Re: Re[6]: OT sidetracked sisters

Hi Again Brenda,

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Brenda <[email protected]> wrote:

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


Yes, it gets you "all caught up" in an instant ... just by declaring
everything on your plate as "backlog" an then only even considering those
items that you must do today ... and CAN do today.  Nothing new gets on the
list.  And it is no big problem because you'd not be in trouble if you could
handle it all so things that come in are often, or even mostly, delayed.  So
delaying them on purpose so that you can get done what you decided was
important to get done is a much better solution.

> 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.


Mark is from England and so English is not his first language ;-) ;-)
Seriously, I have big problems with his instructions.  I had to puzzle it
out and even drew a flow chart ... several others had to draw flow charts to
understand it.  When I drew the chart I realized that I had misunderstood.
Even after that, I STILL had some misunderstanding.  Mark does not get that
his instructions read like Chinese instructions to connect a stereo ;-)

The other thing is that it is not just a "list" but a method of processing
and the method has to be experienced ... because how you process things
affects your attitude toward them.  It is hard to explain ... it just has to
be experienced.  In fact, that is how I knew GtD was a bad idea for me.  It
SOUNDED good.  But when I tried to actually put things in contexts and then
find them again and decide which context I was in and found that I was never
in some contexts ... ish, it was just a convoluted mess.  I realized that I
had basically only ONE context ... @Me!  LOL ;-)  Wherever I was ... there I
was ;-)  I could do most anything anywhere.  True, I had to be at the
hardware store to buy lumber for the deck, but I don't look at life that
way.  Going to the hardware store is not changing contexts ... that is such
an nutty way of looking at "going shopping".  I don't have a context list
for @Hardware Store ... I have a shopping list!   My mind was getting all
screwy trying to make GtD work.  Then I realized that the system itself
needed a mind that could not decide what to do unless it knew where it was
and had a list for that.  OY!  It was as if I were trying to program
artificial intelligence ... it made no sense because I already HAD "native
intelligence" ... I did not NEED to have a system for "going shopping" ... I
already knew how to do that.  I knew that if I had to call someone I did not
need to look at an @Call list ... I just picked up the phone.  Had I
continued to try to fit myself to this system of infinitely small baby steps
I'd have wound up drooling ;-)

I have always had lists ... lots and lots of lists ;-)  And they are very
useful.  I could CALL many of them "context lists", but it is so much
simpler to call them: "Things do do when I'm in San Francisco", "Good
restaurants in Dallas", "Things I do every Monday", "Things I do every
month", "Things to buy at CostCo", etc.



> Thanks for explaining it to me. It sounds interesting.


De nada ;-)


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


Yeah, that is one confusion people have.  There are numerous posts in the
forum about what, when, and how to dismiss and what to do about dismissed
items.  Dismissed items are EXACTLY like "someday/maybe" items.  In fact, I
prefer the term "someday/maybe" because "dismissed" conveys that they are
gone.


>  > 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.)


Right, and that is one way in which mixing things works.  The hard thing
looks easier than the harder thing so it is more likely to get done.  Also,
if you are faced with a hard rule that you must "dismiss" it or do
"something" on it, then you will most likely do "something" on it.


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


It is not that the system is involved, as in complicated ... it is that the
way it works on your mind is not obvious and you would not see that from the
instructions.  So many people read the instructions and then write a post
saying "That is stupid.  It is just a To Do list with complicated rules.
What's the big deal?"  But it is just those rules that make it different and
make it work.  There are many on the forum who complain it is not working
for them with the great results others express.  When asked to describe what
they are doing, it turns out that they are treating the whole "list" as a
big To Do list.  Of course then they are getting the same result they got
before.  You have to process according to the rules.

Others jump around the list looking for "important" things to work on.
Others prioritize the items.  Others tag them (guilty here ... I learned my
lesson and stopped doing that ;-)  If you just do the processing exactly as
described for a few days something amazing happens.  Things get done!

It is funny what matters and what the effect is.  Mark says that the book
should be 30 or so lines.  What difference could it possibly make?  Well,
after trying pages of various lengths, it became clear that size matters
;-)  If there are too few items on a page you don't get to "see" items
enough times before you are forced to decide if you are going to dismiss
them.  So more items helps break down resistance that way.  OTOH, if you
have too many items on a page, you can continue to ignore items and they can
start to turn on you ;-)  Imagine putting off an item 100 times before you
have to come to grips with it!  It would really have teeth and be snarling
by then, no?  So by experiment he found that 30 was about right.  I
confirmed that is about right as well.  My problem is that my lifestyle is
such that I need to carry the list in my pocket ... so my list is a 3"x5"
spiral bound vertical format book (10/$4.00 at Sam's Club).  With that book
I get only 15 lines.  I tried writing two on a line ... too hard to read.  I
tried making two facing pages (book opened up vertically) a single page ...
too hard to think of it that way.  I decided to deal with 15 lines per page
and make sure that my items were broken down a little more so they were not
so intimidating.  I found a good compromise for me.  But if I could work
with a 8x11 format (or even 6x9), I'd use 30 lines.

Another thing that changes the way it all works is where you start in the
morning.  The instruction is to start where you left off.  Some people start
on the FIRST page and so get more items cleared off ... but spend a lot of
time working on older items and it takes them much longer to get to the more
current items (and possibly more urgent items) on the last page.  Others
start every day on the last page, so as to keep current (much like the DIT
"closed list" idea) but then they tend to work on new stuff and not clear
out the older things.  So I see why he advises to keep moving forward from
where you left off.  That way, if you are in a busy environment, you'll
mostly be on the end of the list (because you keep adding to the list) but
you'll still get to the older pages and work through to the current things
periodically.  It all makes sense if you experience it.

That said, I still keep my Post-It on the front for my "mini closed list"
for today ... things I must do.  I get those done and also work the main
list ... that way nothing gets overlooked.



>  > 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.


I thought I never would!  Years ago I kept something called a "Seven Star
Diary" ... a small ring binder with daily pages.  Later I read Alan Lakien's
book and did all of my life's goals planning and used his A,B,C 1,2,3
priority system in conjunction with a calendar.  Better, but I kept
looking.  I read Covey and liked his Quadrants and kept that part but hated
his religion and roles and crap.  I read Roger Dawson's system and added it
to what I had, using an 8x11 ring binder with 43 dividers (J-D, 1-31) plus
reference sections.  Then from some other guy I picked up the "grass
catcher" idea as well as numeric filing and a bi-weekly calendar page and
added those things.  (I ditched the numeric filing as it was to complex for
me ... alphabetic is good enough for my needs).  I used that for many years
at IBM and it worked well because I was in an 8x11 environment ... at my
desk, in a plane, in meetings, etc.  When I retired I became more mobile and
needed to work out of my pocket ... I hate to carry things in my hands and I
no longer needed a brief case.  I also no longer needed a complex scheduling
system because I had no more deliverables to worry about or endless meetings
to schedule.  I also did not need lots of reference material and memos at my
fingertips ... so a simpler system was in order.  Then came GtD.

I liked some of the concepts but missed prioritizing.  I missed "time
blocking" to work on big projects.  I though contexts made sense but they
did not.  Next Actions sounded good but wound up being too dumbed down for
me. I mostly work on a "project" not "actions".  If I'm going to build a
deck I'm going to get all dressed up and go out and do "deck building".  I'm
not going to "get nails", then go back to my list to see that I'm going to
have to "get hammer".  Just silly.  With AF you put anything at all into
it.  You could put "get nails" but for me it makes sense to put "work on
deck" and then just KNOW what to do next.  I really can figure things out.
LOL ;-)

So for me AF is ideal.  I have only ONE master list.  I put things of any
granularity on it.  I do them when it seems right to do them.  I doubt I'll
find a better system ... this one does all I want.  (Well, as I have it
modified for me with planning done in my computer files and using a calendar
and lists of repetitive items, and planning (blocking) time for big
projects, etc.)


