GTD 3.0 Mind Map

[Gardener]

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.

Ahhh. I think that I finally get the conflict. Maybe. I couldn't understand the complaints about debates--those exchanges didn't strike me as debates, but discussions. But I CAN understand, "We want to discuss practice, not theory." That, I get. At least, I comprehend the concept. I don't understand not wanting to discuss the theory of something like this, but that doesn't matter--it's not as if you need my understanding in order for you to be able to exercise your preference.

So I'm thinking that a "theory" thread might be a good way to funnel off that discussion. I don't know if my thought is valid, but discussing my thought in this thread would further sidetrack it, so I'm going to go make the thread.

Edited to add: Created. http://gettingthingsdone.com/forum/...cuss-getting-things-done/183501-theory-theory

 

[mommoe436]

I think Engineer expressed my frustration very clearly - I am all for an open discussion, but it seems there are posters who are simply (IMHO) trying to prove their point and repeating the same thing even though there have been many great comments in response.

My understanding is that Folke (and likely others) believes that the only difference between GTD and any other productivity tool/practice, etc. is the 'CALENDAR MUST ONLY INCLUDE HARD LANDSCAPE, WHICH HE DEFINES AS APPOINTMENTS WITH OTHER PEOPLE AND DUE DATES FOR THAT DAY AND TIME" MANY DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS. TesTeq provided a great response to this, yet it seems Folke chose to ignore that.

I for one do not believe DAVID is saying - do whatever you want and call it GTD, but he has clearly said that this is a set of guidelines and best practices - there are some who want black and white rules. It is also frustrating to continue to hear from someone who has not read anything on GTD since 2001, but continues to post opinions as fact. I believe this is why others respond - so that others don't take this as fact and avoid seeing the great benefits of GTD.

I do not believe the tone of the posts are about theory vs practical use - it is what Engineer says, but having that as a separate thread would avoid hijacking everything discussion into the same debate. I also think discussing someone else's theory must consider that person's comments.

 

[Bill Myers]

I regret my last comment because I lapsed again into being argumentative. I've been trying lately to keep my comments positive and useful. Basically, sharing what I do and why it works for me but letting others have their say. I apologize if I again contributed to a negative tone around here.

Maybe a better contribution would be for me to say my biggest takeaway from GTD is the premise that your mind is for having ideas, not holding them. From my perspective, all of the guidelines and suggestions in the book are aimed at helping you keep a clear head and a sense of relaxed control. When looking at it through that lens, there are all sorts of implementations that can serve that goal.

I am in sales, so my interpretation of the "hard landscape" is actually similar to Folke's. It's pretty much just appointments, deadlines handed down by customers or my manager, or time-sensitive reminders. It's not useful for me to block off time for specific projects because one call from a customer can easily upend my plans. In my world, unexpected calls are often vital opportunities.

But -- not everyone lives in my world. I can easily see how others may find it useful to have a wider definition of what is "hard landscape." As long as you are willing and able to honor appointments you set with yourself, I can't see the problem. And I can see how such a practice can be just as "GTD-ish" as my own.

I think the inherent difficulty in pinning down a precise definition of GTD is that what is or isn't a successful GTD practice is entirely subjective. After all, the very term "success" is subjective.

 

[Folke]

I think I am beginning to perhaps understand the root of the discussion, too.

And I agree there could be specific threads about things like the overall "profile", "salient features" etc of GTD, differences to other methodologies etc. And there could be many threads, as there already are, where the term GTD is hardly ever even mentioned, where all posts contain practical advice such as "collect such-and-such under a heading called X" or "consider app X etc" or "review those things every week" etc. Maybe the larger "market" is for such practical advice, not for making comparisons with similar methodologies etc.

I am with Gardener in thinking that "different" is not the same as "bad". It can even be good. Therefore, for me I have no problem whatsoever in saying about my own practices (or anyone else's) that they are "different" from GTD ("un-GTD" etc) if I think such an expression adds to the truth and makes something clearer. And I do not react when others use such expressions either. But I get the feeling that others can be more sensitive and eager to have an untainted label for their system and are therefore also more "inclusive" in what they want to call GTD.

I read the 2001 book as late as 2013, and have it in reasonably fresh memory, but I totally agree with mommoe436 that David's other work must also be taken into consideration when summarizing what GTD stands for. One caveat, though, is that I believe we would probably get a very muddled picture if we tried to include every little exception and alternative that David has ever mentioned sometime, somewhere, to someone - because if we did we might well end up with something very similar to "anything that works for someone is GTD" which is a bit too bland to be generally meaningful. My personal belief is that we can communicate the merits of GTD more clearly if we focus on the fundamental principles that really stand out, not so much on the occasional exceptions to these fundamentals nor on fundamentals that are already universally taken for granted. But be that as it may. I seriously do not expect that we will have many such separate discussion threads here.

This forum also serves a social function, like a coffee room for "belongers". People here want to belong to GTD and call themselves GTD, and feel they are doing the right thing and are with the right crowd, in much the same way that some people call themselves GI or Paleo if they follow a certain type of diet, or Muslim or Christian if they follow a certain religion. The vast majority do not really care much what the differences actually are between GI and Paleo, or between Muslim and Christian. They just want to belong somewhere, and any inquiry into such matters is often perceived as an attack even if it is just a quest for clarity.

 

[Longstreet]

Sounds good, folks. Oh my. A different thread for these discussions is a great idea - and a thread I will avoid like the plague. We all have our points - our different ways of implementing GTD - and it works for each of us. Are they different? Oh yes! Is one approach more "un-GTD" than others? No. That is all I am going to offer on this topic. Enjoy your debate on the new thread.

 

[Oogiem]

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.

I tend to agree with you. Some say that having projects that take longer than a year isn't "GTD" yet in my world that is common. I'm tired of certain people continuing to have such a rigid definition about what GTD is or isn't in the face of words direct from David Allen himself. GTD is a series of guidelines. What each person feels are the most important of those guidelines is different, how each person interprets and implements those guidelines is different. The ultimate goal IMO is to be comfortable with what you are doing now, comfortable with what you are not doing now but may do later later and the direction your life is going.

 

[TesTeq]

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.

I tried to pinpoint differences between GTD and other methodologies (any other bottom-up approaches, Folke?).

I tried to explain what does it mean "Anything that works for you and not against you is 'canonical GTD.'" in the context of the GTD practice.

And I failed.

I can see no benefit for anybody in my further participation in this discussion.

Thank you for reading, misreading and not reading.

 

[Folke]

I tried to pinpoint differences between GTD and other methodologies (any other bottom-up approaches, Folke?).

In all honesty, I do not read all books that come out. But I do remember being subjected a lot of training and theories on planning etc as a part of working in medium-to-large companies in the '80s and '90s. As I recall it, both bottom-up and top-down approaches tend to be advocated a lot. Personally I like to shift perspectives, so that is what I have always tended to do.

I tried to explain what does it mean "Anything that works for you and not against you is 'canonical GTD.'" in the context of the GTD practice.

And I forgot to say thank you or even comment. Sorry. I actually thought your answer was good, and that you had thereby sorted out Longsteet's question. I did not quite recognize the need to acknowledge at the time. I apologize.

Thank you for reading, misreading and not reading.

I feel that often, too, here. I keep saying something, and get no answer to what I am actually saying. I mainly hear repetitions and variations of people's standard answers to some entirely different question or statement.

The ultimate goal IMO is to be comfortable with what you are doing now, comfortable with what you are not doing now but may do later later and the direction your life is going.

I think we all agree with that. That's what people have been striving for throughout time. Do we really need an acronym for it? Some may call it GTD, some may call it GOD, some may call it yet something else or may choose not to have no name for this fundamental desire for a "way". I think Lao-tse said "The way is the goal" - he had a point, I think.

 

[Longstreet]

And most of us call it GTD....and THAT is what we are doing.

 

[Bill Myers]

I tend to agree with you. Some say that having projects that take longer than a year isn't "GTD" yet in my world that is common. I'm tired of certain people continuing to have such a rigid definition about what GTD is or isn't in the face of words direct from David Allen himself. GTD is a series of guidelines. What each person feels are the most important of those guidelines is different, how each person interprets and implements those guidelines is different. The ultimate goal IMO is to be comfortable with what you are doing now, comfortable with what you are not doing now but may do later later and the direction your life is going.

FWIW over time the insights you've shared into your world, such as running projects that literally span generations, helped me understand that my stance about how much technology can or can't help was just plain wrong. My approach is appropriate for me -- and probably for a certain percentage of other people -- but I think if I had your responsibilities I'd have to do things much differently.

Also we all have different personalities and capabilities. I have ADHD. Lists that include too much detail bog me down in a big way. I can't assume everyone has that challenge.

I don't think it was wrong to offer my perspective, but to offer it like it was the bee's knees and the only way to do something was... pretty dumb, actually.

The other thing is that the more I've read from you and others in this forum, I've picked up things here and there that I think I can adapt and use for myself. But I was only able to do that because I stopped assuming I knew everything and actually listened to what others had to say.

I think the fact that GTD can be subject to multiple interpretations doesn't "muddle" anything, but is in fact reflective of the strength of the system as presented by David Allen. It's not a set of commandments but suggestions that can be adapted to each individual. I don't think saying it's OK to schedule appointments with yourself in order to guard your time is the same as saying that anything is GTD as long as you like it. Just as I no longer believe that someone whose system is more complex than mine is doing GTD wrong.

 

[Folke]

The ultimate goal IMO is to be comfortable with what you are doing now, comfortable with what you are not doing now but may do later later and the direction your life is going.

And most of us call it GTD....and THAT is what we are doing.

Haha, yet another snappy, argumentative retort, Longstreet ;-)

It may perhaps be true on this forum, but I am not sure even of that, and there are over 7 billion people in the world and I am convinced that most of those have other names for that universal desire. I would imagine having no name for it at all is the most common.

GTD is a series of guidelines. What each person feels are the most important of those guidelines is different, how each person interprets and implements those guidelines is different.

I think the fact that GTD can be subject to multiple interpretations doesn't "muddle" anything, but is in fact reflective of the strength of the system as presented by David Allen. It's not a set of commandments but suggestions that can be adapted to each individual.

I totally agree that David Allen provides guidelines and recommendations while leaving the door open to other interpretations. If we paint just his most intensely repeated recommendations we get a narrower and sharper picture of what GTD is, whereas if we paint all of it and all its variations we get a much wider and less sharp picture. Neither picture is "wrong", but they have different uses.

 

[Longstreet]

Not argumentative....and I find that statement from you ironic....just a fact.

 

[Longstreet]

@Folke: One suggestion I would have is for you to catch up on your GTD literature. Read "Making it all work" and the 2015 edition of GTD. David added a lot of new information based on research in neuroscience. Maybe update yourself? Then maybe you would understand better where many of us are coming from. Just a friendly suggestion.

 

[Folke]

Thanks for the friendly advice, Longstreet. I actually have read maybe half of "Making it all work" at some stage, and it was good, too. I just never finsihed; I probably had other things to read and do, but I do like David's writings and his style.

Please do not misinterpret what I am going to say next, but it is like this: David's role for me is not actually as a "teacher" but as an accomplished "champion" of a dynamic, flexible personal style that I believe in and which I know that many of us have and which has existed long before GTD, and which is often opposed by management trainers and consultants who wish to impose a more rigid "planning" style. I do not actually have any direct need for additional advice or recommendations or knowledge as I am quite happy with my system (whether it is called GTD or not). (But I do read books anyway, and like to learn more about many things, so I might read some more by David.) My primary desire with GTD is to have more people communicate the "open" GTD-type mindset in a clear way to all those people who are on some less "empowered" track (see many app forums, especially of apps not advertized as GTD; jeez). As a person with an interest in marketing I have seen that a bland description often does not work; you have to make up your mind about whether to say that your potato chips are either "crispy" OR "soft", but not both - and push hard for mainly that fact. You often cannot communicate complicated balances such as "crispy AND soft", and you also cannot afford to dilute the message with too many other facts. If you have a crispy chip, then of course the individual can adapt that to his or her own taste by for example sprinkling oil and vinegar on them, but that does not need to be the first thing you say in your ad. What I have been trying to drive at here is actually in this vein. How do we get more people (and bosses) onto the "dynamic" bandwagon based on "hard facts" but otherwise as "open" and quick-footed as possible? I do not believe that preaching scheduling is the best way to make people give up an already scheduled enslavement. But never mind. Just wanted to try to explain.

 

[devon.marie]

I do not believe that preaching scheduling is the best way to make people give up an already scheduled enslavement. But never mind. Just wanted to try to explain.

I feel like every thread scheduling comes up in has both sides come in guns a-blazin'. Everyone goes back and forth, and we end up with:

SCHEDULE OR FAIL vs. SCHEDULE AND FAIL

When really, the sweet spot is in the middle somewhere. I don't think any of us here schedule every task. That would be un-GTD and un-productive, as is established in the GTD books/verse. The GTD material seems to advocate against only putting tasks on the calendar. There's a difference between housing them there and housing them in task lists and then scheduling them separately. And on top of that, there's moderation. It's truly a complex topic.

For me, I find I don't complete my scheduled tasks if I do it too frequently. I must be stringent in deciding what gets scheduled. So the only items I schedule are things that can only be done at a certain time of day and by a certain date, and tasks that are high priority, such as part of a project or tasks that impact a large number of people.

