Is it really possible to have a complete system?

[supergtdman]

I'm practicing GTD for several years but I don't think it's really possible to have 100% of my commitments/projects/etc. captured, processed and organized unless all I'm doing are weekly reviews non stop all the time.

The problem with an incomplete system is that I don't fully trust it when it comes down to reviewing it and choosing what to do. I mean the most practically useful aspect of GTD for me has been keeping track of projects with Due Dates. Other than that I'm doing things which are not on my lists most of the time.


Here is a related quote from David Allen


There is a light year of difference between a system that has merely a lot of our commitments objectified and one that has 100% of the total. And few people have ever gotten to a totally empty head, with absolutely every project, action item, and potential agreement we have made with ourselves and others out and available in an easily reviewable format.


Either your head is the best place to hold all your agreements with yourself, or it's not. (You can guess which way I vote.) I can't imagine any intellectual justification for halfway in between. Yet most people still have over half their life in their heads. And a partial system is almost worse than none. As a favorite mentor of mine is fond of reminding me from time to time, in regard to tracking and renegotiating life commitments in general, "99%'s a bitch, 100%'s a breeze.

I don't think you can keep the system 100% up to date at all times. Sure, you could keep it almost complete though but then according to David Allen it's not really worth it...

Your thoughts?

[cfoley]

This relates to something I've been thinking about lately. I've been having a bit of a capturing crisis. I had an idea earlier today and I caught myself thinking "Good idea. I'll write that down when I go upstairs later." I've been thinking that a lot lately and you can probably guess that I've omitted capturing most of it.

Once something is captured, it's in your system. Your subconscious is happy to stop continually reminding you of it as long as it knows you will process your inbox before too long.

In the threefold nature of work, you can:

1. Do planned work.
2. Do work as it turns up.
3. Define your work.

My problem was that I wasn't dealing with work as it was showing up properly. If I DID it, that would be fine but I didn't DO it, and I didn't capture it either. In my view, a system is 100% if everything is captured. As long as I don't leave it too long before I process and review, it has 100% of my commitments in it, and the ones that are not organised properly are in a bucket marked specially for organising.

Another thing is I'm not afraid to do a task before I process it. If I'm in the right context and I see that it needs done, I'll just go right ahead and to it. There are times when I go to process my inbox and find that I have done a lot of it already.

If you are spending too long processing, then that is a different problem but I hope this post helps you.

[supergtdman]

Yeah, don't get me wrong though, I'm not giving up on capturing stuff, I capture stuff all the time with iphone and Omnifocus, Evernote and etc.

But life is just very very complex. GTD is just a tool which helps but I kind of don't rely on it as much as I expect myself to.

Imho the whole world and all thoughts could be considered as an inbox and the only way to really capture absolutely everything is to walk around with a small wearable video camera attached and record everything 24/7. And then also have some device which would capture your thoughts as well.
Processing all that as an inbox would take too much time though. So obviously in practice you always have to decide what to capture into your GTD inbox and what not to capture.

I just don't think it's really possible to capture and then eventually process **absolutely everything**. Frankly an actually complete system seems more like a myth or a fantasy to me, like a unicorn.

[kelstarrising]

So obviously in practice you always have to decide what to capture into your GTD inbox and what not to capture.

Yes. The purpose of collect is to "capture everything that requires action, thought or follow-through." There are many, many things that you will notice in your life that don't require action, thought, or follow-through.

[cfoley]

I see what you are saying. In that case, I would not try to get too hung up about the number 100%. An important reason for capturing is to stop the subconscious constantly distracting you at inappropriate times with all of your commitments. Perhaps you could use that as a heuristic. When your mind gives you peace to work, you have captured enough.

[supergtdman]

Yes. The purpose of collect is to "capture everything that requires action, thought or follow-through." There are many, many things that you will notice in your life that don't require

Yeah, many things don't require action, thought, or follow-through. However I'm not talking about just capturing meaningless data.

I could capture a hundred or more things one day - some of them would be actionable, others would be just useful data to refer to later, some would be trash. Then the next day I can capture another hundred things. And so on.

