GTD 3.0 Mind Map
- Thread starter apastuszak
- Start date
Longstreet
Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
TesTeq
0
Longstreet said:
I think the confusing part is:
DavidAllen said:
So one can say that walking backwards is GTD, jumping from a plane without a parachute is GTD, sitting all day on the couch in front of TV is GTD. And probably it is - according to David - if you feel good about it.
I think that processing stuff from your inbox into a structured warehouse of items (where for each item you've defined your relationship with it) is the essence of GTD. You can choose the structure of this warehouse for your best productivity. David gives some examples in his book - methods that work for him but he has nothing against time blocking, color coding, jumping up and down if it works for you.
What does it mean "if it works for you"? It means: you're satisfied with the results!
Longstreet
Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
TesTeq said:
Or as Paul Karl Feyerabend puts it “"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."” Should we go that far?
Bill Myers
Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny
Until recently I was one of those who spent a lot of time and energy in this forum trying to prove that my interpretation of and approach to GTD was the right one. For example when I realized that the more I simplified my systems the better they worked for me, I spent a lot of time telling others here in no uncertain terms that they should do the exact same thing. In particular I looked down on those who claimed to benefit from fully featured software tools.
Some recent discussions have helped me understand that people with different personalities, lifestyles and professions have different needs than me. For some people, my approach might not be appropriate. There are clearly people who can and do utilize more complex systems and software to their benefit.
There is a lot of freedom in accepting that anything that works for you and not against you is "canonical GTD." If nothing else it makes it easier to try new ideas. So... thank you for that, DavidAllen.
Some recent discussions have helped me understand that people with different personalities, lifestyles and professions have different needs than me. For some people, my approach might not be appropriate. There are clearly people who can and do utilize more complex systems and software to their benefit.
There is a lot of freedom in accepting that anything that works for you and not against you is "canonical GTD." If nothing else it makes it easier to try new ideas. So... thank you for that, DavidAllen.
Folke
0
Longstreet said:
Did you really read my response? What did you find confusing in that?
But here we go, then, from a slightly different angle this time:
1) The age-old axiom that "anything that works is OK" cannot be attributed to any living person (nor a dead one), because it is so old and of such diverse origin that it cannot even be traced. It is most certainly not specifically attributable to David Allen and GTD. We "all" embrace it more or less - even GTD antagonists do; virtually everyone, always have.
2) GTD becomes a meaningless term if all it means is "anything that works". We already have terms like "anything that works" to describe that. Do we really need an abbreviation? (Then how about ATW? ;-) ) And what about all the methodologies that David's rivals peddle or propose; they work, too, don't they, at least for their users? So are they GTD, too? Perhaps even more GTD - if they work for more people?
And on top of all that - or perhaps at the bottom of all this - it goes against my sense of "academic justice" to praise David for things that everyone else also did, but to omit praise for what he did that was different and outstanding. I think it is a grave injustice to describe him as the man who told us to empty our mail, write things down, and to do whatever works. That is quite like characterizing Gandhi as a man who believed in breathing and talking. Such a decsription is missing the point completely. And, as I said in my previous post, I think this might be a mistake from a marketing point of view as well; it is not just an academic matter.
But to answer your question in a very straight way: I am not sure David's answer is best described as "confusing", perhaps rather as "evasive" or "retired" - or just plain "bland" or "confused". But either way, I could not make heads or tails of it, so if we choose to use your word "confusing", it was confusing in its totality, not just in its parts. I did not understand the overall message, nor the isolated statements (sentences). I did not manage to make much sense of it at all. Sorry.
I am not sure if you know what I mean, Longstreet - we seem to be approaching this from totally different angles, somehow. I hope I did not confuse you with all this. Anyway, it is comforting to know that we will both keep trying to do whatever seems to work best for us, and that we are all happy.
TesTeq
0
Folke said:
Folke, IMHO you're focused on "Done" part of the GTD methodology. So you try to force David Allen to answer what is the best way to organize "Things" (put them in the Calendar, color code priorities etc.) to make sure that they will be done. And his answer is: organize them according to you taste if you have them defined.