An example of something I schedule is updating our electronic slides (I work in a public library, so we have TVs that run a presentation of upcoming events, book clubs, etc.). I schedule this task because it must be done towards the end of the month and during the hour staff is at the library but we are not open. It's just way easier to schedule that half an hour every month. I will also schedule tasks like "Prep material for XXX meeting", usually the morning of the afternoon meeting. I don't worry about it before this time, it's beneficial for me to do it closer to the meeting so it's fresh in my mind, etc. I benefit from scheduling this type of task.

But it's important to note that these tasks don't LIVE on the calendar. They live in my next actions list. Sometimes I will do them earlier if it feels good or works out better. If that's the case, when it pops up on my calendar I just delete or ignore it. They're on my calendar because that's generally the best time for me to do it, but it's not always the case. If my calendar is filled with time blocked for tasks, I balk, dawdle, procrastinate, get on the GTD forums... *cough*. Distrust most certainly sets in. I must be stringent in what I put there so I know that what's there is important. That's the only time scheduling works (for me).

So really, the answer is somewhere in the middle. I don't think these forums really benefit from us continually debating this topic whenever it shows up. Whenever it does, we all start in the middle-ish and and up arguing until we're polar opposites. It certainly doesn't help the poor OP's of the thread we de-rail and it doesn't help GTDers in general. bcmyers2112 really sums it up the best when he says we all have to step back and accept that everyone is different and has different needs. The best we can do is say, "This is what I need, and this is how I meet it" and let the other participants figure out who best aligns with their personal needs and go for that advice.

 

[Folke]

I agree. The whole discussion gets boring and meaningless. There does not seem to be any unambiguous advice regarding this grayzone that each of us needs to find a careful balance in. We all devise our own ways and they work for us. There is often no way of saying what is GTD or not GTD in all this.

 

[Longstreet]

I agree, Folke. It is a muddy swamp to try and cross. All I know is that I follow all of the principles of GTD as described in his 2015 edition with a few personalized tweaks.

 

[Folke]

All I know is that I follow all of the principles of GTD as described in his 2015 edition with a few personalized tweaks.

In my case I do not even have an assessment, not even of how closely mine matches the 2001 edition. I think it is probably quite close, but I do not really care, because I see it as a personal system, my own responsibility, for me to use - an entire system of personalized tweaks, if you will, that just happens to coinicide with GTD in many places. And I have borrowed David's terminology in order to be able to communicate with other GTD sympathizers.

Yes, scheduling vs not scheduling is one of the interesting dilemmas that we all face. Both have their pros and cons, obviously, and must be used in some kind of balance. We could argue forever where we like to draw the line. There are many clear cases that everyone would put on the calendar and also many clear cases that no one would put a date on in any form whatsoever, but there is also a wide gray zone in between.

Maybe there are a couple of aspects that we have not really covered in these threads. One is the influence of whatever tools we have chosen to use, be that paper, with or without color, lines etc, or app A, app B or app C. The fact is that different tools offer different capabilities, and even if we are picky and simply ignore most of the "nonsense" capabilities that tools may offer us, we do tend to try to make use of whatever useful features we can find. If an app has very convenient "dating" mechanisms or priority mechanisms or context mechanisms or list grouping mechanisms or whatever, then people overall tend to use these features, whether or not they line up perfectly with any particular book we may have read - it is what works best for us that matters, and we may change that whenever we move to another app or tool set. GTD itself may perhaps be tool agnostic, but we humans do not seem to be.

Another factor that I find immensely fascinating is a psychological one. We seem to have different fundamental preferences regarding dates and scheduling. Although we all need a balance, and do in fact all maintain a balance of some sort, it is as if some of us would tend to use any reasonable "excuse" for avoiding to set a date even if it would be possible, whereas others would tend to use any reasonable "excuse" for setting a fixed date even if it is quite open. It is as if we operate from different paradigms of "control". Some seem to feel safer (more in control) with only the really hard dates, and everything else properly organized by other hard factors such as required contexts, whereas others seem to feel fundamentally safer to have things stringed up in advance on a visible timeline. I personally believe that this dilemma would be a very suitable field of study for both theorizers/writers and developers. It would not surprise me if people could come up with new methods that beat both. Identifying additional valid hard factors would seem to be one key to this, and inventing good visualization methods would seem to be another.

 

[Longstreet]

@Folke: In case you have not seen, the new Nirvana web app and mobile apps are live!

 

[Folke]

Yes, I saw that, and I am glad that they are starting to move again
Nirvana is one of the very best apps I am aware of.