Obsessive-Compulsive personality traits?

[CosmoGTD]

The REALITY is, that people who are having REAL trouble are not going to solve their problem by "just doing it". If that were the case, then they would have solved the problem by now.

Human beings can be very irrational at times.
I am not talking about people who are not having serious problems, by definition!

For people who are stuck, and who are having serious problems implementing, in my view, they need tested tools and techniques to overcome their difficulties. I have to totally and utterly disagree with the idea that current techniques that are available are psychological mumbo-jumbo. I find that idea totally absurd.
But each person will find out what works for them, and some people will stay stuck, and spin their wheels for many years.

Again, remember i am talking about people with fairly serious problems getting going. If the person can get going by simply getting going, then i am not talking about that person in this context. That person doesn't have a problem.

But for those who are having problems, there are very specific techniques to get moving. They work.

 

[andmor]

I have to totally and utterly disagree with the idea that current techniques that are available are psychological mumbo-jumbo. I find that idea totally absurd.

The language (mumbo-jumbo) is new - for marketing purposes. The ideas are as old as the hills. "There's nothing new under the sun." - King Solomon.

Andrew

 

[CosmoGTD]

Totally, utterly disagree.

There are countless new things/ideas/technologies/techniques under the sun; discovered, and created every single day. (For example, the internet/www we are typing into, for starters).

The scientific method allows Knowledge to progress through testing, experimentation, falsification, and verification.

(By the way, we are not "under" the sun, there is no "under" in the solar system. And there are countless trillions of other suns in the Cosmos with "things" utterly unknown and unimagined and even uncreated yet, and there are perhaps an infinite number of bizarre Universes in the Cosmos as well.)

There are countless new things created in the Universe every moment.

[quote="andmor
The language (mumbo-jumbo) is new - for marketing purposes. The ideas are as old as the hills. "There's nothing new under the sun." - King Solomon.
[/quote]

 

[Rainer Burmeister]

Tasks

Do we have any methods to measure whether GTD has been effectively implemented by a certain person or not? I don’t know.

All I can do is to set learning targets for me and try to evaluate the extent to which I have reached these learning targets.

After my first implementation of GTD I noticed that this method didn’t work for me. Obviously there was something missing, either in the book or in my head.

After looking at the book’s cover I set these learning targets:

1. Practise “The Art of Stress-Free Productivity”.
2. Apply the “do it, delegate it, defer it, drop it” rule to get your in-box to empty.
3. Reassess goals and stay focused in changing situations.
4. Plan and unstick projects.
5. Overcome feelings of confusion, anxiety, and being overwhelmed.
6. Feel fine about what you’re not doing.

Then I worked on each of these targets for several months. To shorten a long story: I made progress on understanding these targets and working towards these targets and finally found the reason why GTD did not work for me in the beginning: #4 was the problem.

Both in the book and in my head the information on project management was too vague.

After realising this, I was ready to admit that I had to differentiate between project definition, project planning and project management, and to admit that many of my “tasks” are in reality series of actions. Often my tasks are mini sub-projects, “coherent actions”-tasks (= series of actions with each action being a logical consequence of the preceding action and all actions belonging to the same wanted outcome). On the other hand many of my tasks are “batch”-tasks (= series of actions in a certain context not belonging to the same wanted outcome).

Then I started with what I called my daily “must do” list (now I call it “daily task list”): I took my “coherent actions”-tasks from my project plans and the “batch”-tasks from my context lists and wrote them on my daily “must do” list. Now I had a structure for the day, a connection to my project plans and a working implementation of GTD. The puzzle was solved and I felt “Okay, now it works”. The key for me is that a “coherent actions”-task must not contain more than five actions and usually has at least two different kinds of actions (e.g. phone calls and typing at the computer), and that the “batch”-tasks are best used as series of phone calls, answering e-mails, printing serial letters and routines.

Now I can decide about the structure of my day according to the mental energy I have on a given day : When I feel that today is not one of my best days, I go for “batch”-tasks. And there are days when I feel fine and I can focus easily, these are the days to go for the “coherent actions”-tasks.

Hope this makes some sense to you.

Rainer

 

[furashgf]

I think I've been doing something like that - there's another thread somewhere. I have tasks that have a list of subtasks under them - these would be your "coherent tasks." They might have different contexts, but they all go together as a series of steps. It's been working well, and keeps me, when doing big-picture planning, from having to get too detailed.
With my "do" step, I've been trying to remind myself, when I grab a task of my list, to ask "do I need to break this task any further."

 

[Rainer Burmeister]

I have tasks that have a list of subtasks under them - these would be your "coherent tasks." They might have different contexts, but they all go together as a series of steps. It's been working well, and keeps me, when doing big-picture planning, from having to get too detailed.
With my "do" step, I've been trying to remind myself, when I grab a task of my list, to ask "do I need to break this task any further."

Furashgf,

it seems like we are on the "same wavelength" regarding this question.

