'scuze me for sounding dumb but how exactly does this experiment work. :-[-40hz (March 31, 2009, 04:32 PM)
Any idea why it seemed the 2006 version got more replies than the 2007? Edit: btw how was both versions of GOE organized in the past?
I think it's a good idea to focus on specifics, but it should be up to each participant which specifics that should be. For instance, email or my physical desktop are pretty much the only things that I don't consider a mess... ok, a bit of an overstatement, but you get the idea ;)
A better idea, IMHO, would be for each participant to publicly list which specifics he/she would like to focus on and maybe make regular posts about the progress. How often? I don't know, but let's say an update every week or so. Obviously you're not responsible for this to anyone but yourself, but I imagine that for me at least, it would be an extra incentive to get things done if I'll have reveal my progress. It's not too cool seeing everyone else making huge strides towards getting organized if I still can't get anything done. This way, we can also give each other tips and ideas along the way.
:feedback:-TucknDar (October 10, 2008, 01:28 PM)
my list (themes) would be something along these lines
clearing backlog - mostly stuff in boxes ;)
à la my post above - expectation/sense of obligation -> procrastination (avoiding/reacting because of pressure from self or others)
Again, I cant remember the third ... (organisation comes to mind as another theme!)
And because it would be individual projects it really doesnt matter how many or how few get involved - obviously nicer to have a bunch of people involved though-tomos (November 18, 2008, 03:11 AM)
My criticism of it though is that the concept is turning a month only project into a productivity forum and that can confuse and stress people posting because no one knows if it's just a productivity forum or a monthly exercise so even their trial of systems might feel like another make it a habit in 30 days or your money back.-Paul Keith (April 02, 2009, 03:17 PM)
my favourite idea from the other thread is still:
each individual would pick a "theme" or two - maybe a problem point or something they want to improve. Or they could even choose to try out a system - e.g. Forsters new Autofocus system. Whatever.
They start a thread about it where they announce their plans and discuss. Others can chip in with comments, help, ideas and the thread is used to record progress :) (or lack of same :().
It's practical, requires minimum organisation, doesnt even require theory lol
How many people would be willing to commit themselves to doing something like this?-tomos (April 02, 2009, 04:39 AM)
If you want something more organized and structured with "assignments" I am going to have to pass, though.
And of course, everyone can discuss on the various threads any ideas they might have, and if people are interested in getting started with this kind of thing but don't know where to start, maybe they can get some inspiration from reading someone else's approach.-mouser (April 02, 2009, 05:42 PM)
If we do go with this.. then it may make sense to try to get one person willing to volunteer to read all of the threads and post occasional summaries of people's different methods, and encourage everyone participating, etc.-mouser (April 02, 2009, 06:10 PM)
If we do go with this.. then it may make sense to try to get one person willing to volunteer to read all of the threads and post occasional summaries of people's different methods, and encourage everyone participating, etc.The summary part I can also do if no one minds me being heavily critical though I can just keep that part of the post to myself.-mouser (April 02, 2009, 06:10 PM)-Paul Keith (April 02, 2009, 06:18 PM)
Any particular reason to be heavily critical? Don't you think you might scare some potential participants away?-SKesselman (April 02, 2009, 08:13 PM)
| On the Notion of Scaring Away Users: |
| To me it makes no sense to think that seekers of productivity aren't supposed to be scared away. IMO, if a system is at least decent enough to work for someone, and that someone wants to be productive, they will try it. (Hell, in their mind, they MUST try it) If they are just participating, chances are they don't need to be productive enough but even worse, they might not approach the system as a flawed system at all. They'll just run into it as much as possible and if they break through the wall than it's "teh best" and if they don't then "all/most of these don't work". Then if that's not bad enough, you have the reverse: People scaring people into doing a productivity system and making the person look like there's something wrong with them as opposed to the system. I mean come on, just because someone's stating it in a polite manner and not criticizing you, doesn't mean they can't scare you into a system. If you're going to ruin people's lives that way anyway, why should that be better than someone who openly addresses his criticisms. |
Political Analogy
I'm just sick and tired of both camps. It's like the Democrats and Republicans of productivity theory. One side from time to time just dropping by and saying most productivity systems don't work because they are burned by it and over-complicated by it. The other side always trying to conform and rationalizing that the other side is just not doing it right or they have the wrong mindset or some other things to make the other side feel that it's the people and not the system that's wrong.-
Sports Analogy:
I mean think to a successful sports coach or trainer. Sure, drill sergeant training isn't the best but you don't see them going "either you do it my way or you go out". Some of the best coaches are those that can be flexible yet at the same time have the guts to say their minds and call you out if you're doing something wrong or you're doing something right, but the play and strategy is wrong and isn't that what all productivity systems strive to be? A system that's so good that even a player who only has a taste of it, can know it's the right thing to do. I'm not saying a system should be perfect but come on, the little criticisms help built the pantheon of systems like The Triangle in basketball or The Sprawl and Brawl in MMA.