>  > 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?


Because I thought the idea was good when I read it.  It SHOULD work ... it
just does not work.  For me, at least.  And it took me trying to fit them
into my life to find that they failed.  Some of his ideas do work.
"Someday/maybe" is a great idea.  Contexts suck.  Processing the inbox to
empty frequently is good, but not obsessively.  Writing things on slips of
paper and dumping them in the inbox is stupid.  That is what lists are for!

As to why I'm on the list ... too lazy to unsubscribe, I guess.  ;-)  I
ditched the bigger GtD list because I could not deal with the nut who runs
it.  This list has so few posts that it has not gotten in my way.  One day
I'll purge the remaining GtD related lists, I suppose.

And BTW, don't get me wrong.  I don't think GtD is a bad system for
everyone.  It obviously works for some people who live certain kinds of
lives and who's minds work in certain ways.  Just as I acknowledge that AF
is too unstructured for some people.  It is probably the case that people
who need the structure of GtD will not feel at ease in the unstructured
world of AF.  "What do you mean, scan the page until some item 'stands
out'.  What does 'stand out' mean?  And 'Build Deck' is not an 'action' at
all ... it is a project and has to be on a 'project list'."  It is pretty
clear that some people would not be at home with that ;-)


> > 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.


I think GtD is the first system that really emphasized that.  I was mostly
doing it before, but not completely.  I think the term "trusted system" was
useful for 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
>


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


And for them I would advise several approaches.  I certainly would write
things down ... for more reasons than just remembering, in fact.  But I'd
also advise trying to honor your mind not insult it, as it were.  Remember
that before there was writing, there were wandering story tellers who sung
the news from town to town.  They could sing for hours.  The Iliad was sung
before it was written.  They had incredible memories ... everyone did.  Then
we started writing and our memories languished.  Now we no longer write ...
we post, email, blog, etc.  You can just watch attention span dwindle.


> 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.


Exactly.  And worse, if you tell YOURSELF you can't do it.  Just awful.  It
is odd that many people who subscribe to this attitude have kids and would
not dream of undercutting THEM.  Why do they do it to themselves?  Very odd.

As for him, it seems he was into drugs for a long time so maybe he can NOT
remember.  He might have messed his brain up.  That would also explain the
whole Next Action thing ... another good sounding idea that really makes
less sense when you try to implement it.  If his brain is now fuzzy from
drug use and his short term memory is shot, he might HAVE to figure out the
next step and do it before he goes back and figures out the subsequent
step.  Who knows.  It is interesting that his reason for Next Action is to
move planning to the front and leave ONLY execution to the end.  That
implies that he can't jump around easily from planning to execution.  And it
really leaves one having to go back to planning again and again, rather than
start working on the project and just keeping working on it until a lot has
gotten one.  The Next Action thing kind of enforces a mental fragmentation
(as well as perhaps being the result of one).  To me, nothing fragments my
mind more than making 10 phone calls about different things just because I
happen to be near a phone.  For me, focus demands that I stick with one
project, not one TYPE of action.  I've never seen anyone successful who did
not focus on what he was doing.


>  > 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....)


Yes, I do that too.  But today I need to work on taxes because I've let it
go because I did not WANT to do it.  So now it is more important (urgent,
really) so it will knock off other things I'd planned to do.


>  > 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.


"Dismissing" is a HORRIBLE term.  "Someday/Maybe" is the better term ... by
far.  The term must have a different connotation in England.


> 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 :-)


Humm ... maybe that's the connotation?  I don't know.  I still like
"someday/maybe"  it is an inspired term that perfectly captures the status
of these things.  "I want to do this thing.  I don't know when I'll do it
... or if I will actually ever do it at all ... but I don't want to simply
forget about the idea so I'll keep it in my files until I finally decide its
fate for good."  "Dismiss" just does not capture all of that.


>  > 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


De Nada ;-)  And good luck with what ever strikes you as fitting your way of
doing things.


-- 
Cheers,
Mike


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