Re: autofocus was Re[8]: OT sidetracked sisters

Hi Brenda,

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Brenda <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>
> I didn't think the context was @Hardware Store I thought it was just
> @Errands so when you went out shopping or whatever you would have a list of
> stuff you were supposed to do when you were out. You could have "return
> library books" on @Errands which is not shopping


I probably worded that poorly.  I have shopping lists but not a context for
each store.  I might have a shopping list for "hardware" which might mean
I'd go to any of a number of places ... depending.


> some people really are messed up enough that if they have a bunch of stuff
> to do they will drive all over the area instead of planning their stops so
> they get around town in the most efficient way.


I tend to look at my shopping lists before I run out ... to see what I want
to get, where I might want to go, if it is on the way, if I need to take
measurements or something with me, etc.


> > 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 ;-)
>
> Well some people might have so many people to call that they can't remember
> them if they don't have a list.


My list might have "Call Joe" then pages away "Call Pete".  I don't have an
@Calls list because I don't view them as "calls" but rather as things to do
to advance some goal or project.


> I think it is a good idea like he says to have a list of stuff you want to
> talk to the person about when you call so you do not forget what you wanted
> to say.


Oh, I do that before I make a complicated call ... before renewing the car
insurance I read the policy and marked it up and made a list of possible
savings items.  It saved me $200+


> Maybe it is the difference between big picture/detail people. I am a
> details person.. sometimes I have a problem understanding the big picture
> unless I look at it from the details.


That actually seems to be more the AF mentality.  I've gotten just a bit at
odds with Mark over the concept of planning ... he seems to believe that one
lets the plan "grow organically" rather than lay it out in advance.  His
idea is that plans always change so they are pointless.  I agree they
change, but that is the nature of planning, not a problem with it ... and it
does save time and money when you can anticipate problems rather than wander
into them.  So when I used the example of moving one's home, I listed some
steps but he said just put "move" on the list and when you get to it see
what pops into your head.  (I think I'm citing the gist of what his position
is.)  So he is very bottom up in his approach ... and I see the advantage in
that for some things.  I believe a mixture of the two approaches is called
for.  I don't write out a plan to eat lunch, but I do for moving my home.


> > 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.
>
> I think some of those could be called contexts but not most of them.


The real problem people seem to have with contexts is that the system does
not provide a way to CHOOSE a context.  Rather you "find yourself there"
then see what has to be done.  In order to get the RIGHT things done one has
to be "project centric" rather than "location centric".


> > 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.
>
> I noticed some of those posts.
>
> I think it makes more sense to call them someday/maybe but even if he knows
> of DA he wouldn't just want to use someone else's terms.


Probably very true.


> > 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.
>
> Yes but it would seem as you continually do the hard thing because there is
> a harder thing you dont want to do.. eventually all that would be on the
> list would be the hardest things.. and then it would be procrastination big
> time.


Not so much as you will have seen that really hard thing about 30 times
before you HAVE TO make a decision and by that time you are ready to
confront WHY you are avoiding it and be ready to find SOMETHING you can do
to move it ahead.  And, as we have all seen, once you are moving on it, it
feels so good that you want to do more.


> > 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.
>
> When I saw it, I was hung up on the dismissing items thing. I thought.. I
> don't want to write stuff and then if I don't do it when I read through my
> list I must "dismiss" it.. (which to me meant delete it)
>
> I don't have a problem with following what "expert" people talk about
> doing... I do it the way they say at least at first. I don't just go off on
> my own thinking I know better when I am just learning the method.
>
> It seems most people just go off and do their own thing and then wonder why
> the experts' methods don't work. (Ummm.. maybe because you are not doing his
> method??)


Oh yes.  The posts on the forum are full of that.


> > 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.
>
> Which goes back to the fact that people are having problems with
> understanding the directions.


Yes, and so many of us tried to tell him that but we gave up.


> > 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!
>
> I have not tried it yet... I need to read it in depth. I have read more
> stuff on it but not enough to be ready to do it. (Still reading the SHE book
> right now. They are heavily reserved even though they are old books. Means I
> cannot renew them.)


She is compatible with AF, but Mark would say not.  I find that it is quite
nice to use several compatible things:

- Calendar appointments
- Calendar blocked time for big projects
- Have shopping lists
- Have a tickler file
- Have agendas ("Talk to wife about this")
- Have house cleaning cards
- Develop habits for things that just always seem to get neglected
- Finally, use AF for the bottom up and random things that pop into your
head

It might seem from that as if AF is an after thought ... but for me it is
the center of how I control discretionary time.