At some point, I feel as a person seeking to be productive, you have to be brave enough to say something negative or else you risk not being brave enough to do something positive and you have to be around an environment that also applies the same belief otherwise, it's like being around a wall. It's just going to kill those who really need it and leaving those who need it less. I'm not saying let's all call each other stupid but all of us have to be brave enough to say "Hey, you're doing this wrong because so and so" and not just stop at "this isn't for you" "you have the wrong mindset" "You're wrong I have success with it so everyone else should too cause I'm the gutter of the gutter" At some point, a person who wants to experiment must actually "experiment", not "protect" both the system and the people from harshness. No one great grows without that so why should we expect productivity systems to become better without that level of harshness too?
| Compromise: |
| ...at the same time, like I said, I get that not everyone sees it that way and at some point we also are hugely helped by lots more people participating and no one ruining the fun so I'll just keep it to myself as much as possible. |
Paul,
I take your point about criticism, but I'll ask:
does being critical rule out being encouraging? Criticism, if delivered fairly, can obviously be something helpful - as you say if Allen was more specific in his criticism we would now know a bit more about the topic. I'm not trying to force you into an encouraging role !! just throwing it out there
I dont think we're trying to change the world of productivity or whatever it's called. You keep focusing on that world and it's problems. Again, I'm not saying all that stuff isnt important - I'm just saying it's only one aspect.
I'm curious - what is it you would want from a GOE ?
I mean - not what you dont want !
(apologies if you've said that somewhere already & I've missed it - just redirect me!)-tomos (April 03, 2009, 03:45 AM)
I also don't know what you meant by encouragement.what I said:-Paul Keith (April 03, 2009, 04:22 AM)
I also don't know what you meant by encouragement.what I said:-Paul Keith (April 03, 2009, 04:22 AM)
criticism doesnt rule out encouragement (I only said it because you were saying something along the lines that you didnt do encouragement but did do criticism)
And naturally: encouragement doesnt rule out criticism ...-tomos (April 03, 2009, 05:56 AM)
Hmm...that could be a failure of communication on my part. I don't recall saying anything like that. At least even if I do, I've never felt encouragement to be something I'm against and won't do....-Paul Keith (April 03, 2009, 06:25 AM)
If we do go with this.. then it may make sense to try to get one person willing to volunteer to read all of the threads and post occasional summaries of people's different methods, and encourage everyone participating, etc.-mouser (April 02, 2009, 06:10 PM)
Any particular reason to be heavily critical? Don't you think you might scare some potential participants away?-SKesselman (April 02, 2009, 08:13 PM)
does being critical rule out being encouraging?
I only said it because you were saying something along the lines that you didnt do encouragement but did do criticism
If we do go with this.. then it may make sense to try to get one person willing to volunteer to read all of the threads and post occasional summaries of people's different methods, and encourage everyone participating, etc.-
The summary part I can also do if no one minds me being heavily critical though I can just keep that part of the post to myself.-
Encouragement, no, not me.
