however.  I mostly like DA's idea of not putting things on the calendar
unless they are an appointment.  HOWEVER, I do block time on my calendar
when it comes to having to do something big.  All day Saturday will be
marked out for "DECK".  But I would not put "Build Deck" on my calendar as I
would not know, in November, for example, if I would start digging footings
on the last Saturday in March or the First in April.  I'd just have "Build
Deck" as a project and it would get seen once a week and when it got to
February I'd think: "Oh, I'd better spend an afternoon in the bookstore next
week and start reading home and garden magazines to get ideas for my deck.
It is coming up soon!"  And then I'd be off to the races.  I'd put on my AF
list: "Visit bookstore to read magazines to get Deck ideas."


>
> >> One of the main reasons I want to do stuff electronically is because I
> do
> >> not want to be constantly rewriting my to do list.
>
> > You do not "rewrite the list".  You rewrite tasks that are partially
> > completed.  And it is that very action that makes the system work.  And,
> to
> > call it what it is ... four seconds to write two or three words ... not a
> > big thing.  And the rewriting itself is a micro-review.  One usually
> rewords
> > the item as it is rewritten because one has learned something by starting
> > it.
>
> You'd end up with a list that had a lot of crossed out things on it then.
> Eventually the page would fill up.


But each crossed out item was crossed out because it got done or partially
done.  Yes, the page fills up, and that is the point.  The page fills with
things to do and then they are crossed out when one or worked on.  That is
the way all lists work.


> It might be only 4 seconds but that could be a lot depending on how many
> items you have.


If you have 30 items on a page, then it would take 120 seconds (over several
days) to rewrite every item on the page and you'd only rewrite the ones that
were PARTIALLY done.  The done ones are crossed off.  The ones you do not do
anything on at all are "dismissed" ... become "someday/maybe".  And then
only if you can't find a way to do ANYTHING on them.  If you do SOMETHING,
then you take the 4 seconds to rewrite them at the end of the list ... BUT,
you have made some progress and eventually, you will complete them.  If you
do just a little many times, you'll get them completed.  But really, will
you do only a little on most tasks?  Or will you complete most of them and
just cross them off for good?  The ones that are getting worked on a little
at a time are probably big and hard things.  There are not usually many of
those.


>  > There are people on the form discussing how they are managing 300 pages
> of
> > 30-50 items per page ... several thousands of items and hundreds added
> > and/or done each day.  Others have only a few open pages.  It is not the
> > size, it is the nature of the items on the list that has an impact.
>
> Well I guess I don't understand the system then.


Trust me, this is not a system you "understand".  You try it and fall in
love with it once you see how magical it is.  Seriously.  Or not ;-)


-- 
Cheers,
Mike


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]