Rainer

 

[furashgf]

If I don't do this, I have a 50/50 chance of wasting time. Forcing myself to list the tasks as a mini-project (5 minutes of organization) allows me to check and make sure I'm not doing non-value added things that don't accomplish the objective in the task line.

 

[andmor]

Totally, utterly disagree.

The scientific method allows Knowledge to progress through testing, experimentation, falsification, and verification.

Coz:

Nothing gets created. We simply discover what already is and make things we know about better or more available. The internet is not a creation - it is simply an adaptation of whatever was already there. What is useful is the practical application of things that already are - even sometimes the translation of old knowledge into new language.

The whole point of this TM stuff is to do exactly the same thing internally - with our own selves, nature and talents. The trouble is that a lot of people want everything now, including things that complicate their lives, without being prepared to put in the effort and build the good habits, often engaging in anti-social or counter-productive behavior as a substitute for maturity.

In the Power of Full Engagement, the authors sensibly stress that you have to build your rituals one at a time. DA and his Zen approach clearly focuses on one task or achievement at a time. You can only have one emotion at a time. It's simply a matter of figuring out which ONE state you want now, finding the right trigger to get started, blocking out everything else, and just doing it. "Doing" in its various tenses (as in "To Do, Doing, Done") is not only the outcome but also the process. The method (also adaptations) help with the thinking and attitude, not with the doing.

There's just too many people making a living out of fooling people into believing that the simple is in fact complex. Kudos to DA for calling out the simple and keeping it simple. The complexity of our lives is of our own making and most of us know that we have the ability inside ourselves to get it back under control - but only if we really want to.

Andrew

 

[CosmoGTD]

well, i am sliding somewhat off-topic here, but i must one last time.
The "internet", (by this i mean the WWW) is definitely a creation. HTML, and the http were new creations.
Free Jazz was a creation.
Speaking a generated sentence is a profound act of creation.
Nanotechnology and genetic engineering will enable new creations. Now, a lot of creation is Synthesis, but i believe in actual creation.

Also, we CAN experience many emotions at the same time. "Emotions" are just a linguistic label to represent something that is a big unknown complex neurological process.

The universe, and reality are very complex.
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Oversimplifying complex phenomena has no use to me. To me, that seems to be a regressive state of mind. People jump to nominalizations and mental constructs, without really thinking it through.

But each individual mind is totally unique. I think each person's mind learns and operates in totally idiosyncratic ways.
So called "Zen" to me doesn't have a lot of meaning or utility.
The mental state people SAY they are in, and THINK they are in, may have nothing to do with the mental state they are actually in. This is related to the "binding problem" in Cognitive Science. I say what they are talking about is simply a linguistic construct.

My entire life has been spent looking behind the curtain, and actually trying to figure things out, and not just throw labels on them.
There is nothing self-evident, simple or obvious about the human mind. That is simply a mental construct (illusion), created by the same "mind" folks are creating their constructs about!

Cognitive Science proves Descartes was wrong. The mind is anything but self-evident.

There are countless people who make their livings, and much more, out of fooling people (and themselves) that something that is very complex and counterintuitive is actually "simple and self-evident".
Chomsky called those "Necessary Illusions", that is, oversimplifications people need to be taught to believe, as they are supposedly incapable of more accurate, counterintuitive, and subtle conceptual thinking.
Things are not as simple as they seem to be, unless a person chooses to believe they are, for their own reasons.

Most folks are gonna believe what they WANT to believe because they WANT to believe it. They damn the torpedoes of science to make themselves "feel good", but sacrifice something much more valuable, powerful, and more beautiful.

Coz

Nothing gets created. We simply discover what already is and make things we know about better or more available. The internet is not a creation - it is simply an adaptation of whatever was already there.

In the Power of Full Engagement, the authors sensibly stress that you have to build your rituals one at a time. DA and his Zen approach clearly focuses on one task or achievement at a time. You can only have one emotion at a time. It's simply a matter of figuring out which ONE state you want now, finding the right trigger to get started, blocking out everything else, and just doing it.

There's just too many people making a living out of fooling people into believing that the simple is in fact complex. Kudos to DA for calling out the simple and keeping it simple.

 

[Rainer Burmeister]

But each individual mind is totally unique. I think each person's mind learns and operates in totally idiosyncratic ways.

Coz,

I doubt that there is much difference in people. If each individual mind would be totally unique, we wouldn't be able to communicate and act as groups and teams.

Isn't individuality a cultural invention?

Rainer

 

[CosmoGTD]

Let me clarify.
The contents of each person's brain/mind is certainly totally unique.
People actually learn and operate mentally in wildly divergent ways. Our educational systems and popular thought do not reflect this in the least.
http://www.allkindsofminds.org

Of course, there is a certain amount of commonality, but in my view, the LACK of accurate communication between people is the RULE. Read the paper, and look around you. People WANT to believe that others think like them, but THEY DO NOT.
And yes, it seems to me that how each person actually learns and operates most effectively is unique to that persons specific mind.