> > 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
>
> I hadn't ran into that part of it... but that makes sense that it would
> need to be a certain # of lines.
>
> > 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
>
> I like that description :-) If I don't do the thing I need to do, it could
> turn into a monster. For some reason that sounds better than saying it will
> "turn into a fire" to me...


It is all about your language and internal pictures ;-)


> > 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).
>
> Not sure if it would help you any.. not sure how many pages you need to
> carry.. but have you heard of pocketmod? there were some posts on it a while
> back. It lets you turn 1 piece of 8x11 paper into 8 pages.


Yeah, and I tried it.  Two problems for me:

1) My printer had a problem with it shrunk down that small and the biggie,
2) It became its own project.  Instead of just jotting something down on my
pocket pad I had to type it in, run a conversion program, then print a PDF,
then cut it up or fold it just right then get out a magnifying glass to read
it ;-)  Really great idea, though.

I could not use that for AF, however, as the list easily gets to nearly 50
pages before the last of the items on the first page are completed ... at
least given how I write things, their granularity, my rate of partial
completions, etc.


> > 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.
>
> Good points
>
> > 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 am not familiar with most of the things you mention above. Anyway this
> conversation made me think it would be a good idea to have an article about
> all the different methods so people could check them out.
>
> > 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.
>
> I think it depends on the person. Some people wouldn't realize that they
> needed to get the hammer, nails etc unless they wrote it all out. They
> cannot think without writing it out first that they first need to research
> building the deck. If you go out all dressed up.. but don't have your
> materials.. you can't just go to the hardware store. You won't know what to
> buy. (Well if you had already built decks before maybe you would...)


Yes, in all of this is the idea that it depends on experience and how a
person thinks.  I would plan the "build deck" project and my plan might
include the tools I'd need (in fact, it really did).  Then I'd go off to do
it and work mostly from memory.  Once I listed my tools, I'd remember them
... though I might forget some, of course, but that would mostly not matter
much as most of my tools are in a 5 gallon bucket with a canvas pocket
thingie around the rim.  Other things are in empty cat litter buckets:
drills in one, sanding and filing in another, electrical in another,
plumbing in another, etc. So to work on the deck I'd grab the drill bucket
but leave the plumbing one behind.  A lot of this is common sense, to me.
The last time I went out to work on the deck I had to go back only four
times to get a missing item and some of that was unforseen ... an allan
wrench to tighten a slipping drill bit, for example.


> >   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 ;-)
>
> probably because you put in an earlier mail to research it first.. but I
> bet you most people forget this step. I think they get to the hardware store
> and have no idea what wood to buy or how much they need.


Good point.  I'll bet some people just dive in.  And some of them luck out
as well.


> I know people in my family end up making mistakes because they don't think
> the project through before they start it. All they are thinking about is how
> to get it done quickly. For example... my uncle was supposed to fix the
> horse fence. It is a special fence that is meant to fall down if the horse
> gets caught in it. He would not look at the info we had.. "I know how to
> build a fence".. so he made it so that it now cannot fall down like it was
> designed to do. That is the kind of thing that can happen when a person
> thinks they know how to do something and they don't need to write out the
> steps.


Exactly!


> > 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.)
>
> Glad you found something that works


Well, from the above, you can see that it was about 40 years in the making
for me ;-)


> > 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!
>
> Well probably every system has some stupid stuff in it.


Stupid does depend on who is saying it, of course.  Some people might thrive
on slips of paper in the inbox.


> > 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.
>
> yes it seems many lists are ruined by the people who run them
>
> I have not been using gtd but I am still on the list...


That is the other point, one can learn from others because they have tried
other things.


> > 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 saw some post somewhere where someone was talking about writing stuff on
> their AF list and then later needing to break it down so they would not
> resist doing it.


Yes.  And that is its flexibility.  If the chunk size is wrong, cross it off
and rewrite it as it seems best.


> I would be someone who would want to write out.. get nails get hammer.. not
> because I am "that dumb" but because listing out the details helps me to
> understand the big picture. Actually its not dumb because I am sure you
> probably need multiple kinds of nails, bolts etc to make a deck.. you can't
> just go to the hardware store and grab a handful of random nails. they have
> to be the right size weight etc. If you just bought wood because it "looks
> nice" you might have bought the wrong wood. If you bought the wrong nails,
> they might split the wood when you try to hammer them in.


