Is GTD More Relaxed and Loose than I think

[TesTeq]

No. I'm sorry -- there is a mountain of high-quality rigorously-observed data to contradict you.

You do not provide any links or sources to document your claims so there is no mountain.

Researchers have looked and looked and looked for decades upon decades for a shred of evidence of "natural ability" or "potential" or "talent." Whatever you want to call it. Not a shred of evidence has been found.

On the other hand, all demonstrated skill is almost perfectly predicted by amount of experience. It is one of the tightest functional relationships you'll see when you observe and measure human performance objectively.

The bias to see talent is strong, like the obvious view that the earth is flat -- but a mountain of rigorous observation contradicts the talent view. Period. I've read most of it.

What about twins? It happens that both are taught a skill but only one succeedes. Did you read the explanation of this phenomenon?

The trick is not to get discouraged by your 3rd failure to get up on waterskis, and to ignore the "rules of thumb." I didn't get up on my 3rd attempt, but I went on to become an expert waterskiier. And I enjoyed it.

Congratulations!

 

[kewms]

But there is no guarantee that after 102567 hours of tennis training everybody will play like Andre Agassi or after 101709 hours of guitar playing everybody will play like Eddie Van Halen.

How many people with 100,000 hours of guitar or tennis practice do you know? It's pretty likely that most of them are professionals.

Now, I'm willing to concede that physical skills in particular have an inborn component. Someone who is 5'4" tall is unlikely to play basketball like Michael Jordan. There are measurable differences in mental abilities, or at least the people who write IQ tests claim that there are. But I believe andersons' comment that talent effects are dwarfed by the benefits of focused practice and hard work.

Katherine

 

[TesTeq]

Making it clear.

Please find a single example of a person who achieved mastery of any discipline without hundreds or thousands of hours of practice.

Please find a single example of a person who continued to practice any discipline for hundreds or thousands of hours without achieving mastery.

I think there is some misunderstanding. I do not say that talent can replace hundreds or thousands of hours of practice. My statement is:
You cannot be a master without a talent no matter how many hours you are practicing. But if you have talent you must practice to develop your talent and become a master.

(Physical disabilities don't count. I'll concede that a blind person is unlikely to become a skilled painter. On the other hand, I'll bet there are at least a few blind sculptors out there. And Beethoven was stone deaf when he composed his greatest works.)

You are partially right with Beethoven but he had chance to learn, hear and feel music before he had become deaf. He had talent and developed all the required skills earlier.

 

[kewms]

You cannot be a master without a talent no matter how many hours you are practicing.

Again, please identify a single example of a person who practiced a skill for thousands of hours and failed to achieve mastery.

Katherine

 

[TesTeq]

World-class professionals and masters.

How many people with 100,000 hours of guitar or tennis practice do you know? It's pretty likely that most of them are professionals.

Yes, I was talking about world-class professionals and masters. Everybody can play tennis and enjoy it. But I believe that there is something more in Andre Agassi play than thousand of hours of training. It is mastery, it is art and it is charisma.

Do you know that Lance Armstrong heart works much slower than yours. So he can make much bigger effort than you and his heart is still in the "valid range of operation". Isn't it a built-in ability that he was able to use when he was training?

By the way - can charisma be taught?

 

[andersons]

Not true

You can teach the blind person what color pairs look good together but she/he will never see it. . .The consistent practice won't help.

No -- you can't teach a blind person what colors look good together.

We're not talking here about a severe structural problem in the nervous system. If a person's optic nerve is severed, absolutely no visual signals will reach the brain for perceptual processing. Or if there is a huge lesion in brain area V1. Or any number of other structural deficits. Nothing can be seen because there is no signal to interpret, or a severely degraded signal.

But all interpretation is learned with experience. And it MUST be learned. Yes, a healthy retina is necessary to see. But you also have to learn to see -- learn to interpret the signals from the retina. Object recognition doesn't come pre-loaded and working from birth. Nor color recognition. It's all learned. This learning happens most rapidly in the first 2 years of life, but can continue throughout life.

Human babies are born with very limited sight. Their brains learn over time to interpret the visual signal from (unimpaired) retinas with ever-increasing sophistication.

If you were to put blinders on an infant from birth, then remove them after a couple years, the child would be functionally blind for life. The signals sent from the retina would be normal, but the perceptual interpretation in the brain that allows you to "see" would never have been learned. The critical period for the brain to learn to interpret the visual signals would have been missed.

Parents do the opposite with their babies. They go out of their way to stimulate the baby's vision with colorful toys and books. They teach their toddlers to name colors and objects. The child is exposed to a variety of stimuli and taught to name differences between them. Repeatedly. For years. A massive amount of learning experience is needed just for typical, normal adult vision.

Visual perception can be learned and fine-tuned in adulthood as well. You can teach an adult with normal retinas to discriminate fine shades of color they couldn't discriminate ("see") before. An interior designer can learn to distinguish and name different shades of white in a Benjamin Moore color deck. A lab technician can learn to distinguish relevant patterns in the very noisy picture in a mammogram.

In music education, students are exposed to a variety of stimuli and taught to discriminate and name differences between them. The process is essentially the same as teaching an infant to see.

There is apparently no special structure in the nervous system that is necessary to learn to waterski. Of course a quadriplegic cannot learn, because you do need an intact spinal cord sending and receiving signals to the leg muscles. But assuming you have an intact spinal cord, you can learn to waterski if you want to.

There is apparently no special brain structure for music either. If you can hear, you can learn to identify and name chords if you take the time to do so. You just need to learn to interpret signals from the auditory nerve. If your auditory nerve can transmit the signal, your brain can learn to interpret it and discriminate ever-finer differences between signals.

 

[TesTeq]

Practicing without any successes is a really dumb idea.

Again, please identify a single example of a person who practiced a skill for thousands of hours and failed to achieve mastery.

Katherine

I do not know personally all the children learning tennis in tennis academies but only few of them have become top class players. Nobody would send Maria Sharapova to the USA if she wouldn't show the extraordinary ability to hit a ball using tennis raquet.

I think that it can be hard to find a good example because such person would be really dumb or mad. Practice a skill for 10000 hours (4 hours each day - nearly 7 years) and have no successes is a really dumb idea.

 

[Zatara]

Lost on metaphors

Sorry, I know I started it but could we please seek an agreement on GTD?

It seems we all agree practice and discipline are necessary to mastery. The difference between a master and a genius depends upon raw talent, but no one can determine this beforehand.

Therefore, our only alternative is to continue developing our GTD skills and systems. Some of us may reach David's level, but most won't. Personally, I would be glad with the master level. Moreover, David is probably not only a genius but also a top-professor, and this is even a more rare combination.

Does everyone agree?

 

[TesTeq]

Brain and computers.

In music education, students are exposed to a variety of stimuli and taught to discriminate and name differences between them. The process is essentially the same as teaching an infant to see.

There is apparently no special structure in the nervous system that is necessary to learn to waterski. Of course a quadriplegic cannot learn, because you do need an intact spinal cord sending and receiving signals to the leg muscles. But assuming you have an intact spinal cord, you can learn to waterski if you want to.

There is apparently no special brain structure for music either. If you can hear, you can learn to identify and name chords if you take the time to do so. You just need to learn to interpret signals from the auditory nerve. If your auditory nerve can transmit the signal, your brain can learn to interpret it and discriminate ever-finer differences between signals.

Very interesting. Thanks for information. I am certainly not the expert in the brain area but I wonder why - if our knowledge is such detailed - we still are not able to teach computers waterski or compose music. By teach I do not mean to load the waterski or music program developed by humans but self-learning process based on experiences.

 

[kewms]

Yes, I was talking about world-class professionals and masters. Everybody can play tennis and enjoy it. But I believe that there is something more in Andre Agassi play than thousand of hours of training. It is mastery, it is art and it is charisma.

Do you know that Lance Armstrong heart works much slower than yours. So he can make much bigger effort than you and his heart is still in the "valid range of operation". Isn't it a built-in ability that he was able to use when he was training?

By the way - can charisma be taught?

Lance Armstrong attributes much of his success to his fight with cancer, which basically reshaped his body. I'm not sure he would call susceptibility to testicular cancer a "talent."

The connection between training, heart rate, and aerobic capacity is well known. Run ten miles a day for a year, and I guarantee your maximum effort will be higher than it is now. (Assuming you don't already run ten miles a day, of course.)

Several organizations claim to be able to teach charisma. I haven't tried their programs, so can't vouch for them.

The difference between Andre Agassi and the world number 100 is lost in measurement noise when you consider all tennis players, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Katherine

 

[TesTeq]

Mastery, art and charisma.

Lance Armstrong attributes much of his success to his fight with cancer, which basically reshaped his body. I'm not sure he would call susceptibility to testicular cancer a "talent."

It's not fair comment.

The connection between training, heart rate, and aerobic capacity is well known. Run ten miles a day for a year, and I guarantee your maximum effort will be higher than it is now. (Assuming you don't already run ten miles a day, of course.)

I've read that it is not possible to achieve such low rest heart rate via training but maybe sources are wrong.

The difference between Andre Agassi and the world number 100 is lost in measurement noise when you consider all tennis players, so I'm not sure what your point is.

It is measurable difference - he is still in the first 10 of the world list but you should watch him play and you'll see the difference. As I said - mastery, art and charisma - hardly trainable in my opinion.

 

[TesTeq]

Agree - let's do our best.

Sorry, I know I started it but could we please seek an agreement on GTD?

It seems we all agree practice and discipline are necessary to mastery. The difference between a master and a genius depends upon raw talent, but no one can determine this beforehand.

Therefore, our only alternative is to continue developing our GTD skills and systems. Some of us may reach David's level, but most won't. Personally, I would be glad with the master level. Moreover, David is probably not only a genius but also a top-professor, and this is even a more rare combination.

Does everyone agree?

Agree - let's do our best.

 

[furashgf]

Well, nifty discussion. However...

DA's typical response has been that, when he started using a palm, he kept his lists in the vanilla to-do list, and did his planning in whatever way was comfortable (mind map). There is no where I can find where he talks about spending tremendous effort keeping the mind maps 100% up to date, or linking the mind map directly to each task.

So, given that ... isn't it possible for someone to do GTD without using 8 gaziilion tools? Maybe only DA has accomplished this.

 

[andersons]

You do not provide any links or sources to document your claims so there is no mountain.

Honestly, I did not believe what I'm saying here today when I first started reading about it, either.

Start here:
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., Tech-Romer, Clemens. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review, 100(3): 363-406.

There are 272 articles cited in the review. I have read most of them. This is a peer-reviewed journal for the best work in the field. This is one of my fields of research.

What about twins? It happens that both are taught a skill but only one succeedes. Did you read the explanation of this phenomenon?

Yes. Differences in performance are fully explained by differences in the amount of instruction and the amount of experience. There is as yet no example where the amount of instruction and practice does not differ upon examination.

If you have a fully documented counterexample, please provide it.

Congratulations!

Thank you. Maybe it's time to revise your "rule of thumb"! ;-)

I don't remember how many tries I needed. I do know I gave up the first day because I got tired and the ski was huge and heavy. I was a skinny and weak little thing and couldn't keep the ski upright in the water. We got a new ski -- fiberglass instead of solid oak. Then I was able to get up.

But that's nothing. I grew up on a lake. One day we watched a middle-aged woman a few properties away repeatedly try to get up for about an hour and a half. We couldn't believe she kept trying. Usually the boat drivers are not so patient. And what about the fatigue. But she did get up eventually and we saw her enjoying waterskiing for years afterward.

 

[kewms]

So, given that ... isn't it possible for someone to do GTD without using 8 gaziilion tools? Maybe only DA has accomplished this.

My feeling is that productivity and task management are far easier than playing world class tennis or guitar. Productivity is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If you have to work your system for 4-6 hours a day, you probably are not Getting Things Done and you probably need to rethink what you're doing.

With that said, there's a difference between a complex system and a time-consuming system. The whole point of the various software tools people talk about here is to replace human effort with automation. I don't have to worry about maintaining project-action links because my tools do that for me.

There are also vast differences in the kinds of work people do. DA's system no doubt works very well for someone who spends most of their time traveling and giving seminars. That doesn't mean it will work well for someone who spends most of their time writing software, doing accounting work, or building houses.

There are people (other than DA) who have implemented GTD with very simple tools, and people who have implemented it with very complex tools. What tools do you need?

Katherine

 

[andersons]

Yes, I was talking about world-class professionals and masters. Everybody can play tennis and enjoy it. But I believe that there is something more in Andre Agassi play than thousand of hours of training. It is mastery, it is art and it is charisma.

Do you know that Lance Armstrong heart works much slower than yours. So he can make much bigger effort than you and his heart is still in the "valid range of operation". Isn't it a built-in ability that he was able to use when he was training?

There's a problem with the Andre Agassis and the Lance Armstrongs and the Michael Jordans: in every case where their training has been scrutinized carefully, it's found that they train more and/or train differently than their professional peers.

If two factors BOTH influence an outcome, we can statistically model how much of the outcome depends on each factor. If training time accounted for 75% of the outcome data, we could assume that "talent" accounts for the rest.

However, in every studied case including the seemingly-magical performances of the superstars like Agassi, training time accounts for almost ALL of the outcome. There is simply nothing left to account for.

Given all the other times that even extraordinary success occurs only accompanied with extraordinary training, I would predict that if strictly measured and observed, we would see that Agassi and Armstrong have trained more and trained differently than their less successful peers.

 

[Zatara]

Between the lines

David is at another level, considering both his raw talent and his years of experience. Obsessing about his own GTD system, Eddie's guitar, Mozart's piano or Agassi's racket is just unproductive.

What we, poor mortals, can do is practice our GTD skills to be the best we possibly can, using any tools necessary for that.

So is it possible for someone to do GTD without using 8 gaziilion tools?

Yes, of course, as much as Eddie can play Eruption with a cheap acoustic guitar. But the real question is how would you get to Eddie's level? Do you really think that buying his guitar and amp will do it?

 

[andersons]

DA's typical response has been that, when he started using a palm, he kept his lists in the vanilla to-do list, and did his planning in whatever way was comfortable (mind map). There is no where I can find where he talks about spending tremendous effort keeping the mind maps 100% up to date, or linking the mind map directly to each task.

So, given that ... isn't it possible for someone to do GTD without using 8 gaziilion tools? Maybe only DA has accomplished this.

GTD as a system is not "relaxed" or "loose." It says to keep ALL your commitments written down. It differentiates between projects and actions in an unusual (unique?) way.

If you are describing his system accurately, either the stuff in DA's mind maps is unrelated to his projects and actions, or else the links are only in his head.

DA could be comfortable with his system because 1) it fits his lifestyle and psychological preferences, 2) he's been using it for a long, long time, and 3) he's willing to spend time maintaining it. Maybe the book doesn't project "tremendous effort" because if he framed it that way, no one would try it. The book does describe a 2-hour weekly review, and that is a lot more effort than many people are willing to give. And it is commonly said that it takes "years" to become a "black belt" in GTD. The common analogy is with something that takes a lot of time and effort.

Many of the people I have introduced to GTD have seen it not as "relaxed" and "loose" but more like "insanely anal -- you've got to be kidding me."

Why care about how David Allen uses his system? The question is, how much of your commitments do YOU need written down and/or linked?

Vanilla Palm is not inherently simpler than add-on applications with more features. The native ToDo app has fewer features and simpler data structures, but if those features and data organization are a poor fit for YOUR data, you will struggle to maintain your system with that tool.

Simplicity of use comes from the fit between the tool and the job you want it to do. It is frustrating to make pesto with a chef's knife. It is extra work (at best) to slice tomatoes with a food processor.

 

[andersons]

. . .I wonder why - if our knowledge is such detailed - we still are not able to teach computers waterski or compose music. By teach I do not mean to load the waterski or music program developed by humans but self-learning process based on experiences.

I think the field is getting there. There has been some success with computer models of self-learning. The neural network models can learn all kinds of stuff. They learn partly by comparing their output with a goal output, so it is a self-learning process based on experiences. They do require better feedback and more repetitions than humans do, though, to achieve the same learning.

There are some successes claimed with models that compose music.

Some models of "cognitive" skill learning (like geometry, algebra, and programming) have also been applied in teaching with great success. For example, one model identified the knowledge (facts) and the procedures (skills) that experts use to solve algebra problems. A computer "tutor" then taught novices algebra, analyzing their answers to determine what fact or skill was needed, then showing them that specific fact or skill. The students learned algebra skills in a fraction of the usual classroom time.

Waterskiing is another story. We are a long, long way from understanding the motor system. With my current limited understanding, I am more in awe that we can all walk on a bumpy path than that Lance Armstrong can ride a bike longer and faster than anyone else.

 

[Max]

Confused?!

I'm confused.

Can I become a Mozart if I just have enough experience at music?

Can I be equally good at tennis, music, programming, and hobknobbing?

Do I have talents or not?

I have no God given abilities, and I am just a widget thrust into the world I am good at programming and suck at the trumpet due soley to the experiences I have had?

I feel a bit disoriented as if I have been starring at a carousel to long.