Antidote to “to-do” lists ?

I referred to David Allen’s “Getting Things Done” (GTD) a couple of times before, as not being rocket-science, motherhood even, but simple and practical methods for personal productivity nonetheless.

I see he has a blog, and links to several subtle contributions, on identifying and achieving important work. This is his link to Paul Graham’s essay on procrastination, which itself includes this link to this 1986 Richard Hamming essay on prioritising research tasks.

Via Jim McGee’s musings, which also includes a link to John Perry’s 1995 piece “Structured Procrastination

Structured procrastination sounds like “skilled incompetence” to me. One of those “necessary hypocrisies”. Anyway, I like the idea that creating a to-do list is possibly itself a displacement activity from more important tasks. I also like the idea that to any thoughtful person all these prioritisation methods actually involve subtler psychological tricks, almost deliberate self-deceptions, sneaking up on tasks. ie if you have a really important difficult task to do, go and clean the toilet. I can see how that works on at least 3 or 4 meta-levels. To every simple rule – like most metaphorical adages – there is a completely opposite, but equally valid simple rule.

I think the key is the psychology – right rule in the right context – and the recognising levels as well as scales of importance – hygiene / infrastructure, operational, tactical, strategic, blue-sky levels. My personal method is to cycle the rules. Struggle on with big tasks feeling guilty about overdue simple tasks, use little tasks to displace difficult tasks (and still feel guilty). Take a break and compile a to-do list, that tells you nothing you didn’t already know (and feel guilty again)

In the (a) (b) (c) choice – of do nothing, do the simple tasks you can complete, or do the important tasks that you may not complete. Only the “do nothing” choice is wrong. The right choice is to cycle between the other two. None of this in itself makes the prioritisation any easier – some tasks that look like “do nothing” may really be valuable tasks on some level, and being “honest” about which tasks really are the important ones is full of phychological tricks and self-deceptions (and “category errors” ?).

Hmmm. Strange loops between levels ? Oh, oh, Hofstadter again.

“The world is divided into people who do things, and people who get the credit. Try, if you can, to belong to the first class. There’s far less competition.” (Dwight Morrow)

“People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” (George Bernard Shaw)

“Nothing is really work unless you would rather be doing something else.” (Sir James Barrie)

“A life spent in making mistakes is not only more honourable but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.” (George Bernard Shaw)

“One must not confuse thinking with doing nothing.” (anon) Or, in fact “A man is not idle because he is absorbed in thought. There is visible labour and there is invisible labour.” (Victor Hugo)

“Time spent thinking outside-the-box is also time spent thinking outside-the-[rewards]-structure.” (Steve Robbins)

“Dialogue is thinking about something with two minds instead of one.” (Daniel Quinn)

Now this really is becoming a displacement activity. Ian. 🙂

Post Note : Spookily on “Poetry Please” last night,
Roger McGough presented …

The Old Sailor by A.A. Milne

There once was a sailor my grandfather knew
Who had so many things which he wanted to do
That, whenever he thought it was time to begin
He couldn’t because of the state he was in.

He was shipwrecked and lived on an island for weeks,
and he wanted some breeks;
And he wanted some nets, or a line and some hook
For the turtles and things which you read of in books

And, thinking of this, he remembered a thing
Which he wanted (for water) and that was a spring;
And he thought that to talk to he’d look for, and keep
(If he found it) a goat, or some chickens and sheep.

Then, because of the weather, he wanted a hut
With a door (to come in by) which opened and shut
(With a jerk, which was useful if snakes were about),
And a very strong lock to keep savages out.

He began on the fish-hooks, and when he’d begun
He decided he couldn’t because of the sun.
So he knew what he ought to begin with, and that
Was to find, or to make, a large sun-stopping hat.

He was making the hat with some leaves from a tree,
When he thought, “I’m as hot as a body can be,
And I’ve nothing to take for my terrible thirst;
So I’ll look for a spring, and I’ll look for it first.”

Then he thought as he started, “Oh dear and oh dear!
I’ll be lonely tomorrow with nobody here!”
So he made in his notebook a couple of notes:
“I must first find some chickens” and “No, I mean goats!”

He had just seen a goat (which he knew by the shape)
When he thought, “But I must have a boat for escape.
But a boat means a sail, which means needles and thread;
So I’d better sit down and make needles instead.”

He began on a needle, but thought as he worked,
That, if this was an island where savages lurked,
Sitting safe in his hut he’d have nothing to fear,
Whereas now they might suddenly breathe in his ear!