For me the essence of the GTD methodology is the "Processing" step of the workflow - it allows me to establish my relationship with every piece of the incoming stuff. So I am focused on the "Things" part of the GTD methodology - the "stuff to things" process is really powerful and enlightening for me. I've never heard David's advice to not process your inputs. And I strongly believe that if you carefully process the stuff into "Things" and do the Weekly Review of your "Things" you build the intuition that tells you what to do (the "Done" part of GTD).
Self awareness leads to auto prioritization!
Folke
0
TesTeq said:
If that is how you understood me I accept the honesty of that interpretation, but I am puzzled, because that is not how I see it myself. On the contrary, I very much like to the whole processing, organizing and reflecting bit. That's the essence for me, too, and has been for more than 40 years.
My point in these last few posts is a totally different one, but since both you and Longstreet have managed to misunderstand it I must have failed totally in expressing it well. Sorry. How about this, then:
Why would anyone claim that "anything that rolls is a Mercedes"? Why indeed. So, why would anyone claim that "anything that increases a person's productivity and awareness is GTD"? Every productivity guru has his/her own name and brand. Just like all car makes have wheels, windshield and so on, all productivity methods are based on dealing with your mail, defining outcomes, goals and actions, and writing it down in some organized way that works for them.
But never mind. If you all think that is unique to GTD, then what can I say.
Longstreet
Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
Folke : Well....maybe because of this statement from David Allen: "Anything that works for you and not against you is "canonical GTD." But....if words from David Allen himself are not sufficient for you in this regard, then I do not know what to say. You really need to become less rigid, my friend. Really.
TesTeq
0
Folke said:
I like the GTD workflow diagram, 2-minute rule, Next Action concept, Project definition (more than one Action), Weekly Review requirement and Area of Responsibility horizon. I call this set of features "my GTD" and I haven't found any other methodology that includes all these elements.
Moreover I haven't found any other bottom-up methodology - in GTD you start from clearing a Runway to make a mental room for take off to the higher horizons.
For me the implementation details are less important as long as they don't hurt your productivity. So everybody should check if he is more productive using self-imposed dates or using color coding or using plain context lists. And choose something that works for him.
... That is - basically anything goes in GTD as long as you are getting the things done?
Folke
0
Longstreet said:
Yes, I read that. And I wrote: "Anything that rolls is a Mercedes"
Longstreet said:
Even if Karl Benz himself had claimed that "anything that rolls is a Mercedes" it had not made a big difference to me. (Well, perhaps I would have thought it a bit sad, frankly, unless I had taken it as a joke.)
Longstreet said:
Don't worry. I am only rigid in an academic sense. I reality I do what the heck I want, in other words what you would probably call GTD, since it works for me, and I myself would not even bother to give it a name. But in an "academic" type discussion, such as this one, I like to keep things clear and (reasonably) well defined.
So, if your definition (and David Allen's, perhaps, too) of GTD is "anything that works for someone", then may I ask, just for clarity, whether you also consider David's rivals and opponents to be GTD (assuming that what they preach actually works for someone)?
TesTeq said:
I like it, too. I think David and his books are among the very best. That is why I try to "hang out" with "GTD people". That is where I feel most at home.
But "unique teacher" is not the same as "unique teaching". One algebra book can stand out as a lot better than another algebra book, even if the algebra itself is basically the same. David's algebra is perhaps not much different from other people's algebra, but the way he wrote about it made algebra appeal to other people.
Longstreet
Professor of microbiology and infectious diseases
The immediate trigger to this particular discussion was the statement in the referenced blog post that projects "should" have a due date. I can understand those who object to a process that forbids self-set deadlines, but I think that the other extreme of requiring a deadline for every project is equally problematic. If it works for an individual, dandy, but I don't agee that it's a general "should."
Re the "if it rolls, it's a Mercedes" argument, I think that I agree with Folke, assuming that I understand him correctly. I've had a similar issue in the past, with what seems to be a rejection of the very idea of definitions.
Definition: Guacamole is "an avocado-based dip or salad." If something does not involve avocados, or look like a dip or salad, then I would say that it's not "guacamole." That doesn't mean that it's not good, it just means that it's not guacamole.
If a person found a particularly squishy/waxy potato, and treated it much like an avocado in creating a dip, then one might quite reasonably call that dip "Potato guacamole." It might be wonderful and delicious. But if it were presented on a menu merely as "guacamole" and ordered and brought to a patron's table, that patron would have every right to complain and send it back. The definition of guacamole gave that patron a shorthand for what he was expecting to receive. That's what definitions are good for--they're shorthand.
So, "doesn't fit the definition" is not the equivalent of "bad" They are two completely different concepts.
I've been doing a lot of reading about Agile programming lately. Agile's core definition, the core principles, are pretty general, though very far-reaching. And people have come up with multiple practices based on those principles--Scrum, Kanban, and so on. These are different definitinos of "Agile." And there's acceptance that the goals of Agile can be achieved in many ways, and that there's a pretty large range of "if it works, do it." There's also a general idea that certain core practices are non-Agile. And people argue, vociferously, about which is which. But I have yet to see anyone argue that it is wrong to even TRY to define what Agile is. There is a clear acceptance that definitions are useful and meaningful. If the Agile community decided that even trying to define Agile was wrong and unseemly, I think that the practice of Agile would slowly fall apart.
I'm not sure if I've ever seen such a strong vibe that defining something is an inherently negative practice, as I've seen from many posters on this forum. In a forum intended for discussion of a topic, I often get a vibe that discussion of that topic is unseemly and inappropriate. I feel that the vibe on the forum these days is very strongly suppressing discussion that even tangentially touches on definition, and that that is suppressing discussion in general.
Re the "if it rolls, it's a Mercedes" argument, I think that I agree with Folke, assuming that I understand him correctly. I've had a similar issue in the past, with what seems to be a rejection of the very idea of definitions.
Definition: Guacamole is "an avocado-based dip or salad." If something does not involve avocados, or look like a dip or salad, then I would say that it's not "guacamole." That doesn't mean that it's not good, it just means that it's not guacamole.
If a person found a particularly squishy/waxy potato, and treated it much like an avocado in creating a dip, then one might quite reasonably call that dip "Potato guacamole." It might be wonderful and delicious. But if it were presented on a menu merely as "guacamole" and ordered and brought to a patron's table, that patron would have every right to complain and send it back. The definition of guacamole gave that patron a shorthand for what he was expecting to receive. That's what definitions are good for--they're shorthand.
So, "doesn't fit the definition" is not the equivalent of "bad" They are two completely different concepts.
I've been doing a lot of reading about Agile programming lately. Agile's core definition, the core principles, are pretty general, though very far-reaching. And people have come up with multiple practices based on those principles--Scrum, Kanban, and so on. These are different definitinos of "Agile." And there's acceptance that the goals of Agile can be achieved in many ways, and that there's a pretty large range of "if it works, do it." There's also a general idea that certain core practices are non-Agile. And people argue, vociferously, about which is which. But I have yet to see anyone argue that it is wrong to even TRY to define what Agile is. There is a clear acceptance that definitions are useful and meaningful. If the Agile community decided that even trying to define Agile was wrong and unseemly, I think that the practice of Agile would slowly fall apart.
I'm not sure if I've ever seen such a strong vibe that defining something is an inherently negative practice, as I've seen from many posters on this forum. In a forum intended for discussion of a topic, I often get a vibe that discussion of that topic is unseemly and inappropriate. I feel that the vibe on the forum these days is very strongly suppressing discussion that even tangentially touches on definition, and that that is suppressing discussion in general.
Bill Myers
Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny
Gardener said:
I think the discussions about "definition" are what's suppressing other discussion, not the other way around. Particularly in threads where someone asked for practical advice, not treatises about individual interpretations of the theory behind GTD. I think you, Folke and others who believe that the essence of GTD is the avoidance of "fake due dates" or any other particular aspect or interpretation have had your say. Repeatedly. To the point where you have overwhelmed the forum and made it difficult for other points of view to be expressed. If the person who authored GTD can have such an open mind, I think it behooves the rest of us to do the same. And to respect the fact that the forum is for the entire GTD community, not just those who believe GTD is not about "fake due dates."
Trust me, Gardener, I get it. At one time I passionately believed that my interpretation of GTD was the right one and I needed to prove that to the world. I've learned that sometimes it is best to just listen to others -- and learn from them.
Bill Myers
Fleeing from the Cylon tyranny
I want to add something: at one time I believed the avoidance of "fake due dates" was integral to a valid practice of GTD. Until chirmer, Longstreet and others helped me see otherwise. So... thanks for contributing your POV. You have opened my mind to a different way of looking at things.
Folke
0
bcmyers2112
I think there are two entirely different discussions going on at the same time here:
One is about self-imposed due dates or self-imposed calendar time slots. Yes, you are right, I avoid all that, unless they are unavoidable, and perhaps I have expressed that too often, in which case I am sorry. I thought Longstreet and I closed that discussion long time ago, when we agreed that we both want some way of making sure we see the important stuff but have chosen different ways to accomplish it.
The other discussion is about what defines GTD, and how we want to use the term GTD. There is, or at least so I believe, a natural trade-off with any definition that if it is too narrow it does not appeal to anyone because it fits no one, and if it is too wide it does not appeal to anyone either, because it then becomes meaningless, as if it did not even exist. The definition needs to be tolerant enough to allow for some adaptation, but prescriptive enough to have a distinct character.
Maybe I am unusually fortunate in not needing anyone's blessing. Ohers may perhaps not be that fortunate. Could that be the root of some of the misunderstandings here? If it makes them happy that guru X blesses whatever it is that they are doing, then I am happy for their happiness, but for my own part I do not care much for that type of blessing, whoever it comes from. There are many who can bless you for virtually anything you do. I listen more to people who say clearly that A is better than B under what circumstances and state the relevant reasons concisely. Then whether I actually choose A or B is my business, but at least I respect their analysis for what it is worth.
I think there are two entirely different discussions going on at the same time here:
One is about self-imposed due dates or self-imposed calendar time slots. Yes, you are right, I avoid all that, unless they are unavoidable, and perhaps I have expressed that too often, in which case I am sorry. I thought Longstreet and I closed that discussion long time ago, when we agreed that we both want some way of making sure we see the important stuff but have chosen different ways to accomplish it.
The other discussion is about what defines GTD, and how we want to use the term GTD. There is, or at least so I believe, a natural trade-off with any definition that if it is too narrow it does not appeal to anyone because it fits no one, and if it is too wide it does not appeal to anyone either, because it then becomes meaningless, as if it did not even exist. The definition needs to be tolerant enough to allow for some adaptation, but prescriptive enough to have a distinct character.
Maybe I am unusually fortunate in not needing anyone's blessing. Ohers may perhaps not be that fortunate. Could that be the root of some of the misunderstandings here? If it makes them happy that guru X blesses whatever it is that they are doing, then I am happy for their happiness, but for my own part I do not care much for that type of blessing, whoever it comes from. There are many who can bless you for virtually anything you do. I listen more to people who say clearly that A is better than B under what circumstances and state the relevant reasons concisely. Then whether I actually choose A or B is my business, but at least I respect their analysis for what it is worth.
I'm new to this forum but experienced with GTD. I already see a pattern. What would happen if we stopped engaging with forum poster(s) who are simply grinding an axe? Or ax in the US. If your goal is to win the argument, you're playing a game that can't be won. Your attention is more productive on other topics. I enjoy hearing from you in that field beyond rightdoing and wrongdoing. What if we stopped replying to those who are bent on finding fault? Finding fault is easy, especially on a public forum like this. Becoming unbent -- and more productive according to your own definition -- is a worthy life's work. At least for me it is.