Re[6]: OT sidetracked sisters

Hello Mike,

Monday, April 13, 2009, 4:40:48 AM, you wrote:

> 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.

I like the idea of doing your complete list and then "closing" it, to work on what is current today.

> Honestly, I don't think it is possible to convey the full impact of it all
> by describing it.  

Yes, I guess I am not understanding it from reading about it on that one page... because what you are talking about does not sound like what I read.

Thanks for explaining it to me. It sounds interesting.

> 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.

Maybe my confusion came in because I assumed "dismissing" items meant you threw the paper away... not that you went back to it later.

> 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.

I know when I do stuff I don't want to just do all the easy stuff and then end up with only hard stuff left.. but then that might make me not do anything because I don't want to do the hard stuff when I am starting. (If that makes sense.)

It sounds like the system is way more involved than the thing I read made it appear.

> 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 is a good point

> 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.

I haven't gotten there yet.

> Yeah, and when you read his biography you see that he is a bit flaky as a
> person as well.  

I read some stuff about him. Enough to make me go hmmmm.

Um, why are you on the list if you think the idea is dumb?

> 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.

That's probably the most important thing of GTD to me. List all your stuff out in one place.

> 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

Good point.. but it shows that you are not his target audience. There are other people who have problems trying to remember stuff.

I did not think of it that way that he is saying a person can't remember stuff... the brain can do amazing things.. so it is not a good idea to try to convince someone that they can't do something. If you tell someone they can't do something, they are more likely to never be able to do it.

> 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!

I forget or I decide I want to do something else... (but not that the something else is more important....)

> 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

Ok this clarifies my confusion then.. I thought dismissing a page meant that you threw it away.. not that you went back to it later. 

> 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.

this makes more sense to me

> 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.  

I agree

> 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.

I like the idea of the person having to take at least some step on the item or making it someday/maybe. 

to me, dismiss was meaning it doesn't come back but that doesn't make sense because when a teacher dismisses a class it doesn't mean that the students never come back :-)

> 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  

I will look into it more.

thanks for explaining it to me
-- 
Brenda