Recent Posts
Personally, I'm a very visual thinker, but even so I can't quite see what all the fuss is about mind mapping.
Maybe it's the double-edged sword of implementation. Creating a mind map in software seems like a process that's too difficult to me. I can't create the map nearly as quickly as a I can think/type, and I find I get bogged down in formatting, moving things around, etc. I wind up getting distracted from the ideas by the need to create/maintain the structure.-Jimdoria (April 26, 2009, 12:03 AM)
On the other hand, if done on paper, the lack of editability seems like a weakness. Put a concept or two in the wrong place, and your whole map could turn to incomprehensible spaghetti.
Maybe it's that I haven't done it enough to get good at it, but why should it be so hard? I've found that a plain old outline format works way better for me, provided there's a good search that lets me find what I need quickly, and some halfway-decent internal linking. MS Word's Outline view, Power Point, OneNote (especially OneNote) are much more intuitive and straightforward to me.
, "R" 
2tally 
!,!:!Before Machiavelli, writers on political philosophy had been generally agreed on the virtues and methods appropriate to nations and those who would make them great. Although the ideas were more rooted in classical Greek philosophy, they were identified mostly with Cicero, who had Romanized them and made them widely available in his handbook for rulers, On Moral Obligations. This was one of the first books to be printed in Christendom, and Erasmus had a pocket-sized edition created so the would-be virtuoso would never be caught short.
Then in 1519, Niccolo Machiavelli landed a cannonball in European political thought, one which no subsequent writer could ignore. His crime was to tell things how they were by pointing out the hypocrisy of rulers who purported to rule in the name of virtue and religion, but in fact abided by neither.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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. |
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)
I guess this tweak isn't for me. I normally open FirefoxPortable with 25+ tabs minimum.Whoa!! That's some heavy tabbing. What I'm still trying to find out is why it's written in stone that the back button has to reload the page. I don't fathom what the cache is there for if you can't reload stuff you just downloaded 3 seconds ago when you hit the back button. Very strange design.-Paul Keith (March 31, 2009, 06:22 PM)-MilesAhead (April 01, 2009, 02:40 PM)
'scuze me for sounding dumb but how exactly does this experiment work.-40hz (March 31, 2009, 04:32 PM)
