My experience with GTD is: trying, failing, trying again, failing again, etc. So I wouldn’t say it works for me. But I have noticed that waiting for a perfect implementation is a good excuse to procrastinate. And there is no guarantee the perfect implementation would make things work. Or I could change my mind and decide I now have different criteria for a perfect implementation. Etc. So it’s probably just an excuse. I could start with what I have now, and it does not prevent me to search for a better implementation.
And probably I am using it for much simpler tasks. Because my typical situation is simple tasks not being done. I can still imagine that for a complex project I would use a Word document in computer, and paper for “next actions”… because the “next actions” by definition are simple.
How exactly did you fail in your previous attempts with GTD? My typical failure mode is simply giving up and ignoring the system. The same thing could happen to me with a computer implementation, too. Some problems have to be fixed outside of GTD. GTD is basicly for people who have no problems with procrastination, they just do tasks in a wrong order (less important ones first) or remember them in wrong contexts (e.g. forget to send an important e-mail when at computer, remember it when walking outside, then forget it again).
“GTD is basicly for people who have no problems with procrastination, they just do tasks in a wrong order (less important ones first)”
People don’t do nothing when they procrastinate.
“How exactly did you fail in your previous attempts with GTD? My typical failure mode is simply giving up and ignoring the system.”
Basically, I didn’t actually use the system. I suppose this could be a failure on my part rather than a failure due to bad software. Thinking about this now, I’m surprised that I was able to rationalize things for so long saying that the problem was imperfect software.
I suppose the problem is that the software does not definitely tell me which option is better, and so I don’t commit to any option. Then, I just choose options based on what seems most relevant to work on at the time. I suppose the problem of definitively saying that one option is better than the other can’t be solved (actually, this is a bit of a rationalization). But, I can still commit to options without strong certainty in the options because I am sure that it would be really coincidental if the thing I decided to work on in the moment were actually the most important thing I could be doing...
It’s not literally nothing, but I’d say they often do some “infinite task”—a thing that can expand to take all available time, and can be used to avoid anything else. Modern example is web browsing, but classic example could be e.g. house cleaning. Avoiding is the critical component of procrastination, but it can be masked by wasting all the time and then saying “no, I don’t avoid it, I just don’t have enough time, because I have so much work”. Sometimes the waste of time is obvious, such as with web browsing, but sometimes one can do many relatively useful things just to avoid one unplesant task.
GTD is good to fix bugs like: “you did a decision, then you forgot it, then you had to decide again, so you wasted twice as much time” or “you went to place X to do task A, then you returned home, and only then you remembered that you also have to do task B at the same place, so you had to travel twice”. It supposes one is already efficient, but wants do be twice as efficient. So one creates lists of “all tasks that need to be done at place X”, lists of already made decisions, etc.
GTD is bad to fix bugs like: “you had enough time to do A, but instead you spent all the time on Reddit”. One can write a list of projects and tasks… and spend all the time on Reddit anyway.
I suppose the problem is that the software does not definitely tell me which option is better, and so I don’t commit to any option.
Yeah, that’s another thing GTD does not do (not 100% sure about it, but this is what I remember). It supposes that you choose a doable amount of work, and do it all. The only difference is that by being twice as efficient, the amount of doable work increases.
Planning is a different thing than doing; and it shouldn’t be done at the same time. -- When planning, we focus on how useful things are. When doing, we are inevitably influenced by how easy things are. When we mix planning and working, there is high risk of rationalizing the easier task as more useful, just because we prefer to do something easy.
For me planning is easiest when the work is in the far mode; for example on evening, or when I am walking outside.
EDIT: Actually, GTD makes an important distinction between projects (you started doing), future projects (you didn’t start yet, but you will start soon) and maybe projects (you probably will not do it), and it prioritizes the projects that already started. Which makes sense, because by decision to start a project, you expressed that the project has a high priority, so you should respect it (unless you change your mind dramatically).
My experience with GTD is: trying, failing, trying again, failing again, etc. So I wouldn’t say it works for me. But I have noticed that waiting for a perfect implementation is a good excuse to procrastinate. And there is no guarantee the perfect implementation would make things work. Or I could change my mind and decide I now have different criteria for a perfect implementation. Etc. So it’s probably just an excuse. I could start with what I have now, and it does not prevent me to search for a better implementation.
And probably I am using it for much simpler tasks. Because my typical situation is simple tasks not being done. I can still imagine that for a complex project I would use a Word document in computer, and paper for “next actions”… because the “next actions” by definition are simple.
How exactly did you fail in your previous attempts with GTD? My typical failure mode is simply giving up and ignoring the system. The same thing could happen to me with a computer implementation, too. Some problems have to be fixed outside of GTD. GTD is basicly for people who have no problems with procrastination, they just do tasks in a wrong order (less important ones first) or remember them in wrong contexts (e.g. forget to send an important e-mail when at computer, remember it when walking outside, then forget it again).
“GTD is basicly for people who have no problems with procrastination, they just do tasks in a wrong order (less important ones first)”
People don’t do nothing when they procrastinate.
“How exactly did you fail in your previous attempts with GTD? My typical failure mode is simply giving up and ignoring the system.”
Basically, I didn’t actually use the system. I suppose this could be a failure on my part rather than a failure due to bad software. Thinking about this now, I’m surprised that I was able to rationalize things for so long saying that the problem was imperfect software.
I suppose the problem is that the software does not definitely tell me which option is better, and so I don’t commit to any option. Then, I just choose options based on what seems most relevant to work on at the time. I suppose the problem of definitively saying that one option is better than the other can’t be solved (actually, this is a bit of a rationalization). But, I can still commit to options without strong certainty in the options because I am sure that it would be really coincidental if the thing I decided to work on in the moment were actually the most important thing I could be doing...
It’s not literally nothing, but I’d say they often do some “infinite task”—a thing that can expand to take all available time, and can be used to avoid anything else. Modern example is web browsing, but classic example could be e.g. house cleaning. Avoiding is the critical component of procrastination, but it can be masked by wasting all the time and then saying “no, I don’t avoid it, I just don’t have enough time, because I have so much work”. Sometimes the waste of time is obvious, such as with web browsing, but sometimes one can do many relatively useful things just to avoid one unplesant task.
GTD is good to fix bugs like: “you did a decision, then you forgot it, then you had to decide again, so you wasted twice as much time” or “you went to place X to do task A, then you returned home, and only then you remembered that you also have to do task B at the same place, so you had to travel twice”. It supposes one is already efficient, but wants do be twice as efficient. So one creates lists of “all tasks that need to be done at place X”, lists of already made decisions, etc.
GTD is bad to fix bugs like: “you had enough time to do A, but instead you spent all the time on Reddit”. One can write a list of projects and tasks… and spend all the time on Reddit anyway.
Yeah, that’s another thing GTD does not do (not 100% sure about it, but this is what I remember). It supposes that you choose a doable amount of work, and do it all. The only difference is that by being twice as efficient, the amount of doable work increases.
Planning is a different thing than doing; and it shouldn’t be done at the same time. -- When planning, we focus on how useful things are. When doing, we are inevitably influenced by how easy things are. When we mix planning and working, there is high risk of rationalizing the easier task as more useful, just because we prefer to do something easy.
For me planning is easiest when the work is in the far mode; for example on evening, or when I am walking outside.
EDIT: Actually, GTD makes an important distinction between projects (you started doing), future projects (you didn’t start yet, but you will start soon) and maybe projects (you probably will not do it), and it prioritizes the projects that already started. Which makes sense, because by decision to start a project, you expressed that the project has a high priority, so you should respect it (unless you change your mind dramatically).