Yes, exactly.  When I started the deck I did a detailed plan and lots of
research.  But on my list is "build deck" and I don't need to go back to the
project plan file unless ... well, unless I need to go back.  I'm sure I'll
forget something and go back to my files to look it up.  But less as now I
have measured, layed out, built the deck ... and now am screwing down the
last boards with the screws I have and only need to touch up and finish it
... still a lot of work, but not rocket science.

And, as with all things, my plan did not produce perfect results.  If I had
it to do over I'd have spend three times as much for that artifical "wood"
and bought those special hangers and it would have gone faster, there would
be no warping or splitting or finishing!  In fact, over time I probably
would have had a nicer deck for less money as I would not have to refinish
it ever year or two.


> > 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.
>
> Yes I think that if you stressed too much to "write everything down because
> you can't remember it"... you are going to create the problem in the person.
>
> I saw a demo once where the person told the volunteer "TRY to hold your arm
> up when I push it down." The person could not. They they just said the same
> thing and left out the word TRY and the person could do it. Saying the word
> "try" implanted in the person's mind that it could not be done.


I could go on and on about the effect of language.  It is amazing how
important it is.  Compare:

- I have to do this
- I must do this
- I will do this
- I can do this
- I am able to do this
- I want to do this
- I am excited to do this

If you look inside after saying each of those things (replace "this" with
one of your monsters ;-) you'll feel an entirely different internal
reaction.


> > 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.
>
> Well people in America at least think it is funny if they can't remember
> stuff.. calling it a senior moment or whatever. I think that is bad. Young
> people do the same types of things... for example forgetting that you are
> wearing your sunglasses on the top of your head. The older person laughs and
> says senior moment.. and that plants in their mind that their brain is
> deficient. That they are inferior because they are "old".


Yes.  And how you react is important.  I watched my dad has his memory
started to go.  He would strugle to find the right word and be all involved
and frustrated.  Then, when he got it, he'd laugh and pound the table in
joy.  I resolved that when my memory started to go I'd NEVER struggle.  I'd
just use a different word and let things work themsleves out.  Now I
struggle for the right word ... except I abandon the strugle in about two
seconds.  I use a different word now and the one I wanted comes later on its
own.  (One of the advantages of a large vocabulary ;-)


> > 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.
>
> I did not know he was into drugs.


Yeah, there was a time in his life where he was.  He then moved on to some
kind of cult and attained some kind of guru status (if memory serves ... and
it might not as I was not all that interested in his life ... just how his
ideas might work for me.)


> I could see where doing a lot of totally unrelated calls just because you
> are near a phone is bad. But it could be that the person is a salesman and
> the 10 calls are basically the same type of call. I would personally hate to
> call 10 different people in a row no matter what the topic was..


Oh, yes.  But then one is really working on the project "Sell siding" ;-)
And all the calls are much the same.


> I don't know that it is because he can't think of the next action until he
> does the current one. but it has been a long time since I read the book. I
> can think of lots of actions for building a deck... even if I did not make a
> list I would still know I needed to get the hammer, nails, etc. But I would
> still feel better to write it all out so I knew i was not forgetting
> something.


So would I (and DID I).  But GtD, in its pure form, would have you put ONLY
the next action on your context list (for each context.  So you migh have:

@Errands: "Buy deck Supplies" (and have a list of those)
@Calls: "Call Joe to see if he wants to help next weekend"
@Garage: "Get tools for deck"
@Sunny Day: "Take tools outside"

Now there is the rub.  In pure GtD you'd have to go back to your plan and
find the next item for @Sunny Day and see that it is "Measure and Layout
Deck".  Then you'd have to go back inside and find that the next thing was
"Clear and level Deck area".  Etc.  I really hope no one does that.


> > 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.
>
> yes I waited until apr 15 to do my taxes even though there was no reason to
> do that.


One of my "habits to be developed" is: "Don't do things as LATE as possible,
do them as SOON as possible".  Arrrrrg.  I stood in line for almost two
hours at the post office.


> > "Dismissing" is a HORRIBLE term.  "Someday/Maybe" is the better term ...
> by
> > far.  The term must have a different connotation in England.
>
> I bet it is the proper term to use.. because when you dismiss someone they
> eventually come back. But he still needs to state it in a better way. I bet
> if I looked it up in the dictionary, I would see it was the proper term.


Knowing him, you are probably right.


> > 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.
>
> Dismiss might be the proper term but it does not help the person understand
> what is going on.


Agreed.



-- 
Cheers,
Mike


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