All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter how much I captured if my goal is to have a truly complete system. There is always something else to do which isn't on the lists.


I see what you are saying. In that case, I would not try to get too hung up about the number 100%. An important reason for capturing is to stop the subconscious constantly distracting you at inappropriate times with all of your commitments. Perhaps you could use that as a heuristic. When your mind gives you peace to work, you have captured enough.

Yeah, that's what I think as well. I really use the GTD system to make sure that nothing is going to blow up or to make sure that nothing distracts or annoys me. I don't expect the system to be actually truly complete.
I mean the options of what you could do are almost kind of limitless while the system is always limited.

[CJSullivan]

If I'm interpreting what I've learned over the years correctly, the key to the 100% capture is capturing 100% of what has my attention. Not 100% of what I think, or what I see... I could think 50,000 thoughts in an hour, but only 3 of them would actually have enough "charge" for me to want to capture them for future review.

And yes, the in box is part of the system, so in my mind if I've got everything that's got any charge to it externalised, be it processed on a list or just waiting for me in my in box, then I'm feeling pretty good!

Finally - it's impossible to look at this as a linear system. It's more of an infinite loop. I would think that "100%" is a short-hand way of saying that your default position is to notice when something has your attention and then it goes into the system, which starts with "Capture," and then goes forward to "Organise," etc.

[Roger]

I don't think you can keep the system 100% up to date at all times.

Sure, but the only person who has brought up "at all times" is you.

If that were the way GTD was designed to operate, there would be little utility in the Weekly Review.



Cheers,
Roger

[TesTeq]

If I'm interpreting what I've learned over the years correctly, the key to the 100% capture is capturing 100% of what has my attention. Not 100% of what I think, or what I see... I could think 50,000 thoughts in an hour, but only 3 of them would actually have enough "charge" for me to want to capture them for future review.

That's exactly how I interpret the 100% capture requirement.


Yeah, many things don't require action, thought, or follow-through. However I'm not talking about just capturing meaningless data.

I could capture a hundred or more things one day - some of them would be actionable, others would be just useful data to refer to later, some would be trash. Then the next day I can capture another hundred things. And so on.

Isn't it a data capture addiction? Are all these things really worth capturing? Would you real feel bad without them?

[manuelhe]

s **absolutely everything**. Frankly an actually complete system seems more like a myth or a fantasy to me, like a unicorn.

A complete system is more like Mt Everest, rather than a unicorn. Its not a fantasy, but it is not something the average person ever gets to see.

The goal is not is to be 100 percent captured at any given time. Its good to push boundaries and over extend from time to time. But it is certainly worthwhile to create a system where you know you could capture it all because you've tested it at least once.

The difference between capturing it all, and processing it all is what gets people confused.

Capturing it all is a philosophical impossibility. What is necessary is to capture what is important.

Processing it all, however is critical and very possible. If something has made its way to your in basket, or something is constantly nagging your consciousness, its best to have a place to park it so you can truly understand what that something is and what you will do about it.

[ellobogrande]

It's not possible to have it 100% complete and current every hour of every day, but when you "freeze" your external world for processing and reviewing (esp. weekly reviews) it is possible to have a 100% up-to-date system that matches the reality of that frozen moment.

If you tried to keep your system current every hour of every day you'd never get any work done.

[supergtdman]

If I'm interpreting what I've learned over the years correctly, the key to the 100% capture is capturing 100% of what has my attention. Not 100% of what I think, or what I see... I could think 50,000 thoughts in an hour, but only 3 of them would actually have enough "charge" for me to want to capture them for future review.

...

Finally - it's impossible to look at this as a linear system. It's more of an infinite loop. I would think that "100%" is a short-hand way of saying that your default position is to notice when something has your attention and then it goes into the system, which starts with "Capture," and then goes forward to "Organise," etc.

I agree about looking at it as an infinite loop, but also in my view that is similar to a dog chasing a tail :)

Here is an example

You captured everything meaningful, did a weekly review, etc. The next day you wake up and something makes you dramatically change your priorities and plans so much that the system is already mostly out of date. That's just life...