To get more creative work done, each individual needs to discover and establish processes that work for them. In one of the posts on this subject, someone mentioned that, if a number of people practice the fundamentals of basketball, most of them will improve. Of course! That is because basketball is a specific skill; everyone practicing has the same goal.
the strict model appears to be awfully unpopular-Paul Keith (April 08, 2009, 10:14 AM)
Yet at the same time, right now where and what model to adapt, none of us knows yet and none of us has any idea how to decide. At least, I don't. It seems that is the problem with the loose model-Paul Keith (April 08, 2009, 10:14 AM)
A person who drives to the basket for example, will in turn have different variations of the same fundamentals as that of a shooter. Then there's inside and outside scoring. And then there's the whole other thing with trainers and coaches where the fundamentals aren't there to be practiced as skills so much as to be integrated into a team model. Then there's the fundamentals of your team and of your play and of the whole kinds of situation you are placed in. Even a general manager needs to know the fundamentals in order to be effective.
....
This idea that the "best model for the GOE is one that will help every participant discuss and understand all the possibilities, while leaving them the freedom to set personally meaningful goals, then explore the best processes to help them - as individuals with different working styles and needs - achieve those goals." It's great but where does it fit in the entire road map? If anything it's like another month-long project of "Organizing" the Getting Organized Experiment and this month right now seems to be it.
Yet at the same time, right now where and what model to adapt, none of us knows yet and none of us has any idea how to decide. At least, I don't. It seems that is the problem with the loose model but the strict model appears to be awfully unpopular. Right now in this week, we all probably have done no productive things as opposed to even doing unproductive things to pursue this upcoming experiment. It's really a dilemma. (unless someone has already secretly established something without posting it here)-Paul Keith (April 08, 2009, 10:14 AM)
could you elaborate on the strict model Paul ?-tomos
I think that problem is a problem with any model - making the decision to go for it
if you really favour one, say it - who knows, we may all follow you.
I agree completely that my remarks don't provide a clear goal on any road map, although the outlines of a goal could be inferred between the lines. That is because I believe that before any goal can be defined, the problem must first be understood. And the problem, as I see it, is that creative work, which I believe is what most if not all programmers practice, is not as easily pigeonholed as most other areas.-raybeere
So how do we experiment at all? I freely admit this is my own opinion; others may not like it at all. But my own impression of what would be most helpful would be a month long discussion where everyone who took part tried putting into practice whatever methods appealed to them, then openly discussed what worked for them - and what didn't - and why. That aspect would help others learn. And mutual participation, even if our paths and goals varied, would provide a sense of camaraderie.
The crucial point there is to understand the distinction between cool but ultimately distracting "toys" and tools that offer a real benefit. Whoever led the event would need to encourage as many people, with as many divergent ideas as possible, to take part, moderate and promote the discussion of what ideas worked or didn't work and why, and keep the tools that flowed from the GOE focused at least mostly on the truly useful. Sure, those ideas need refining; I'm not claiming that is anything like a finished picture of what the GOE could be.
As far as sustaining interest, I think most people are interested in anything that can help them do better. One of the reasons I think so many productivity "drives" fail is because they don't take the problems into account. If you adopt a single method, one that only works for half the participants, then only that half that benefited will be enthusiastic. The ones that method failed for will be discouraged; of course they won't keep trying once the month is up. And if you adopt a method that only partially works for a few participants, all the momentum will die, quickly. Keeping interest alive year round is only possible if the month long GOE enables most or all of those who take part to see real gains.
In the end, I believe creative productivity can be pigeonholed into 3 major areas (over-generalizing)
Area 1: Results
Area 2: The Confidence to Fail
Area 3: The Capacity to Salvage a Failed Project to Inspire and Utilize for Future Projects-Paul Keith (April 08, 2009, 10:15 PM)
Here I am a bit confused, on one hand you suggested a loose model above and on this end, you suggested a stricter model of an organizer. Could you specify the model you are thinking of? It might help make this vision of yours more concrete and make it simpler for people to agree or disagree upon. (We could make another topic specifically addressing your model)
Personally, I think you've missed a few points. Like ideas. Some people have 'em, some struggle to find them. Also, processes that help you proceed from idea to finished result with as few unpleasant detours as possible.
Perhaps I didn't make this point clear enough. I wasn't suggesting a stricter model, simply pointing out that even a loose model does need a moderator of sorts. Otherwise, it is all too likely to drift into a discussion of the funniest lolcats we've found on the Web, or whatever. And I have seen that happen here, so I know it is not just writers who have this weakness. ;D