The GTD perspective on Saying Yes to Mess?

[Constant]

It's an interesting idea but surely this is stretching the definition of "messyness" a bit far.

Tom can you tell I love your topic?
Now,responding directly to your question could lead us down a rabbit hole where I wouldn't want to see things go as this topic has so much interesting value and potential directions (how's that for dodging the bullet?).

Suffice to say that ever since laying eyes on the GTD method, it was intuitively the easiest system to superimpose over my naturally MODERATELY (don't get ideas) messy nature and reap the rewards of the mess (disorder or randomness sounds much better) . I can have my cake and eat it and am now finding that there may be hidden benefits.

Why are we all here at the GTD forum? Probably one good reason is that our current world is so darn complex (pathologically messy) that if we didn't have some sort of structure we would drown in that complexity. Thomas Homer-Dixon in "The Ingenuity Gap" argues that even the people at the top no longer see the big picture (how about that global warming?) let alone us.

At the same time we want to restore some of our soul and personal identity beyond worker drone which means not tossing out, but in many cases maintaining the things or parts of our life that define who we are. So shouldn't we all rebel a little at some of the organization industry's overzealousness out there? (David not you, I'll still drink the Kool Aid if you say so). Phooey on feng shui?
As Kewms said in a previous post, the middle of the road is best.
Creativity needs structure. The painter creates within a frame, ditto the photographer. Scientists have their Petri dishes – etc. Perhaps we can say we have the structure of our GTD helping us convert the worker drone part of our occupations into David's widget cranking analogy so that we're able to realize our aspirations beyond the runway level.

To return on topic, another small example for me to understand the benefit of disorder is an old Christmas record that's been been played so much over the years that it skips on one song.
In the language of Information studies, that "disorder"(skip) carries or triggers more information ( memories of Christmases past) than would be contained in a more ordered, fresh copy(if you could buy it) without the skip . All the senses are re-engaged, -who complained and got up from the table to move the record along, what was cooking at the same time, what were the decorations like, the weather…..Jingle bells skip skip....

Also, like many others I work better with some types of music in the background versus total quiet. I can fall asleep to the sound of ocean surf or random "white noise".
But the ordered steady, steady drip of a tap is torture to the brain. Wasn't that used as such in the past?

 

[smithdoug]

Messier is better? I don't buy it!

The essence of GTD is getting all of those things that tug at our attention out of our minds and into a trusted system, where they safely remain until the appropriate time for us to deal with them. This goes for physical objects in our workspace as well as all of the random thoughts that ricochet through our brains. The notion that people can somehow be more effective and productive amidst clutter presupposes that the clutter isn't hiding something they need and can't find and that they have somehow immunized themselves to the mess so that it doesn't distract their train of thought. But just how certain are they that those things that are where they shouldn't be aren't competing for their attention, at least in some subconscious way?

Some here have pointed out that their desks can appear quite messy when they're fully engaged with a project, but all those items are related to the work at hand and therefore things that appropriately should have their attention. The idea that there is some kind of stochastic resonance in generalized disorder that can make us more productive, however, is nonsense. With the challenge most of us face trying to focus intently on what we need to, we need to minimize distractions, not enable them.

 

[unstuffed]

The biological perspective...

Not that I'm a biologist, but here goes. Order means life, and the more complex the order, the more complex the life. Mess, as in lack of order, is basically the primordial soup from which the complex life forms, but it's not life and never can be. Life is self-organising, by its very definition.

And from a physics perspective, order decreases entropy. Increasing entropy will, over squillions of years, lead to the heat death of the universe, when there is no order left.

And from a geeky software developer slash mathematician perspective, I'd have to be persnickety and say that there's a definitional problem.

'Mess' can mean one of four things (at least). There's seeming disorder, which is visual mess: looks messy to someone else, but the owner understands the logic by which the area is ordered. That means that there is an underlying order which is simply not apparent to others.

