Reply to David Allen's post about ABC prioritization

[cwoodgold]

Can't speak for DA but from where I sit, no apology needed. I wasn't injured by what you said. It's been a good discussion. Lots of food for thought.

I'm pretty sure you and I don't think the same way. Which is great. You don't learn from only talking to those who think like you do. We don't even have to end up agreeing for the interaction to be worthwhile.

Put more simply: don't mind me and keep on keepin' on.

Thanks!

Yeah, I'm thinking that we conceptualize things differently. If we can figure out how to communicate that to each other, we might each learn a new way of viewing the world. I'm thinking maybe we conceptualize time differently.
An example of conceptualizing differently: some people think of time like a number line, perhaps with the past at the left. Some think of the future as in front of them and the past behind them. Incidentally, I tend to think of a year as a circle like a clock; this means I tend to remember at what time of year something happened but not necessarily which year it was. I don't think that's where we had trouble, but I think you describe something as "in the moment" when to me it would be a finite (non-zero) length of time which can be subdivided into things happening at different times (possibly only a few seconds apart). I tend to use the same sets of words and mental images to apply at very different timescales. Perhaps for you, "previously" implies a certain length of time, for example at least an hour ago or at least a day ago, whereas for me, it might apply to any length of time, even only a few seconds -- although I don't absolutely go to extremes: the word may still tend to connote longer times even for me, but less so than it does for you, I think. I tend to think like a mathematician. I may also tend to focus more on similarities than on differences, and more on possibilities than on restrictions; this may be part of thinking like a mathematician.

Just to illustrate the types of misunderstandings that can occur when people visualize things differently: one can think of time this way: you're staying still and time is flowing past you like a river. Or, you can think of it this way: time is a landscape and you're walking along in it. Depending on which type of image is in your mind, sentences like "Let's move the meeting forward two days" can mean opposite things (moving it from Wednesday to Monday, or from Wednesday to Friday, respectively). http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/back.html The same person might use these two different images at different times and use or interpret those sorts of sentences differently, without being aware of doing so. Again, I don't think that's the specific difference between our ways of thinking; it may be something else we haven't pinpointed yet.

 

[Folke]

Priorities work - but only if used wisely

The word priority is used in so many different ways that it can make anyone confused, and it can be used for so many different practical purposes (with different kinds of real consequences).

I like the simple and intuitive definition that if anything makes me "excited or anxious or watchful etc" (usually due to its importance or urgency, value, risk, credibility etc etc), then the "priority" is high. And conversely.

Essentially, in practice, priority to me is just another way of saying "I want to see and consider this more often". I find it very useful to mark my tasks and projects in this way, and base my review frequencies etc on this.

I do not infer any time limits, nor any element of "must do this before I do that" from my definition of priority.

Priority, in the sense I use it, is just one of all the factors I weigh in mentally when selecting which tasks to do. Context (and the effort of switching contexts), energy and priority etc all needs to be looked at as a whole.

 

[bcmyers2112]

It's much simpler than that...

I don't think that's where we had trouble, but I think you describe something as "in the moment" when to me it would be a finite (non-zero) length of time which can be subdivided into things happening at different times (possibly only a few seconds apart). I tend to use the same sets of words and mental images to apply at very different timescales. Perhaps for you, "previously" implies a certain length of time, for example at least an hour ago or at least a day ago, whereas for me, it might apply to any length of time, even only a few seconds -- although I don't absolutely go to extremes: the word may still tend to connote longer times even for me, but less so than it does for you, I think. I tend to think like a mathematician. I may also tend to focus more on similarities than on differences, and more on possibilities than on restrictions; this may be part of thinking like a mathematician.

I think you're reading way too much into my use of the phrase "in the moment." All I mean by it is that rather than assign priority codes I make an intuitive judgment about priorities every time I look over my next actions lists.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Sometimes low priorities sneak up on you and become "code reds"...