That is why i see it as essential that GTD, (and other) systems need to be "customized" to the individual mind. DA loves the idea that GTD is being CREATIVELY applied in so many different ways.
You can see people constantly asking about "the rules" of GTD, and "how to do it right".
There is a sense of fruitless searching for an external system that is going to match what is going on inside of the individual.
But of course, most people seem to be most comfortable "following the rules".

Why not be creative and figure out what works best for the creative, unique individual mind? It takes a lot of courage to trust your own thinking.

Individuality is a creation of Nature itself. Each human is unique.
Culture tries to superimpose uniformity on the unique, creative individual.

Coz

But each individual mind is totally unique. I think each person's mind learns and operates in totally idiosyncratic ways.

Coz,

I doubt that there is much difference in people. If each individual mind would be totally unique, we wouldn't be able to communicate and act as groups and teams.

Isn't individuality a cultural invention?

Rainer

 

[moises]

Feeling Good Handbook

Just kidding about my project. Anyway, the psych community is all big on biological causes, so we can all just take a pill and we won't obsess anymore.

The psychiatric community is big on biological causes. The psychological community recognizes that biology can be a factor and that medication is sometimes helpful, but the emphasis is now placed on cognitive factors, as in Beck's work. The mind is so powerful that we can convince ourselves of almost anything. David Burns' The Feeling Good Handbook has some effective exercises that help us change our interpretive thoughts, thus our attitudes and behaviors. Just as with Getting Things Done, the information presented must be practiced or nothing changes.

Carolyn

Carolyn,

Thanks so much for the Burns link. I was familiar with cognitive therapy before. But the structure of The Feeling Good Handbook by David Burns is truly a step beyond the other books I read. It provides a highly structured series of writing exercises for one to perform.

I just started it this past weekend and I am already able to see results. What I like about the book is the interactive approach. It really is a workbook. It's one of those annoying books where you are asked not to go to page 2 until you do the exercise on page 1. I found the exercises fun and I can see almost immediately the benefit that flows from completing them, so I enjoy reading/doing the book the way Burns asks me to.

From a larger perspective, I see some similarities between Burns' book and DA's. Both authors give preeminence to externalizing thoughts. Both authors tell us that thinking is best done by writing. DA tells us to get our ideas into lists so as not to clutter our psychic RAM. DB (David Burns :lol: ) tells us that writing is therapy and therapy makes us better.

 

[CosmoGTD]

Writing things out, and reflecting on them, CHANGES the way those things are represented in our brain, thus how we react to them.

The Feeling Good Handbook is excellent.
Burns has a new book out called "Worried Sick", which i am still wating for.

Waiting for it is UNBEARABLE, i CAN'T STAND THE WAIT, ITS DRIVING ME CRAZY, I MUST HAVE THAT BOOK NOW....
:wink:

Coz

 

[ceehjay]

Waiting for it is UNBEARABLE, i CAN'T STAND THE WAIT, ITS DRIVING ME CRAZY, I MUST HAVE THAT BOOK NOW....
:wink:

Coz

LOL! You are a hoot, Coz!

moises, I am glad to hear that you are finding DB helpful.

Dare I reveal that I am a psychologist during the day? In the evening, I am just me.

Carolyn

P.S. You have no idea how much I enjoy reading the posts here. The philosophizing, working through, and offering suggestions are a delight to me -- and a help, too.

 

[CosmoGTD]

I learned that wonderful stuff from Anthony Robbins.
Robbins teaches,

"if you CAN'T, then you MUST".

Try living by that maxim.
"if you CAN'T, then you MUST".

How's that for psychological health and achieving effortless flow and relaxed productivity?

NOT!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Are you down with OCD- yeah - you know me

I think each situation has to be looked at individually. While I was on vacation for 7 days recently- my work email got over 130 internal emails. Not much given the time frame. There are others who work in a more email dependent settings that can get over 400 a DAY (lets hope they utilize a junk mail filter). I think its out of necessity these folks get a bit more "OCD" just to keep their head above water.

Now hard copy filing- again- it depends on the situation. At work- when I am having a bad day being hit my unexpected waves etc- and I cannot find what I need so to speak- this will make me rethink a better filing system when things slow down. I do "reorganize" out of necessity and an ongoing desire for efficiency and productivity. My "ssstem" is probably tweeked about 3-4 times a year and "overhauled" once or twice a year (rarely but sometimes going back to an older method...).

Given I have a hard copy Frankin Covey planner and Outlook at work with GTD add-on- I have not really needed a palm PDA. I have suggested to my employer however that an all in one PDA (Perhaps a Treo 600 or Blackberry) could potentially replace the pagers, voicemail system and lag in getting to "urgent emails" and voicemails- not to mention dependency to "find a computer" for accessing the intranet and internet and eventually (within 2-3 years)- totally electronic client files.

On a lighter note - At home, I leave my sock drawer and cupboard full of rubbermaid and tupperware VERY disorganized (sometimes dangerously so when the rubbermaid avalanche occurs or i waer a blue sock instead of a black one) - all this to achieve some balance and so I will not self-diagnose as OCD :wink: