C
CosmoGTD
Guest
__________________
T
tru
Guest
poor copies
I once heard somone (was it Richard Bandler of NLP fame?) say that a photocopy of a xerox, which is a copy from an original is never ever as good as the real thing.
It seems we have an example of that here!
I once heard somone (was it Richard Bandler of NLP fame?) say that a photocopy of a xerox, which is a copy from an original is never ever as good as the real thing.
It seems we have an example of that here!
P
pageta
Guest
Okay, I am going to disagree. I have the Success Principles and read it twice before I found GTD. I can understand how you might see parallels if you already know GTD, but I certainly didn't get GTD out of that lesson or chapter in the book. Ironically, when I read GTD and heard David talking about doing a braindump of incompletes, I thought about this chapter in The Success Principles.
GTD is about tasks and next actions. This lesson from Jack Canfield is more focused on big messes like losing weight, repairing relationships, all sorts of things that go way beyond the runway level of GTD. It also isn't a tool for everyday living - it's a list of things that are not complete so you can complete them and move on and do your real work. Before starting GTD I had made such a list, but it only had about ten items on it. We all know there are far more items than that on your lists if you're doing GTD.
Yeah, he had the tickler file idea on there, but how he applied it wasn't how David Allen teaches. It was just for someday/maybe items that you want to look at later on. He didn't go into what to do with the numbered files at all. If that particular tip is in the book, either I don't remember it or it didn't make enough sense to me at the time to apply it; when I read GTD, it was the first idea I actually applied to my current situation.
So I'm going to say the two may be cousins or even brothers, but they are certainly not the same thing.
GTD is about tasks and next actions. This lesson from Jack Canfield is more focused on big messes like losing weight, repairing relationships, all sorts of things that go way beyond the runway level of GTD. It also isn't a tool for everyday living - it's a list of things that are not complete so you can complete them and move on and do your real work. Before starting GTD I had made such a list, but it only had about ten items on it. We all know there are far more items than that on your lists if you're doing GTD.
Yeah, he had the tickler file idea on there, but how he applied it wasn't how David Allen teaches. It was just for someday/maybe items that you want to look at later on. He didn't go into what to do with the numbered files at all. If that particular tip is in the book, either I don't remember it or it didn't make enough sense to me at the time to apply it; when I read GTD, it was the first idea I actually applied to my current situation.
So I'm going to say the two may be cousins or even brothers, but they are certainly not the same thing.
P
pageta
Guest
Well, upon further examination of The Success Principles, Jack Canfield does list Getting Things Done by David Allen as a recommended book for further reading.
Jack Canfield talks about how he reads an entire book every two days or something like that. The Success Principles did seem to me to be a compilation of the best ideas he has come across in all of his reading and the principles that he personally uses. I highly enjoyed the book. He explained a lot of things I had read elsewhere in terms I was finally able to understand and put into practice.
On an amusing side note, if that is all of GTD that he personally uses, it obviously isn't much.
And it might be a good idea if he gave more credit than he did in his book for where the ideas came from. On the other hand, once you learn something and put it into practice, it does somewhat become your own so it might be hard to always give credit where credit may be due. Intellectual property isn't always black and white...
Jack Canfield talks about how he reads an entire book every two days or something like that. The Success Principles did seem to me to be a compilation of the best ideas he has come across in all of his reading and the principles that he personally uses. I highly enjoyed the book. He explained a lot of things I had read elsewhere in terms I was finally able to understand and put into practice.
On an amusing side note, if that is all of GTD that he personally uses, it obviously isn't much.
And it might be a good idea if he gave more credit than he did in his book for where the ideas came from. On the other hand, once you learn something and put it into practice, it does somewhat become your own so it might be hard to always give credit where credit may be due. Intellectual property isn't always black and white...
C
CosmoGTD
Guest
Well, to my ears, its obvious he took that little bit of GTD, changed it a bit, and then claims it as his own.
He has the four action steps of GTD from the flowchart, and changes the 2 minute, to 10 minutes, etc. He also bastardizes the "open loop" idea, while even using those words, and then also spoils the idea of finishing up all of your incompletes, and completely mangles the Tickler file idea.
It is typical, where a good idea is taken, and then changed, and spoiled. This is why I always go to the horses mouth to get information, and not to people who take good ideas, and then change them, and wreck them, and resell them. I could give many examples of this.
Of course this guy will do what he can get away with.
But he SHOULD be saying, "this is exactly like a tiny part of GTD, except for the parts I've changed", but he doesn't do that.
I just found it amusing, and typical.
But it does really bug me when these "self-help" people don't give any specific references for what they say. But that is because its not a legitimate intellectual endeavor. Its mainly a Sales job.
Personally, I prefer much more disciplined and precise thinkers/researchers who give the proper attributions for where they got their ideas.
To just take other peoples stuff, change it a bit, and slap a bunch of it into a book, that is not cool with me. That is a very serious red flag in my book.
He very specifically just took a LITTLE bit of GTD, and changed it a bit, so its not likely an infringement.
But that's typical for the "self-help" field, intellectual integrity comes pretty much at the bottom of the list while selling more of those tapes and seminars is at the top. Sell, sell, sell.
He has the four action steps of GTD from the flowchart, and changes the 2 minute, to 10 minutes, etc. He also bastardizes the "open loop" idea, while even using those words, and then also spoils the idea of finishing up all of your incompletes, and completely mangles the Tickler file idea.
It is typical, where a good idea is taken, and then changed, and spoiled. This is why I always go to the horses mouth to get information, and not to people who take good ideas, and then change them, and wreck them, and resell them. I could give many examples of this.
Of course this guy will do what he can get away with.
But he SHOULD be saying, "this is exactly like a tiny part of GTD, except for the parts I've changed", but he doesn't do that.
I just found it amusing, and typical.
But it does really bug me when these "self-help" people don't give any specific references for what they say. But that is because its not a legitimate intellectual endeavor. Its mainly a Sales job.
Personally, I prefer much more disciplined and precise thinkers/researchers who give the proper attributions for where they got their ideas.
To just take other peoples stuff, change it a bit, and slap a bunch of it into a book, that is not cool with me. That is a very serious red flag in my book.
He very specifically just took a LITTLE bit of GTD, and changed it a bit, so its not likely an infringement.
But that's typical for the "self-help" field, intellectual integrity comes pretty much at the bottom of the list while selling more of those tapes and seminars is at the top. Sell, sell, sell.
For what it's worth, most of the stories in the Chicken Soup books are submitted by independent contributors who are both paid and credited.
Also for what it's worth, GTD itself owes a lot to earlier time management systems. There have been very few truly original ideas since Homer (maybe).
Katherine
Also for what it's worth, GTD itself owes a lot to earlier time management systems. There have been very few truly original ideas since Homer (maybe).
Katherine
Just a side-note, but the Ticker File idea is pretty old. A lot of people (well, mainly secretaries) were doing it long before GTD came on the scene.
Also, the idea of lists, weekly reviews, someday/maybes, waiting for, etc. have also been around for a very long time.
What David did really well was using his experience, took all these ideas and put them into a collaborative system.
Also, the idea of lists, weekly reviews, someday/maybes, waiting for, etc. have also been around for a very long time.
What David did really well was using his experience, took all these ideas and put them into a collaborative system.
C
CosmoGTD
Guest
That is true that many of these things have been around for a long time. But I have not been aware of them being all put together in this specific way before GTD.
But my larger point is that in this case, its very obvious that Canfield took these specific ideas from GTD, in that specific sequence, and then just changed them a bit and called them his own, without attribution.
Of course he can do this. No one is going to sue him for it, and almost all of his readers will be totally unaware that this is what he did.
But that, in my book, discredits and calls into question his work in general. In what other instances is he doing this with other material? My gut tells me this is primarily what he is doing with most of his material, if not all of it. His work on "self-esteem" is pretty much exactly like this. Take other people's ideas, then dumb it down way too far, change it arbitrarily to avoid getting caught, and pass it off as your own, meanwhile diluting and spoiling the milk so much it can make you sick.
Even in any minor college undergrad degree, if you got busted taking other people's stuff in specific sequence, and then just changing it a bit, then you would flunk. You can't just take other peoples ideas, and just change them around slightly, and pass them off as your own. (Well you can, and many do it and get away with it, but that doesn't make it right. I could list person after person who has done this). All he needs is a small footnote that points to the source material. But perhaps if he did this, then there would be nothing left.
I just don't respect people who just steal (yes steal) others ideas in any field, change the words a bit, and pass it off as their own. I find that very sleazy, and intellectually dishonest. And I don't like this type of dishonest behavior, especially when it comes from professional salespeople or writers, and I will call them on this every time.
If this guy operated in any type of proper intellectual arena, he would be totally massacred and discredited for doing this type of thing, and deservedly so, in my view.
So my point is a more general point, about this type of intellectual dishonesty, in all contexts.
My other point is that this is why I get my milk right from the horses mouth, whenever possible. I avoid copies of copies of copies, because the further you move away from the original source, I find in general the more diluted and sour the milk gets, until it becomes rancid and can make you sick.
There are countless examples of this, the most egregious in my view being in the pop-psyche paperback wasteland.
There could be an entire book or documentary made about this subject.
Maybe I'll see if someone has written a book on this, and then OCR scan the book, and use "find and replace" and change the words around, and then call it my own and sell it! Cool...
But my larger point is that in this case, its very obvious that Canfield took these specific ideas from GTD, in that specific sequence, and then just changed them a bit and called them his own, without attribution.
Of course he can do this. No one is going to sue him for it, and almost all of his readers will be totally unaware that this is what he did.
But that, in my book, discredits and calls into question his work in general. In what other instances is he doing this with other material? My gut tells me this is primarily what he is doing with most of his material, if not all of it. His work on "self-esteem" is pretty much exactly like this. Take other people's ideas, then dumb it down way too far, change it arbitrarily to avoid getting caught, and pass it off as your own, meanwhile diluting and spoiling the milk so much it can make you sick.
Even in any minor college undergrad degree, if you got busted taking other people's stuff in specific sequence, and then just changing it a bit, then you would flunk. You can't just take other peoples ideas, and just change them around slightly, and pass them off as your own. (Well you can, and many do it and get away with it, but that doesn't make it right. I could list person after person who has done this). All he needs is a small footnote that points to the source material. But perhaps if he did this, then there would be nothing left.
I just don't respect people who just steal (yes steal) others ideas in any field, change the words a bit, and pass it off as their own. I find that very sleazy, and intellectually dishonest. And I don't like this type of dishonest behavior, especially when it comes from professional salespeople or writers, and I will call them on this every time.
If this guy operated in any type of proper intellectual arena, he would be totally massacred and discredited for doing this type of thing, and deservedly so, in my view.
So my point is a more general point, about this type of intellectual dishonesty, in all contexts.
My other point is that this is why I get my milk right from the horses mouth, whenever possible. I avoid copies of copies of copies, because the further you move away from the original source, I find in general the more diluted and sour the milk gets, until it becomes rancid and can make you sick.
There are countless examples of this, the most egregious in my view being in the pop-psyche paperback wasteland.
There could be an entire book or documentary made about this subject.
Maybe I'll see if someone has written a book on this, and then OCR scan the book, and use "find and replace" and change the words around, and then call it my own and sell it! Cool...