So he thought of his hut…and he thought of his boat,
And his hat and his breeks, and his chickens and goat,
And the hooks (for his food) and the spring (for his thirst)…
But he never could think which he ought to do first.

And so in the end he did nothing at all,
But basked on the shingle wrapped up in a shawl.
And I think it was dreadful the way he behaved-
He did nothing but basking until he was saved!

WikiPedia Magic

I see this story about US Government staff editing (positively and negatively) biographies of various political figures that appear in Wikipedia. A sign of its success I guess.

What is interesting is that when some of the editing was considered to be politically motivated, a Congress spokesperson said “I presume that if they did not want people to edit, they wouldn’t allow you to edit.”

They ? People ? You ?
Talk about missing the point.
Now who’s paranoid ?
What happened to we ?

Still it shows the limitations as well as strengths of Wikipedia. All information is “political” – this way the debate about the words happens in public, until commonly accepted “facts” evolve. Wikipedia will never be perfect, but it will always be getting there.

Numbers Irrelevant Again

“Farming Today” story about two different committees of expert advice on crop spraying regulations disagreeing about a safe margin.

When I first heard the 5m margin legislated around the public access edges of farmers’ fields, I kind of assumed it was some statistical tolerance for spraying accuracy, and airborne drift and the like from crop dusters. But nothing of the sort; it’s purely psychological.

Differences of opinion are about the public perception of the margin. Too wide and the public will assume crop sprays (in general) are extremely unhealthy, too narrow and they will perceive them as low risk.

The Irony of Free Speech

Interesting that the UK police turned a blind eye (initially at least) to the protesters in the Danish cartoon “furies”, where those availing themselves of free speech had extremely explicit organised incitement to hatred, fear and murder (a million miles from any “technical” concept of blasphemy too, or religious disrespect or intolerance).

The initial turning of the blind eye, may prove to be a good move. The outrage in the mainstream press and the affront from moderate moslems voicing “not in my name”, means a sizeable public will have got the message – rather than the negative propaganda coup that might have followed if the police had gone in heavy handed and dragged “peaceful protestors” kicking and screaming off the streets.

Dangerous to assume that was the planned tactic, but well done the Met. (Seems it is normal operational procedure to contain and film, then allow considered response later. No doubt to cover them against mistakes.)

Give ’em enough rope, so much better than “zero tolerance”, “at all costs” knee-jerks. Delicate balance though, judging by the loss of control at the Beirut embassies.

And of course, the meta-right to satirical-humour in free-speech; the newspaper cartoon that ridicules the police action in ignoring the inciters to violence, whilst booking a motorist for a traffic violation. A healthy sign.

Forget imposed democracy, freedom is a matter of the right to poke fun. Which is where we came in.

Interesting listening to Hama Musa, the Moslem anger at free-speech supporting humourous “insults” against Islam. He accepts that laws (cultural and legislative) in different Islamic and non-Islamic countries have different severities of judging and punishing such “blasphemies”. The fact that in some Islamic countries such offence would be punishable with execution, does not give anyone rights to incite murder or take such actions into their own hands, in any country Islamic or otherwise. Angry reaction yes, free-speech protest yes, incitement to hatred or actual violence, no. So where is the problem ?

The real grievance is perceived double standards in the non-Islamic west, and the special treatment such issues as anti-semitism, anti-zionism and holocaust-denial receive in western legislation. A simple plea in fact; Islam is a “serious” religion of historical significance like Christianity or Judaism, let’s see even handed treatment he says. Same root problem everywhere we look.

Nuclear Energy Plot Thickens

Helium-3 apparently is in plentiful supply on the moon and is an attractive, safe and stable raw material for fusion reactions ? The Russians are planning to mine it and bring it on home. [via Nova Spivak’s Minding the Planet]

Never heard of that before ? In what form can it exist on the moon, not gas surely, and if waterless and inert, what form ?

Aha – I see it’s not a new idea, at least 8 years old – the speculative bit is whether the quantities actually exist adsorbed in moon dust (ex-solar “wind” radiation), and whether practically extractable. Attractive numbers, though as ever, it’s never the numbers that count.

Artificial MP’s ?

Surely something wrong with this Ian Pearson (BT Futurologist) sequence of predictions.

2020: artificial intelligence elected to parliament
2040: robots become mentally and physically superior to humans

However optimisitic the time scale does this imply that MP’s (Members of Parliament) are mentally and physically inferior to the average human ?