Two: productive mess. This is the mess you get when you're working on something, firing away, and you've got stuff spread out all over the place. This, too, has an underlying order.

Three: I'm stretching here, but I'll try for minimalist living. This is the absence of order by way of the absence of everything. And again, this has order imposed by the fact that the only stuff that's around is stuff that is necessary/wanted.

Four: Complete disorganisation. There is no underlying order.

Three of these four will allow people to function well and productively, and be creative. The fourth will not.

Now I've known a number of artistic types (who got right on my wick, I must say) who tended to get quite precious about their creative superiority. When they waxed lyrical about their own talents, and waxed disparaging about the life of what they called 'robots' (ie non-artists), they ignored a couple of fundamentals.

These had to do with responsibilities. 'Robots' had jobs they had to turn up to. Often they had to dress neatly and cleanly (imagine!). Some had families. I could continue, but I think you're getting the point. And yes, I was considered a robot, because I had a paying job which required me to prepare tutorials and turn up to classes and the like.

So yes, the complete absence of responsibility does make it a lot easier to be creative. If I had someone to pay my bills, cook my food, wash my clothes, and do all my errands, I imagine I'd be wildly creative.

As it is, I barely have time to scratch myself. This is improving, however, because I'm using structure and order, in the form of GTD, to sort my duties and responsibilities, which allows me to think outside of them for a while.

How's that for a wiffle?

 

[kewms]

So yes, the complete absence of responsibility does make it a lot easier to be creative. If I had someone to pay my bills, cook my food, wash my clothes, and do all my errands, I imagine I'd be wildly creative.

Not necessarily true, actually. Plenty of artists have won fellowships and the like and discovered that they were completely blocked. They needed the structure of their other responsibilities to define their time. Plenty of artists have also found that they need to engage with the world as a source of inspiration.

In my own experience, the most productive artists are generally *not* the ones waxing lyrical about their creative superiority. Those are the wannabes. The productive artists are too busy working to look down their noses at other people.

Katherine

 

[unstuffed]

Not all artists: just the ones I've met

Not necessarily true, actually. Plenty of artists have won fellowships and the like and discovered that they were completely blocked. They needed the structure of their other responsibilities to define their time. Plenty of artists have also found that they need to engage with the world as a source of inspiration.

In my own experience, the most productive artists are generally *not* the ones waxing lyrical about their creative superiority. Those are the wannabes. The productive artists are too busy working to look down their noses at other people.

Katherine

Quite true. A friend of a friend was an artist, as a relaxing hobby from her busy professional life. She also turned out to be a very successful artist, so of course the 'real' artists (ie the shaggy good-for-nothings I knew) looked down their noses at her. Apparently, 'real' artists are never financially successful: only commercial sell-outs are.

Needless to say, those people got right up my nose. And it's that same trait that I've noticed in others, regardless of vocation/profession: those who like to consider themselves 'truly creative' tend to carry their disorganisation as a badge of pride, and disdain folks who are successful and/or organised. Which, again, gets right up my hooter.

I think in general we need some structure to define ourselves. Children (and small animals) need rules and boundaries to define what is them and what is not, and to learn about the world. And as you say, we need input from a wider world to stimulate our creativity.

But I'm still very wary of 'artists'. ;-)

 

[kewms]

Quite true. A friend of a friend was an artist, as a relaxing hobby from her busy professional life. She also turned out to be a very successful artist, so of course the 'real' artists (ie the shaggy good-for-nothings I knew) looked down their noses at her. Apparently, 'real' artists are never financially successful: only commercial sell-outs are.

In these situations, I like to point out that people like Shakespeare, Michelangelo, and Bach were actually quite successful. Even artists like Mozart and Van Gogh, famous for dying young and poor, were on the verge of commercial success at the time.

These are usually also the same people who aren't actually creating much, and will go on at great length about how horribly difficult it is to make art.

I always wonder what they could accomplish if they put the same amount of effort into their art that they do into finding excuses.

Katherine

 

[tominperu]

My initial interest in the article was due I think to that fact that I myself tend to spend too much time ordering and tidying things rather than focussing on the most important things that need doing in my life.

I am also aware that for some reason I enjoy visiting other people’s messy and cluttered houses more than houses that are very neat and clean. A cluttered house is often an interesting house while in a very tidy and ordered house I worry about knocking things over or putting something in the wrong place. Although I myself am very ordered and tidy, when others are like this I can find it stifling and oppressive. I’m not sure why this is but suspect its to do with being brought up in a very cluttered and untidy house.

An anti-mess attitude can be a problem when people don’t do stuff because of the fear of mess. For example we need to be prepared to get out the paints and the clay if we have children. We need to let children be children, with all the temporary mess and clutter this entails. Children can enjoy order and being able to find things as much as adults but they also need to be able to produce, for periods of time, mess. And I think adults need to do the same.

But, yes I agree that tidying up after productive and creative activity is the way to go. And I agree that too much mess and clutter means it’s difficult to find stuff. So, I basically agree with Katherine and others that we need a balance.

I haven’t read the book that’s mentioned in the article. Like others I tend to suspect that the motivation of the book is more to do with people needing to feel better about their disorganisation rather than any rigorous analyse of creative processes. I wonder if the people who buy the book will be people who need to relax about mess more or people who just want to feel better about the mess they already produce.

But after all this I do think that there is a case that many of us (certainly me) need to more focussed on creativity and the really important things of life, rather than worrying too much about untidyness. Just to strike the right balance.

 

[kewms]

Apropos of this thread, I just finished my Weekly Review, which is of course the pinnacle of GTD mess control. This one especially so, since for me the first Weekly Review of the month is when I assess where I am relative to my annual goals, look at higher altitudes, and so forth.

My inbox is empty, my desk is clear, my lists are current, and I'm ready to take on the world. Huzzah!

And the first thing I'm going to do is brainstorm around some issues I identified, which means grabbing a bunch of markers and scribbling all over a big sheet of paper. Otherwise known as making a mess.

Katherine

 

[Constant]

The idea that there is some kind of stochastic resonance in generalized disorder that can make us more productive, however, is nonsense. With the challenge most of us face trying to focus intently on what we need to, we need to minimize distractions, not enable them.

But isn't there something to be said about the old story of getting some of our best ideas in the noisy shower or random daydreaming or indiscriminately browsing in a bookstore or the like?
Focusing intently is a necessary part of the process but not the endpoint. After all the focusing and concentrating on a problem etc., we need to turn away from it for some time and in the midst of the "noise" of distraction we get our "aha" moment.

The benefit of GTD is that it clears our work path more efficiently so we have the time to use our brain as it's designed for greatest productivity and creativity.

 

[Constant]

Stress and Mess

Warning --This is admitted rambling---
There seems to be a general consensus to the threads that the middle of the road is the way to go
At the extremes are the pathologically messy on one side and the pathologically neat on the other

Another way of looking at this is what do we lean towards when we're feeling pretty stressed? More messy or more neat?
Either way it could be looked at as forms of Procrastination – of the Disorderly or Orderly (sharpen all the pencils) kind .

Stress cam make some people let it all hang out while others are moved to neaten up, clean all the dishes, straighten up etc. Get all their ducks lined up in a row and then they'll jump once again into the breach.

An EXTREME example:-----
This reminds me of a made for tv movie a long time ago which tried to realistically depict what would happen if the (then it was the USSR) other guys were going to nuke us. It was centered around the perspective of one average family. In their house we hear the radio announce that the big one was on it's way just minutes to detonation in the area. Take cover (impossible of course).

What did the mother of the family do under the circumstances?

She vacuumed. Big flash of light. X-ray outline of her skeleton. Fade to black.

In one way it's laughingly melodramatic in this context, but doesn't it talk to how deep our need for order is?

