bcmyers2112
Registered
.....
bcmyers2112;110502 said:I don't know any truly productive people who obsess about list managers. They focus on accomplishing things. Conversely, the people I do know who obsess about these things -- like me -- don't get nearly as much done.
bcmyers2112;110502 said:I think the reason I've been obsessed with list managers is because I've been trying to avoid the harder work of defining my stuff at all levels. But I'm starting to realize: either you define your stuff or it will define you. It's actually harder on every level to be a victim/responder than a captain/commander. It's more work, not less. So I need to roll up my sleeves and do what needs to be done.
bcmyers2112;110502 said:Is there anyone else reading this who has struggled or is still struggling with this? How do you cope?
TesTeq;110505 said:Great insight! No list manager will work for you if you hate the listed items. And you hate them when they are not clarified enough.
Folke;110514 said:Example:
One of the major inherent differences between paper and (potential) computer implementations is the capability to manage multiple types of uncorrelated task characterizations. On paper (unless you are prepared to maintain multiple copies of the same task; against the recommendation) you cannot possibly split up (prearrange) your tasks in more than one way, the recommended way being having a set of mutually exclusive context designations (lists). In a computer, at least potentially, in principle, you could characterize a task in as many ways you like - location contexts, tool contexts, people contexts, energy type, duration, priority (in some relevant sense) - and always be able to view only those particular tasks that are relevant to consider in your current situation, and eliminate (temporarily hide from view) all tasks that are not worth considering right now.
Folke;110514 said:This means, as far as situation based task selection is concerned, that a computer implementation would have the potential to approximate the core philosophy much more closely than the paper based standard implementation.
TesTeq;110505 said:Yes, and this is the advantage of the paper system. You HAVE TO process the stuff before putting it on one of your lists!
TMac;110507 said:I do spend more time worrying about the tools and little time on my next actions. This constant state of reaction adds a lyer of stress that is both self-impossed and a waste of time.
Folke;110514 said:1) a core philosophy,
based on the principle of making the best use of each moment, and therefore leaving things as open as possible until the last moment, except to the extent that something is truly nailed down time, place, sequence or other aspects etc that makes it objectively correct to prearrange the things accordingly. Based on review rather than fixed predetermination. Fundamentally distinguishes between actionable items and a variety of (yet) non-actionable items.
Folke;110514 said:This means, as far as situation based task selection is concerned, that a computer implementation would have the potential to approximate the core philosophy much more closely than the paper based standard implementation.
TesTeq;110530 said:No list manager will work for you if you hate the listed items. And you hate them when they are not clarified enough.
TesTeq;110530 said:
- What’s the value in getting this done?
- What’s the risk if I don’t?
PeterW;110524 said:Changing list managers is a bit like redecorating a room with new paint and carpet. It freshens up the appearance but if the furniture in the room is still the same, you will still be sitting on that lumpy couch.
bcmyers2112;110535 said:I disagree.
bcmyers2112;110536 said:I've gotta get to work, but I just want to express one last thought: if anyone is reading this who like me has been trying list manager after list manager in the belief that finding "the right one" will make everything better: I believe it's very possible you're deceiving yourself as I know I was. I hope in all of this discussion about this list manager versus that list manager (which people are free to have as long as the forum mods are cool with it -- this isn't my forum and it's not my place to tell people what to discuss here), that point doesn't get lost. If you're stuck like I was, I urge you to streamline your systems. If that means changing list managers (and for me, it had to mean that -- the one I had been using was way too complicated) do a bit of research, limiting yourself to an hour or so. I'm serious. Time it. Then pick one that lets you sort next actions by context, and also lets you have separate lists of projects, somedays, etc., but doesn't bog you down in linkages and other crap you don't need -- AND STICK WITH IT. Because it's the thinking that gets you where you need to go and no system can think for you.
I'll probably have another update in a week or two for those interested.
AJS;110541 said:Some people derive great satisfaction from having tasks embedded directly into their projects software, and as long as it works for you then why not?
bcmyers2112;110545 said:I hadn't intended to begin a discussion about what kind of list manager is superior to others. I don't see any point in that sort of discussion. If using a quill on parchment allows you to operate at maximum efficiency with minimum stress, then quill on parchment is an ass-kicking GTD system -- for you.
Folke;110546 said:So, if I understand you correctly, the experiences you actually wanted to communicate in this thread then boil down to:
- be careful with what you consider as actionable - a lot of it might be better considered as Someday/Maybe
- carefully think through what you really mean, concretely, and phrase it clearly
- do not try to achieve things that cannot be achieved, or to impose more structure than you have practical use for