Essentially, in practice, priority to me is just another way of saying "I want to see and consider this more often". I find it very useful to mark my tasks and projects in this way, and base my review frequencies etc on this.

In my experience the danger of this is that the lower priority items are given inadequate attention and blow up into crises, at which point you're driven by "latest and loudest" rather than being engaged with all of your commitments appropriately. Maybe your experience is different, but this is what I've observed.

 

[Folke]

In my experience the danger of this is that the lower priority items are given inadequate attention and blow up into crises.

That risk certainly might exist if you have no safeguards to forestall it.

The philosophy I use is:

1. keep them within the same list, such that they always shop up when filtering for certain contexts, energy types etc
2. tag them carefully (never put anything there unless it has sufficient tags to be found by ad hoc filtering )
3. keep reviewing them at regular intervals, only more seldom. For example, I review my low priority Next during my weekly review only.
4. move them up to normal or high if you see a reason to (at the weekly review)

The whole point of this is that these tasks really are no problem in any way at all; they are just things that you are certainly going to do; no second thoughts or anything; perfectly willing to do them anytime; just that they are nothing you are going to go out of your way to get done. You will do them when the right opportunity comes along. I have plenty of those. It works beautifully for me.

But I have heard people who hide them away on a different list, and then forget to check there. That sounds dangerous. I believe it is truly key that they sit on the same list, such that you automatically see them whenever you filter for errands or low energy tasks or whatever.

 

[bcmyers2112]

I couldn't agree more...

The use of a star or flag to mark priority items, or equivalently, the use of a hotlist, is optional.

To me it's just a memory aid. My next actions lists can run 200 plus items because of the nature of my job and other commitments. There's no way I can remember what I've identified as the next actions to handle without flagging them somehow.

I have seen a fair number of people proclaim that GTD doesn't work. Almost always they have misunderstood some key idea, usually substituting something more complicated or silly, e.g. "Every next action must be associated with a project" or "Each project can have only one next action." These are often called straw man arguments in rhetoric and logic: attacking a non-issue.

THANK YOU. I have felt like a lone voice in the wilderness. Finally. FINALLY! Other people who get it.

I do use a star/flag because the list software I use supports it, and I find it helpful. Anything more would be too much for me.

When I used to use priority codes I just found they made my lists an over-complicated mess. They made things harder, not less so. If I have a complete inventory of my commitments I feel perfectly good about trusting my instincts as to priorities without the use of any kinds of codes or other extra layers of complexity.

 

[Folke]

EDIT. This post is an answer to a post that has now disappeared. It related to the distinction time-wise between Next and Someday/Maybe:

That's another distinction that I perhaps make a bit differently than others.

I keep only the Maybes in Someday/Maybe, i.e. only the ones I am not sure I want to do.

On my Next list I keep everything that I am sure I am prepared and able to do. As long as I have no hesitation they stay there. I am against having any time limit for my Next list.

I want these low priority Next tasks available for context filtering. For example I may have some not-too-important thing to buy from a particular shop far away. I will definitely buy it if and when I get there; no question; but i am not going to drive there just for that. (And I do not need to see that task in my daily review; that's why I keep it flagged as low priority)

If I would put that task in Someday I would sure miss it, because I never search my Someday for Next tasks.

 

[cwoodgold]

I think you're reading way too much into my use of the phrase "in the moment." All I mean by it is that rather than assign priority codes I make an intuitive judgment about priorities every time I look over my next actions lists.

I don't understand. I thought you said you marked things with stars.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Explaining it as best I can...

I don't understand. I thought you said you marked things with stars.

Yes, I do. As a memory aid. My next actions lists can run 200-plus so I need something to help me remember what I identified as the things I want to do.

It's not prioritizing the way you think of it. I don't necessarily always choose the highest priority tasks to do. I may not have time if I've only got 30 minutes between meetings and my highest priority next action will take at least 90 minutes. Also if I'm in "brain toast" mode I might do a few lower-priority items because it's all I can handle after a twelve-hour day.

I also don't consider priorities to be static. I think if one is truly engaged with one's commitments in a real way, one discovers that priorities shift all the time according to the many variables in one's life.

You code each task with a priority as you enter it. I simply flag a few actions at a time -- and very quickly unflag them at a moment's notice if my priorities change mid-stream.

I'm not sure I can explain it any better than that. Sorry.

 

[bcmyers2112]

You could separate someday and maybe...

On my Next list I keep everything that I am sure I am prepared and able to do. As long as I have no hesitation they stay there. I am against having any time limit for my Next list.

The beauty of having a next actions list with only those things you want to do as soon as you can is that you can scan it without having to worry which things you care about more than others.

If you're concerned about losing focus on certain things, you could create separate Someday and Maybe lists. Put the stuff you want to at some point but don't want to see this week in Someday. Put the stuff you're not sure you'll do in Maybe.

If there's a particular thing in Someday that needs reviewing more than once a week just put a tickler in your calendar.

That's my thought, anyway. FWIW.

 

[Folke]

... you could create separate Someday and Maybe lists. ... If there's a particular thing in Someday that needs reviewing more than once a week just put a tickler in your calendar.

Different software may allow for different implementations. You may have your things in different lists and still be able to look at selections from across all these lists, or you may have your things coded as categories etc within just one single list etc. There may be many different ways to accomplish the same thing.

What I want is (and by "separation" here I mean in terms of some convenient list/view/filtering capability):

- no separation based on subjective time expectations, timelines, targets etc (I use no such things)
- separation of the Maybes from the Definitelys
- separation based on "importance/anxiety" (in addition to context, energy etc)
- be able to conveniently find all Definitely actions that match certain criteria (whether all the Definitelys are all in one single Next list or spread across a several lists).
- be able to conveniently find all Definitelys of a particular "importance/anxiety" level for reviews with differentiated frequency, and correspondingly for the Maybes, but using slower review cycles.

 

[bcmyers2112]

At the risk of beating this to death and beyond to death to something even deathier..

One other clarification about hotlists: at the end of the day if there's anything on the hotlist I didn't get to I "un-star" everything. A hotlist to me is not priority coding the way most people understand it. I don't assign priorities when I enter an item into my context lists. Again, my priorities shift so often -- as I think everyone's do these days -- that there is no payoff in spending the time.

Starring a task is just a way of remembering what I want to do now based on what is -- or isn't -- happening now. If something comes up even a minute after I finish selecting tasks for my hotlist that takes precedence I may scrap the hotlist entirely.

Our priorities in this high-tech era are like desert sands in a sandstorm. They whip around us at blinding speed, their trajectories impossible for our minds to predict. I accept that and have found doing so has relieved rather than increased my stress.

 

[kelstarrising]

At the risk of beating this to death and beyond to death to something even deathier..

Ha ha ha. This does seem like the zombie post that just keeps on living...

 

[bcmyers2112]

Yeah I think I'm done...

I think the difficulty is that I feel like I'm not getting my message across real well. But if I haven't been able to figure out how to say it cogently by now it's unlikely that repetition will help. It's like that old joke about the grocery store that keeps costs so low it loses money on every unit sold, but the owner says, "It's OK, we make up for it on volume."

Either I've made my point or I haven't. As for the horse, Star Trek's Doctor McCoy has just declared, "He's dead, Jim."

Besides I don't want to look bad in front of Kelly Forrister who is a GTD rock star.

 

[kelstarrising]

Besides I don't want to look bad in front of Kelly Forrister who is a GTD rock star.

Nah, the opposite actually. You've impressed me with your thoughtful posts.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Thanks

Nah, the opposite actually. You've impressed me with your thoughtful posts.

Thank you, Kelly. That means a lot coming from you. You have been a huge influence on my practice of GTD.

 

[Folke]

Summary note?

I think a lot of the apparent "confusion" and "disagreement" in this thread and elsewhere is due to the fact that the word priority is self-contradictory:

Says Merriam-Webster:
priority: : something that is more important than other things and that needs to be done or dealt with first

This implies that the "doing order" is the same as the "order of importance". But we all know this is wrong; when we select things to do, we tend to batch things up and make the best use of the present context, energy etc, even if all of those actions are not equally "important".

When using the word priority, and want to be able to understand each other correctly, we would really need to specify clearly whether we are talking about the "doing order" or the "order of importance".

I get the impression that David Allen is skeptical to the idea of characterizing our Next actions in "phases of doing" (ABC). So am I.

Whether or not it is useful to characterize our Next actions by "level of importance/urgency/anxiety" (ABC) is a different matter. I find this very useful. Among other things it provides a means to applying differentiated review frequencies. It also allows us, whenever we want to find the best options in a given situation during the day, to quickly find and compare those tasks that would make the best use of the present context and those that would be most important overall, and choose wisely between these.

 

[cwoodgold]

Yes, I do. As a memory aid. My next actions lists can run 200-plus so I need something to help me remember what I identified as the things I want to do.

It's not prioritizing the way you think of it. I don't necessarily always choose the highest priority tasks to do. I may not have time if I've only got 30 minutes between meetings and my highest priority next action will take at least 90 minutes. Also if I'm in "brain toast" mode I might do a few lower-priority items because it's all I can handle after a twelve-hour day.

I also don't consider priorities to be static. I think if one is truly engaged with one's commitments in a real way, one discovers that priorities shift all the time according to the many variables in one's life.

You code each task with a priority as you enter it. I simply flag a few actions at a time -- and very quickly unflag them at a moment's notice if my priorities change mid-stream.

I'm not sure I can explain it any better than that. Sorry.

Sorry for the long delay in replying. Yes, I understand better now, I think. As I understand it, the stars
you're using don't simply indicate priority, but indicate information which is based partly on priority and partly
on other things (time, energy, etc.).

I think all recordings are in effect memory aids.

I think with your system, in many cases the flagged items will soon get done, therefore the actions will be removed from the system as done and the flags won't need to be changed. This may be why you find it worthwhile to add the flags, but not to code all actions. In some cases, an action might end up getting flagged and unflagged several times, but not as many times as its priority codes would have needed to be updated if you had coded it at the beginning and were committed to keeping the priorities up-to-date. Also, deleting all flags in a single operation is a lot easier than individually re-prioritizing a bunch of actions.

 

[bcmyers2112]

Yes, I understand better now, I think.

I think maybe we both understand each other a little better now, even though we still likely disagree to some extent. I think that's healthy, and based on some things you've said my guess is you feel the same way.

I think all recordings are in effect memory aids.

Yeah, definitely. I just think it's an issue of how far it goes. Even though you only have two levels of priority (if I recall correctly) I think your system goes farther than I would go.

Anyway, I want to thank you for the discussion. This is a great forum with some really cool people and I'm grateful for the opportunity to learn from everyone, even those with whom I disagree.

Like Steven Covey said, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." I find when I practice that (and admittedly, I don't always) my interactions with people are more positive and productive.

 

[cwoodgold]

I think maybe we both understand each other a little better now, even though we still likely disagree to some extent. I think that's healthy, and based on some things you've said my guess is you feel the same way.

Yes, that's right.

Even though you only have two levels of priority (if I recall correctly) I think your system goes farther than I would go.

No, I kindof have an infinite number of priority levels in some of my systems. Not just two. On my context action lists, things can be written anywhere on a page of paper, with the precise position indicating a priority level. In effect, it's approximate so there are maybe only really about 10 or 20 levels. My list of priorities for the weekend ranks everything in order, though again that's approximate so in effect there may be about 5 or so levels of priority. My powers-of-2 systems provide about 8 levels of priority.