 

[unstuffed]

But isn't there something to be said about the old story of getting some of our best ideas in the noisy shower or random daydreaming or indiscriminately browsing in a bookstore or the like?

Yes, but I think the important point is that those times provide not distractions but 'pink noise' that damps out other distractions. And it's hard to have great ideas when your head is full of Stuff-To-Do and Stuff-To-Remember and Stuff-That's-Annoying. We need the order, in some form, to allow us to let the Stuff out, so that the creativity can come in.

After all the focusing and concentrating on a problem etc., we need to turn away from it for some time and in the midst of the "noise" of distraction we get our "aha" moment.

I think the 'noise' is not so much distraction as the fractal susurrus we need as humans. Our psychological makeup craves fractals, irregularity, and texture, rather than straight lines, mathematically regular structures, and hard surfaces. We're mammals, we have certain simple psychological patterns inherent in our brains, and the fractal complexity that mimics the natural is comforting.

For instance, right now I'm trying to type with a cat draped across my forearms. She's purring like a motor boat, and she's warm and soft and comforting. Although I'd assuredly type with greater ease if I turfed her off, I don't do it, because cats are calming (albeit inconvenient ;-)).

The benefit of GTD is that it clears our work path more efficiently so we have the time to use our brain as it's designed for greatest productivity and creativity.

Yes indeedy. It allows us to leave our straight-line work world and immerse ourselves in the fractal world where we're more likely to be inspired.

Note that I'm wholly in favour of straight lines and mathematically precise stuff much of the time. Being a mathematician, I'd be a traitor to my kind otherwise. ;-)

 

[nzamani]

Hello, i just wandet to add my POV.
I would describe myself as nearly pathological anti-messy. Even in the kindergarten i cleaned up stuff while the other children played - creating the mess.
I'm a perfectionist also which in many cases is very similar. Cleaning is just my was of making it perfect.

This all has deep psychological reasons (talk about a crazy [taiban kinda double agent] father and a psycho mother [getting thrown out of sects because she's creeping them out] arguing every day for hours right next to your cradle), but it got me a unique amount of thinking about mess vs. order.

First of all the reason an empty desk is very good is simple: Everything you see on a messy desk distracts you, until you're unable to think straight.
Second: An empty desk does not stay empty for a long time. The poeple in scholl always asked me why i had not started no write while 2/3 of the time was over. Again: Simple answer: I first thought, THAN i wrote. Ohers just wrote as it came out of their heads, creating an unstructured mess, because they were oto stupid for higher levels of brainwork. I wrote everything in the last 20-10 minutes and got the best score in the class. Go figure...
Nowadays i work with all the nice GTD-concepts for projects that are too big for my head, but else i still go that way.
Empty table IS NOT empty mind!

But my life in exactly like another poster said:
M home is very clean, ordered and nice. All m thoughts a noted. BUT, my box of incoming stuff is flooded with invoices and important letters with possible catastropes attached.
Why is this so?
Well, i feel a very strong blockage to start adding tasks to a non-perfect project-tree-structure. And my expectations of that tree are so high, that i planned to build my own software just to fulfill them and every other expectation of non-messyness.

So in the end it never gets done because i want to do it too clean and really believe to not be able to do it in a non-perfectly-ordered-and-clean way.

About the randomness: It al comes down to resolution. To the ocean, a huge rain is just a big flat table turned upside down and put on the water. The little drops alone are irrelevant calming. The mass of *equality* of the whole rain equalizes and calms down. That's the base of all those "noise is good" arguments.
So the're only saying that a clean table is good, with the additional argument that below a certain level of amplitude of the effect to your brain, chaos is irrelevant (because it makes no difference to order).
I fully agree with that. but this does NOT imply that you can leave a mess on your table. Because that mess WILL be notilable, WILL distract you, ant therfore WILL be bad.
All clear so far?

Now for some poeple this level seems to be higher than for others (mine is pathologically deep for example, and those of messies are pathologically high), but in their frame that's just human.

The real then question is: Would allowing a higher level of mess make you more effective if it would not distract you?
This would give poeple with a higher mess-tolerance an advance.
Or are those poeple just more inefficient to begin with and allowing the usage of their tolerance bring them back no normal?

 

[Constant]

Back to 50,000 feet

This certainly is turning out to be a passionate topic. But I'm staying aligned with everybody that says somewhere in the middle of the mess-order road is best.
And personal opinion, I think GTD is one of the best organizing systems to deal with the complexity of our world because along with it's structure, I see it's improvisational "wiggle-room". We work it with our intuition; we "mind-dump", we brainstorm; we use different coloured pens, different sized paper; we write some things down and "forget" about them until it comes to review time, etc. We're messy sometimes but overall in a sometimes messy-sometimes ordered equilibrium.

But that doesn't stop the interest in new ideas and good ideas can be counterintuitive and contentious. There's plenty of good ideas that are contentious but food for thought nevertheless.

A quote from that"The Perfect Mess" book( But isn't it ironic though that to get a message on messiness benefit across, it was conveyed in the orderly structure of a book – I think that says a lot about creativity needing structure)---------

"People tend to imagine that they are getting the most from their brains when their thoughts are well organized and focused, when they are clearly able to spell out their goals and intentions and when the confusing world around them has been sorted out according to a distinct scheme. But actually, the mind is built around disorder on several levels ranging from processing of raw sensory data to juggling of complex ideas. Our brains evolved to function in a messy world, and sometimes when we insist on thinking in neat, orderly ways, we're really holding back our minds from doing what they do best. In fact it is when our brains seem to be efficiently putting the world around us into perfect order that they are most likely to be leading us astray."

Very counterintuitive stuff.
And where do good, even counterintuitive ideas come from?
A Lieutenant Columbo furthermore------
– An unrelated book I've mentioned called "Noise" interestingly covers topics also in the Perfect Mess book (stochastic resonance, order in disorder, for ex.) but at a deeper scientific level. Coincidental,-no author/publisher book connections whatsoever.
What's also interesting is that the author Bart Kosko is a professor of electrical engineering with degrees in philosophy, economics, mathematics, and law, as well as being an award winning musical composer. Look at the broad education of this guy.
He seems to fit the mold of what the world currently needs to get the best ideas – that is, people who have a very broad education base are the best at seeing the intersection of seemingly unrelated ideas from widely varying, disparate other notions or ideas (Innovation, creativity). So you get a richness of down to earth analogy when they write,instead of professional lingo, that connects with all of us one way or another, leading to our better learning and understanding of complexity.
At work, I have the privilege of meeting top International medical researchers and the best ones always seem to have these characteristics. Broad education base and usually humble. (The privilege is to spot them not to be them-don't have the bandwidth-look at the rambling here). They are also best at making the complex simple otherwise what's the point? No communication.
The point is, when I spot an author with Kosko's varied credentials, I usually know I'm in for some great reading and learning. You don't just look at the material, you can also look through it. I see this in a lot of GTDers, which is why it's so great to be part of the forum.

Hoo Boy, What's it all about Alfie? Is there a neurologist in the house?

 

[nzamani]

*ouch*

This certainly is turning out to be a passionate topic. But I'm staying aligned with everybody that says somewhere in the middle of the mess-order road is best.

Unfortunately that's still the description of a simplification over time and character.
Gernerally you can take that view, as long as you
1) find your personal best position instead of a general middle, and
2) allow it to fluctuate with the situation.

This pattern is so general that i would considerit a general philosophy of human life.
a) worst are the outer extremists (left and right, black and white, yes and no. more generally an extreme of n orthogonal dimensions.)
b) better are the centered ones ("let's find a compromise"), but still strongly stuck to the middle)
c) best are the intelligently variable flexible (they face the needs of the situation, and of the associated partys. depending on them you sometimes have to be more extreme and sometimes less, sometimes more in the middle, sometimes more on a side [of a dimension], sometimes quickly changing, sometimes slowly.)

The point is that the higher (c>a) you go, the more energy you need. Therefore you go just as high as you need to. (based on natural selection, if avaliable, as we very often have negative selection nowadays...)

"People tend to imagine that they are getting the most from their brains when their thoughts are well organized and focused, when they are clearly able to spell out their goals and intentions and when the confusing world around them has been sorted out according to a distinct scheme. But actually, the mind is built around disorder on several levels ranging from processing of raw sensory data to juggling of complex ideas. Our brains evolved to function in a messy world, and sometimes when we insist on thinking in neat, orderly ways, we're really holding back our minds from doing what they do best. In fact it is when our brains seem to be efficiently putting the world around us into perfect order that they are most likely to be leading us astray."

Very counterintuitive stuff.

Indeed. The whole paragraph makes no sense by being ignorant.

He says the brain is best at working in the mess?
No. He says the brain is best at ordering that mess.
Does that mean that mess reduces the effectiveness.
Nope. It's just that it's the quickest stuff to remove, that we can clutter our minds with.

But why add it it the first place if we only have to order it later anyway... in our brains... every time we come across...

Very ineffective, isn't it?

BTW: Those examples with the raindrops still don't count because of the aforementioned "equal distribution balancing itself", being still not chaotic but ordering to the sea.

Coincidental,-no author/publisher book connections whatsoever.
What's also interesting is that the author Bart Kosko is a professor of electrical engineering with degrees in philosophy, economics, mathematics, and law, as well as being an award winning musical composer. Look at the broad education of this guy.

Warning! This is a logical fallacy of appeal to authority. His archievments in those things do not relate to the compentence of the content of the book. Even a genius can be completely wrong.

At work, I have the privilege of meeting top International medical researchers and the best ones always seem to have these characteristics. Broad education base and usually humble.
They are also best at making the complex simple otherwise what's the point? No communication.

Many poeple consider me having those characteristics. I've a very broad education but also one strong specialization.
But generally i'm good at nearly everything if i care for it (so i have time to get into it).

I very often find area crosing generalizations because of that broad knowledge, and love to spread them for the benefit of everyone. But i don't think i'm in someway better. (You can't answer that question anyway without mentioning it relative to a specific context/pov's scale.)

Let me say that everyone has the abilites for this. Everyone. They just chose to use their brain for what the think is more important. Often they don't even realize how good the are in their specialities because they don't know their specialities. Sometimes they would not admit it or they think that that kind of speciality does not count.
But it does count, ant the're most of the time the best in it, in ther whole circle of friends.

Now you can still decide to get a broader range of education because you want it (but you must be honest!), or accept yourself by actively choosing your other favourite stuff to be what you want.

What yo you really want?

I see this in a lot of GTDers, which is why it's so great to be part of the forum.

I must agree with that. Intelligent poeple. But most of all poeple with common interests and problems (that brought them to GTD).
Please don't call me a smartass (i'm not one) for saying: it is by definition great to be part of a small group of poeple with a very specific interest and character (feature).

As a final line, i want to add that messyness sometimes is just a dimension of the order-space. Think about it.

Now tell me: How does it sound when you clap with one hand? (See post title for solution.)

 

[tominperu]

"People tend to imagine that they are getting the most from their brains when their thoughts are well organized and focused, when they are clearly able to spell out their goals and intentions and when the confusing world around them has been sorted out according to a distinct scheme. But actually, the mind is built around disorder on several levels ranging from processing of raw sensory data to juggling of complex ideas. Our brains evolved to function in a messy world, and sometimes when we insist on thinking in neat, orderly ways, we're really holding back our minds from doing what they do best. In fact it is when our brains seem to be efficiently putting the world around us into perfect order that they are most likely to be leading us astray."

Very counterintuitive stuff.

Indeed. The whole paragraph makes no sense by being ignorant.

He says the brain is best at working in the mess?
No. He says the brain is best at ordering that mess.
Does that mean that mess reduces the effectiveness.
Nope. It's just that it's the quickest stuff to remove, that we can clutter our minds with.

But why add it it the first place if we only have to order it later anyway... in our brains... every time we come across...

I find it difficult to follow the argument here. Seems like the argument on this thread is itself getting a bit messy.

Really, if you say something is "ignorant" you need to come up with pretty good arguments as to why, and I don't see them.

To me the quote is very interesting and not ignorant at all.

I think we probably all agree that straightforward linear logical thinking can only take us so far in solving our problems. We need to think imaginatively, laterally, with free association, "in a messier way" to come up with solutions to problems and to drive our lives forward. This is what Katherine was getting at I think when she mentioned mind mapping earlier.

As humans we have complex, often contradictory needs and aspirations and that therefore the answers and satisfactions of life will also tend to be complex and contradictory. Often we fail by trying to arrive at ordered solutions to our problems, when in fact, the best solution is almost bound to be "messy".

I'm not sure how relevant this is but I came across a fascinating exhibit in the Tate Modern in London some years ago. It was by an artist who was interested in creating working/living spaces. She created a small room/space with everything near at hand. The space had to be very ordered and logical. She enjoyed spending her time designing and ordering the different elements. But when she had finished she came to see the space as deeply unsatisfying and confining even though she had designed it herself.

I think we are programmed to order and design but at the same time when we arrive at perfect order, we find it stale and unsatisfying. In a sense human beings enjoy being in a constant state of part turmoil, always striving for something "extra" that we can never quite define. Once we define it and hold it in our hands we see its limitation and want something more.

The deeply satisfying things in life are not things we can define in a project plan or outlined on a spreadsheet, or written into some great new software tool.

GTD is a tool that can help us keep track of the many competing aspects of our cluttered and complicated lives. As such it is an ordered and logical system. But it cannot replace the complex and messy aspect of our lives with an automated system. We have to use our inituition and higher decision making powers for that which are not necessarily ordered or logical.

Going back to the original question of "Yes to Mess?", we have to to a certain extent embrace messy thinking and I suppose some pockets of messiness in our physical environment may not be such a bad thing for this other type of more open ended thinking.

 

[Constant]

I find it difficult to follow the argument here. Seems like the argument on this thread is itself getting a bit messy.

Tom, I agree. I told myself in an earlier post don't go there and didn't follow the good advice. I'm messing with your mess topic. The ongoing fusion of neuroscience and psychology is not a topic to be covered over a few threads in a forum on messiness. Time will tell about it's general practicality. But it's very interesting.

Thanks again for the interesting topic

 

[Constant]

Now tell me: How does it sound when you clap with one hand? (See post title for solution.)

nzamani, it's the sound of me bowing out from our debate, respectfully. And enjoyable as it is.

This topic has infinite possibilities so we could debate until the cows come home. But this is not the place.
Ideally we should be sitting down in a café somewhere one on one for good coffee and great conversation.

so I'd like to at least give you the references I've been referring to and you may have a chance to read them and take things up directly with the authors rather than 3'd parties like me that can't do proper justice to your points and questions.----
The Perfect Mess by Abrahamson and Freedman- Little, Brown Publishers

Noise by Bart Kosko –Viking Publisher –FYI, the random raindrops in the sea quote is on pg. xvii -

Cheers,
Constant

 

[Constant]

Best I can do is to share another fascinating reference that seems applicable to the topic.
A quote from the book: "A Mind of It's Own"
By Cordelia Fine, PhD.
Norton, publisher

Refers to recent findings of how our environment is a major trigger to our actions - old news but what's new is our unconscious drives us to act based on what our environment is like. We are unaware.
Many many other things covered – very well written and referenced

Here's excerpt quote –
"……….What these and many other experiments show is that seemingly trivial things in our environment may be influencing our behaviour.

Dormant goals are triggered without our even realizing. It's not that we're necessarily unaware of the stimulus itself. However, we are oblivious to the effect that it is having on us. Without our knowledge, we suddenly begin to pursue a goal that has been set off by some seemingly innocuous event.
Seemingly incidental events and objects appear to have strange powers over our behaviour, and the speculation begins where the experiments stop.
Is that charming photo of your family on your desk at work imperceptibly encouraging you to head home earlier? If you have a deadline coming up, should you replace the family photo with a portrait of your boss instead?
What about that stapler? What's that up to?
Ok, the stapler is probably guiltless. But there are countless other suspects-the letter from your mother on the doorstep, the song you heard on the radio on the way to work,
Maybe even the dead pigeon on the pavement – all of which may be changing the course of your life in their own modest way. ……….."

So, just a taste of the content –
Can be relevant to the messy vs orderly environments we inhabit and how we relate and act, unbeknownst to us.

For your stimulation and enjoyment. Don't shoot the messenger

 

[wordsofwonder]

But isn't there something to be said about the old story of getting some of our best ideas in the noisy shower or random daydreaming or indiscriminately browsing in a bookstore or the like?

For what it's worth, my experience has been that the randomness/noise/clutter isn't what triggers the ideas. For me, I tend to have good ideas whenever I can turn off Monkey Mind and get myself back to what David Allen calls "clear space". I can do that in the shower sometimes, but I can equally easily do it meditating or going for a walk.

On the other hand, one of the reasons I can do it in the shower is that when I'm in the shower, I don't have a big pile of stuff (desk, e-mail, Web, forums, etc.) sucking me in and demanding my attention. When those attention draws are there, Monkey Mind starts jumping up and down and going, "pay attention to that! No, that! I mean, that!" And just like that, faster than the blink of an eye, clear space is lost.

I guess it comes down, then, to a personal choice. If you can quiet your mind sitting at your desk, go for it. If you need the distraction of a shower, or the detachment brought about by daydreaming or meditation to quiet Monkey Mind and reach clear space, do it. Whatever works is what works.

-- Tammy

 

[Constant]

For me, I tend to have good ideas whenever I can turn off Monkey Mind and get myself back to what David Allen calls "clear space".

-- Tammy

Tammy I agree with you. To me clarity is helped by GTD. For me it's by using it to return my work to just cranking widgets like David Allen describes in GTDfast . Everything is written down in an organized fashion and out of my head in packets of actions that I "crank" out all day, clearing a path (David's Clear Space) for my mind to be available to more creativity and productivity. It works and is a lifesaver.

Then I may appear to differ from what I hope I'm correctly understanding what you're saying – that you willfully try to shut down monkey mind?
Yes usually my ideas or "aha" moments do surface during times of distraction/noise. Yes the shower, brushing teeth and all the others mentioned. Even at my desk with all the work stuff in my face I'll get a flash of insight on something totally unrelated. So anywhere goes.
But they bubble up on their own and that can't be controlled consciously and it has been said that our unconscious mind is much smarter than the conscious. It's like I don't even own the idea(s). Where did that come from?
Or maybe we're talking about the same thing because I like to try prompting that mind feature by letting go, which GTD helps- so I can take a walk or play tennis or whatever, as you rightly said.
But I don't think I can will the monkeys away-the more you try, the more they stay - but I can distract my mind to disengage from thinking about them and give the subconscious a chance to help with whatever problem I've worked hard at but can't resolve. The new analogy used for the subconscious is "the butler of the mind" .

But what can also be controlled and helps, is to enrichen the mind with as wide a range of experience as possible. Lifetime learning. Even Business Guru Peter Drucker put it this way – when asked what would he recommend to business managers aspiring to improve themselves he said "learn to play the violin"
Meaning the more variety of connections you make in the brain with wide varieties of experiences and wide varieties of learning, the richer your creativity will be when you draw upon it because your butler, the unconscious, has more to work with to bring answers to the table when it's called on to provide them.

Whoops, maybe getting a tad off topic again?