This is a very drastic example but it shows that life is much more complex and doesn't fit 100% into GTD lists. Sure, lots of stuff on the lists would still be relevant even in this example.

But in practice this happens all the time. The world changes, you change, what had your attention yesterday might be irrelevant today, what you thought was irrelevant yesterday might be important today but it's not in the system. The problem is that the system is always just a reflection of the past. It doesn't show you all your options. Even if you have 200 projects or more there is still a gazillion more things you could be doing which are not in the system.


Don't get me wrong though I find GTD to be very helpful but I just can't trust it fully because it's never really trully complete and up to date. I think the whole concept of 100% complete system which David describes never really happens in practice from day to day.

[supergtdman]

Sure, but the only person who has brought up "at all times" is you.

If that were the way GTD was designed to operate, there would be little utility in the Weekly Review.



Cheers,
Roger

Sure, but I don't know how the GTD was **designed** to operate. Maybe it doesn't even matter. Maybe it's designed to be an incomplete system 99% of the time. Maybe it's designed to stay complete only for a brief moment during a weekly review (if at all).
But then how can you fully trust the system from day to day?

As David says

And a partial system is almost worse than none. As a favorite mentor of mine is fond of reminding me from time to time, in regard to tracking and renegotiating life commitments in general, "99%'s a bitch, 100%'s a breeze.

[Oogiem]

Don't get me wrong though I find GTD to be very helpful but I just can't trust it fully because it's never really trully complete and up to date. I think the whole concept of 100% complete system which David describes never really happens in practice from day to day.

This is what is sticking out to me. If you don't trust your system then start with why don't you trust it.

I personally feel that in truth my GTD system is functionally 100% the vast majority of the time. Either stuff is processed and on my lists (including someday maybe lists) or it is being worked on right then either off my lists or because it was work as it appeared or it is in my system waiting to be clarified (in an inbox or on a someday.maybe list)

I need weekly reviews to help me fine tune where I will put my attention but I never feel my system is incomplete so I have implicit trust in it.

Right now I am looking at a desk inbox that has overflowed with stuff out of the allotted space and into my working space because of some physically large items that are in it. But my GTD system is still complete at this time because I know that by the end of the day tomorrow I'll have that all cleared out and processed.

[TesTeq]

You captured everything meaningful, did a weekly review, etc. The next day you wake up and something makes you dramatically change your priorities and plans so much that the system is already mostly out of date. That's just life...

No, it's not life. It is just a pessimistic speculation. How often do you have to dramatically change your priorities and plans. Once per year on average? Is adding one or more Projects or a new Area of Focus a dramatic event?


This is a very drastic example but it shows that life is much more complex and doesn't fit 100% into GTD lists. Sure, lots of stuff on the lists would still be relevant even in this example.

That's the point! Lots of stuff on the lists would still be relevant. Relevant and safely captured in your GTD system.


But in practice this happens all the time. The world changes, you change, what had your attention yesterday might be irrelevant today, what you thought was irrelevant yesterday might be important today but it's not in the system. The problem is that the system is always just a reflection of the past. It doesn't show you all your options. Even if you have 200 projects or more there is still a gazillion more things you could be doing which are not in the system.

In my life it does not happen all the time. When things change I just update my lists. Yes, they reflect the past but David Allen is still busy working on the GTD 2.0 with future prediction feature.

I have a car but should I think about maintenance of all other cars on Earth?


Don't get me wrong though I find GTD to be very helpful but I just can't trust it fully because it's never really trully complete and up to date. I think the whole concept of 100% complete system which David describes never really happens in practice from day to day.

Do you trust your thermometer outside the window? It shows you a temperature with a small delay. There may be a sudden storm and the temperature may drop in minutes. Will you go for a walk?

[supergtdman]

GTD is more like online weather forecast rather than thermometer :)
Forecast is helpful but to really know the exact current weather you just look outside the window, you know.
GTD lists could give you an idea whether something is going to blow up or not but whole life still doesn't exactly fit 100% on those lists. And that's my point, i.e. there's always a gazillion things you could be doing which aren't on the lists, regardless of how much you capture or review stuff and etc.

I never said that GTD is not functional or anything, my point is just that the system is never truly 100% complete in practice, that's all.

[cwoodgold]

Perhaps I could say that my system is often close to 100% capture (and staying there
for periods of time) in this sense: that when I think of something and think
"I've got to remember to do X", then I capture it into one of my systems. In the first few months when I was doing GTD I would often stop while riding my bicycle to write something down. I do that a lot less often now, and I think it's more because I've already got things recorded and less because of falling off the GTD wagon.

[supergtdman]

Perhaps I could say that my system is often close to 100% capture (and staying there
for periods of time) in this sense: that when I think of something and think
"I've got to remember to do X", then I capture it into one of my systems.


Right, that's exactly the point, you capture and add to the lists only the things that you think you would want to be reminded of in the future. But you don't add all of the possible options of what you could/might want to do at any given moment. And you can't really take everything into account anyway.
Nobody has a system which can show him a list of absolutely all possible options of what he can do at any given moment in some context, not even David Allen himself :). It's impossible. The options of what you could do are always almost infinite.

Gtd can't ever be a truly "complete system" in a sense that David Allen proposes it. It's just lists of reminders basically, that's all.

[Roger]

Nobody has a system which can show him a list of absolutely all possible options of what he can do at any given moment in some context, not even David Allen himself. It's impossible. The options of what you could do are always almost infinite.

Fortunate for us, then, that GTD is not a system for building a list of all possible options of what one could do.



Cheers,
Roger

[supergtdman]

Fortunate for us, then, that GTD is not a system for building a list of all possible options of what one could do.



Cheers,
Roger

How can you fully trust the system when it doesn't show you all of the possible options of what you might want to do?
This kind of contradicts the whole **complete trusted system** concept :)

[Barb]

If something doesn't really have your attention, there's really no need for it to be in your system. For instance, let's say I have a closet in a bedroom that is never used. And say that closet it full of stuff and the stuff is not used. If the stuff in the closet is not pulling at my attention in any way, there really is no need to capture anything about that closet into my system at the present time.

Now, let's say that closet starts to niggle at my brain just a tiny bit. I'm not ready to commit to any action about that closet, I just know that someday I probably want to think about it. I'd put an entry about it on "Someday/Maybe" and get the niggling to stop.

You want things on your lists so your attention is purposefully placed at the appropriate time. Errands to run when they need to be run, bills paid before they are due, travel arrangements made before it's too late, etc. So these things go on your active lists. You don't want your attention grabbed because you wake up one day, look at your calendar, and realize you really should be on a plane to see a customer in another city to make a presentation. Oops! Or get up to take a prescription medication only to realize you don't have any more and there are no refills. Oops! Attention grabbed.

If you make a regular practice of keeping things in your system (even if in someday/maybe) and not in your head, there really isn't endless capture left to be done. I'll get up early tomorrow to do my weekly review and I'll start that with a Mind Sweep. I would be very surprised if I come up with more than 5-6 new things--if I came up with nothing at all new, it wouldn't be the first time.

But if I have no commitment at all--to myself or anyone else--to take action on something in particular, it simply is not in my system. It may be on someday/maybe if the only commitment I have around it is to think about it again at some point, but that's it.

So unless I missed something....having a commitment to act is the missing ingredient in this thread so far. I apologize if I just didn't read far enough back or closely enough.

[cwoodgold]

For me, having a commitment to act isn't exactly it.

For me, a list of "next actions" is a list of opportunities, not a list of commitments. Some of them may be commitments.
David Allen says you can re-negotiate your agreements with yourself at any time. I think of it differently: I don't necessarily make an agreement with myself when I put an action on a list.

For me, the criterion is: do I want to be reminded of this?

[TesTeq]

How can you fully trust the system when it doesn't show you all of the possible options of what you might want to do?

My GTD system is not for showing me options. It safely stores the options that I have chosen. I think - GTD system stores the results of my thinking.

[Barb]

My GTD system is not for showing me options. It safely stores the options that I have chosen. I think - GTD system stores the results of my thinking.

I'd agree with this too. I've thought about something and put it on the list with an intention to act. If I want to just be reminded about something, it's in my tickler file, on someday/maybe, or on my calendar as an all-day event in the future.

[artsinaction]

I think - GTD system stores the results of my thinking.

Can I get an Amen! ?

[supergtdman]

My GTD system is not for showing me options. It safely stores the options that I have chosen. I think - GTD system stores the results of my thinking.

It's not a question of whether it stores the results of your thinking or not. Sure, it does.
Does it mean it makes it a complete system though? One doesn't necessarily cause the other.

[cwoodgold]

"complete" could mean it has all possible options.
"complete" could mean it has everything I've made a commitment to do.
"complete" could mean it has everything I've thought of that I've decided I want to be reminded of.
"complete" could mean it has a list of all English words starting with the letter "s" that mean some kind of locomotion by foot.

It depends on how you define your system.

[supergtdman]

"complete" could mean it has all possible options.
"complete" could mean it has everything I've made a commitment to do.
"complete" could mean it has everything I've thought of that I've decided I want to be reminded of.
"complete" could mean it has a list of all English words starting with the letter "s" that mean some kind of locomotion by foot.

It depends on how you define your system.

Good point.

I'm referring to David Allen's description, i.e.


There is a light year of difference between a system that has merely a lot of our commitments objectified and one that has 100% of the total. And few people have ever gotten to a totally empty head, with absolutely every project, action item, and potential agreement we have made with ourselves and others out and available in an easily reviewable format.


It's interesting though, that the one possible definition of commitment is:
"an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action".

this actually makes a lot of sense and hints why most people never add things that they naturally want to do (but also made agreement with themselves to do) on the lists.

You see, things that I **might want to do** are also kind of agreements with myself but they're not really commitments. They don't restrict freedom of action, they kind of add freedom.

For example replying to this thread was never on any of my lists and it's not really work that "showed up" either.

So yeah, in a way you could say that, as long as all of my commitments are in the system - then it's "complete".
But no system is ever going to show me absolutely everything I might want to do. And it's impossible to fully trust a system which is always just a reflection of my past commitments.

Most of the time I want to be in the present moment and to have as much freedom as possible instead of being restricted by my past commitments. GTD system actually helps me with that and I don't have to worry that anything is going to blow up on me and etc.
However this is also why I don't fully trust GTD system when it comes down to making action choices. I want to make choices in the present moment by taking into account **all** things I might want to do instead of choosing from a list of commitments made by my "past self".
In other words the GTD lists are there to help me but I don't actually live according to those lists.
Does this make sense?

I think David Allens means that you have to see all options when he says


Either your head is the best place to hold all your agreements with yourself, or it's not. (You can guess which way I vote.) I can't imagine any intellectual justification for halfway in between. Yet most people still have over half their life in their heads. And a partial system is almost worse than none. As a favorite mentor of mine is fond of reminding me from time to time, in regard to tracking and renegotiating life commitments in general, "99%'s a bitch, 100%'s a breeze.

Notice how he uses phrases like "people still have over half their life in their heads. And a partial system is almost worse than none."

But GTD **is** a partial system because in my view it's always a reflection of the past and doesn't 100% fit current reality. At least it can't be "complete" in the way David proposes it.
I don't think you can fit the whole life completely on the lists and get to absolutely empty head and so on. I think he overhypes GTD here, making it look like something it's not and could never be.
Life is too complex to completely 100% fit on the lists in an "easily reviewable format". :) (not to even mention keeping it up to date at all times)

[supergtdman]

If something doesn't really have your attention, there's really no need for it to be in your system. For instance, let's say I have a closet in a bedroom that is never used. And say that closet it full of stuff and the stuff is not used. If the stuff in the closet is not pulling at my attention in any way, there really is no need to capture anything about that closet into my system at the present time.

Now, let's say that closet starts to niggle at my brain just a tiny bit. I'm not ready to commit to any action about that closet, I just know that someday I probably want to think about it. I'd put an entry about it on "Someday/Maybe" and get the niggling to stop.

You want things on your lists so your attention is purposefully placed at the appropriate time. Errands to run when they need to be run, bills paid before they are due, travel arrangements made before it's too late, etc. So these things go on your active lists. You don't want your attention grabbed because you wake up one day, look at your calendar, and realize you really should be on a plane to see a customer in another city to make a presentation. Oops! Or get up to take a prescription medication only to realize you don't have any more and there are no refills. Oops! Attention grabbed.

If you make a regular practice of keeping things in your system (even if in someday/maybe) and not in your head, there really isn't endless capture left to be done. I'll get up early tomorrow to do my weekly review and I'll start that with a Mind Sweep. I would be very surprised if I come up with more than 5-6 new things--if I came up with nothing at all new, it wouldn't be the first time.

But if I have no commitment at all--to myself or anyone else--to take action on something in particular, it simply is not in my system. It may be on someday/maybe if the only commitment I have around it is to think about it again at some point, but that's it.

So unless I missed something....having a commitment to act is the missing ingredient in this thread so far. I apologize if I just didn't read far enough back or closely enough.

Attention is definitely an important ingredient.
However I don't necessarily want to be limited only to things which had my attention in the past. Sometimes I do but most of the time I don't. Sometimes I want to be open to all options.

Also something that didn't have my attention in the past isn't necessarily just "work that showed up". It might have been always there but I just missed/overlooked it. Also it might be a very important thing in the present but I'm going to miss it if I will focus only on the things which are on my GTD lists. Does this make sense?

This is why I think David Allen says


As a favorite mentor of mine is fond of reminding me from time to time, in regard to tracking and renegotiating life commitments in general, "99%'s a bitch, 100%'s a breeze.

Because in a way those GTD lists could create some kind of a limited narrow "tunnel vision" as well. The problem is of course that they are never truly 100% complete and can never be **fully** relied on anyway. According to the quote, it's always a bitch and never a breeze :)

[TesTeq]

But GTD **is** a partial system because in my view it's always a reflection of the past and doesn't 100% fit current reality. At least it can't be "complete" in the way David proposes it.


I think no system or thing exists that is 100% current and complete. All systems and things react with a delay to the changes in their environment. The opposite would violate the "cause and effect" principle (see Causality @Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) and Causality (physics) @Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29)) developed and successfully used by such guys as Aristotle and Einstein.

For any GTD system this delay is guaranteed to be somewhere between 2 minutes (2 minute rule) to one week (worst case when you catch something during your Weekly Review).

I know no other personal productivity system that gives such guarantee.

[supergtdman]

I think no system or thing exists that is 100% current and complete. All systems and things react with a delay to the changes in their environment. The opposite would violate the "cause and effect" principle (see Causality @Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) and Causality (physics) @Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29)) developed and successfully used by such guys as Aristotle and Einstein.

For any GTD system this delay is guaranteed to be somewhere between 2 minutes (2 minute rule) to one week (worst case when you catch something during your Weekly Review).

I know no other personal productivity system that gives such guarantee.

It's not just a delay that's the problem :)
It's impossible to pay attention to everything and take everything into account even at the weekly review.

As for
no system or thing exists that is 100% current and complete.

I agree. If you rely **only** on gtd lists to choose what to do then you're always stuck with out of date and limited list of options, it's similar to having a narrow "tunnel vision" so you are always missing out stuff. It's kind of ironic actually... and you'll never actually get to 100% complete anyway. :)

A quote from David Allen


My hat's off to you if you're trying to keep mental lists as reminders of things to do—but I'll bet those lists are not anywhere close to complete. Consequently they are putting enormous and unnecessary work on your psyche. If you don't have everything in a system that the system ought to have, there is still no full trust in that system, and minimum motivation to keep it up and keep it current.

I mean, ok, but the gtd itself is never "anywhere close to complete" either. And yeah, there is no "full trust in that system" either. As for "minimum motivation to keep it up and keep it current" - it depends on who you ask, I guess.


Another quote from David


If some projects have been identified, but there are many more that haven't been captured, you're never quite sure that something is not slipping through a crack somewhere. Because these inventories of to-do's are incomplete, they often create more pressure on us than they relieve. We will subliminally know that we don't have everything out in front of us, and we have a mistrust of the tools.

Something is **always** "slipping through a crack somewhere", regardless of tools and systems.

Life is not just either "work that showed up" or "predefined work", you know.
An example with radio - something is always being transmitted by the radio and when you turn it on and start listening - it's not like the radio waves just "showed up", they are always there. Internet is similar, heck the whole world is similar.

[cfoley]

But GTD doesn't limit you to doing stuff from your lists. In fact, it has a model for defining your work with three broad categories. Only one of those categories is doing stuff from your lists.

I'd love to know if you have found a solution to your problem. Do you have another system that you can trust because you do manage to include 100% in it? Or is there a different system you can trust because it doesn't revolve around 100%?

I think most people here accept that you can't collect 100% of commitments. You either have to settle for a lower number or adjust the definition of commitments to suit.

However, I think that quoting sections of David Allen's work and picking holes in his wording is bound to highlight inaccuracies and contradictions. After all, he is using natural language to communicate with humans. "Collect everything" really means "don't ignore things that keep distracting you from your work. Write them down!"

[supergtdman]

But GTD doesn't limit you to doing stuff from your lists. In fact, it has a model for defining your work with three broad categories. Only one of those categories is doing stuff from your lists.

And another category is "putting stuff on your lists" :)
The 3rd category is "Doing work as it shows up" which I've mentioned in my previous post.

I guess, if you'd call it "doing stuff which is not on the lists" then you'd get a complete system though but that's kind of silly because it's not really a special system anymore


I'd love to know if you have found a solution to your problem

There is no solution because you can't be perfect.

I have no problem with GTD but it's just not something that David Allen makes it look like it could be either. it's a not a fully trusted system on which you can fully rely and can never be. It's an improvement over daily to do lists but the real improvement comes from a different thinking process, i.e. you clarify clear outcomes and clear next actions instead of just "to do's" but that's almost all there is to it.


However, I think that quoting sections of David Allen's work and picking holes in his wording is bound to highlight inaccuracies and contradictions. After all, he is using natural language to communicate with humans. "Collect everything" really means "don't ignore things that keep distracting you from your work. Write them down!"

I'm not trying to find holes on purpose. It's just I recently got an email with his newsletter and the whole idea was about 100% complete system, and so I wanted to share my thoughts and discuss it. I can quote the whole thing, it's not going to matter because I'm not taking anything out of context

[supergtdman]

Actually here is how GTD is presented in a stickied "what is GTD" thread and on the
http://www.davidco.com/what_is_gtd.php




GTD® is the shorthand brand for "Getting Things Done®," the groundbreaking work-life management system by David Allen that provides concrete solutions for transforming overwhelm and uncertainty into an integrated system of stress-free productivity.

GTD is a powerful method to manage commitments, information, and communication. It is the result of thirty years of consulting services, private coaching, training, and organizational programs with millions of people internationally. It has earned a reputation as the gold standard in personal and organizational productivity.

GTD enables greater performance, capacity, and innovation. It alleviates the feeling of overwhelm, instilling focus, clarity, and confidence.

Step by step you will learn how to:

Capture anything and everything that has your attention and concern
Define actionable things into concrete next steps and successful outcomes
Organize information in the most streamlined way, in appropriate categories, based on how and when you need to access it
Keep current and “ahead of the game” with appropriately frequent reviews
Keep track of the bigger picture while managing the small details
Make trusted choices about what to do in any given moment

Decades of in-the-field research and practice of GTD led to the publishing of the international best-sellerGetting Things Done.
Published in over 28 languages, TIME magazine heralded it as "the defining self-help business book of its time."




Wouldn't it be much easier to explain GTD to someone if instead of trying to present it as some sort of an ultimate uber system with lots models and what not, you'd just say:

Look, there is a better way to organise your to do's, i.e.

Collect stuff into a separate place (an inbox) and then eventually clarify clear outcomes and clear next steps and add **that** to your "to do" lists instead. Don't just add just unclear amorphous stuff like "mum" or whatever to your actual to do's.
How you physically organise your to do's is up to you (GTD is tool agnostic). There are lots of apps but you can also use paper.
That's pretty much it.

David Allen kind of makes GTD look much more complex and elaborate than it actually is.
Then he also proposes that it can also be much more than what it actually is, i.e. a complete system, mind like water, that you can have an absolutely empty head and etc.

The truth is - it's not. And you can explain GTD in just a couple of sentences in a way in which much more people would actually **get** it instead of writing it off as something that's just too complicated for them or something that requires "too much work" and etc..
Just a thought...


There's no perfect productivity system.
you keep falling on your ass no matter how many inboxes you set up or mind dumps you do. The perfect is the enemy of the good, as the saying goes, so instead of giving up on GTD completely, take the parts that work for you and work them.

[TesTeq]

I agree. If you rely **only** on gtd lists to choose what to do then you're always stuck with out of date and limited list of options, it's similar to having a narrow "tunnel vision" so you are always missing out stuff. It's kind of ironic actually... and you'll never actually get to 100% complete anyway. :)

I've got my own tunnel where all known issues are captured, processed and organized. I can go there to retrieve something to do. But I don't have to go there. I can go windsurfing not worrying that I will lose something.

And I really don't care what is stored in other tunnels!

[Oogiem]

If you rely **only** on gtd lists to choose what to do then you're always stuck with out of date and limited list of options, it's similar to having a narrow "tunnel vision" so you are always missing out stuff.

But you are missing the work as it shows up component of GTD practice.

Nothing in my world falls outside the GTD system, it's either work I have predefined, work as it shows up or thoughts I may move on later. So in my world GTD is a complete trusted system. Some times of the year 70% or more of my work is not pre-planned. SOme times it's almost 0%. That's just the nature of my life and I would argue the nature of everyone's life.

[Barb]

I probably ticked 15 things off my list while you were arguing about whether this was a "perfect" system or not. :D

[CJSullivan]

I probably ticked 15 things off my list while you were arguing about whether this was a "perfect" system or not. :D

Yes! My feeling is - if I do my weekly review every 7-10 days, then I'm only ever 7-10 days out-of-date... As David would say "Way ahead most of the rest of the planet!!!" 8-)

[supergtdman]

I probably ticked 15 things off my list while you were arguing about whether this was a "perfect" system or not. :D

And yet you still have 2000+ posts on this forum :p

[Barb]

And yet you still have 2000+ posts on this forum :p

That's because GTD is an important Area of Focus for me and I enjoy the Forums and make the most of my Connect membership (I think I've been a Connect member about 5 years). It's by design.

On the other hand, I rarely watch t.v. and do things other people do to just pass time.

[jesig]

I've been reading this thread for days.

supergtdman (and why is that your username, if you're such a skeptic?), I feel like you're looking for a way to get off the hook for not having your system to "mind like water" status. Insisting that it's not possible to do allows you to feel okay about not getting there.

I would try harder to get there.

Having 100% of your commitments captured is a deeply personal goal, and one only you can tell if you've reached. But when you hit it, you'll know you've hit it.

Right now, my apartment is a mess, my physical inbox is six inches tall, I have something like 40 messages that dropped through the cracks in my gmail inbox, and my NA lists are full to bursting.

Yet I'm sitting here having a cup of coffee, browsing the internet, and petting my cat. Why? Because my system is complete. All the things that mean something to me are where they should be. I know that even though I haven't fully gone through my inbox, everything that might mean something is in my inbox; it's not scattered in fifty different places. Even though I still have 40 e-mails to go through, none of them are going to bite. And moreover, I know that I've captured all the things I need to process, so even though they aren't processed, it's no biggie. They're where they need to be.

Do I have an NA that says, "Browse internet, sip coffee, and pet cat?" Of course I don't. But I *can* do that by virtue of the fact that everything I'm committed to is captured in some way that I know it's not going to blow up. And further, I also know that what I'm doing now fulfills goals for me on higher levels--to be aware of gtd, to be a good pet owner, to slow down and enjoy life.

Completion doesn't mean that anything that could ever possibly exist anywhere at any time has been handled. It means that everything that has meaning to you is handled in such a way that you can get it off your mind.

There's a podcast I love to listen to from an event David did a few years back at the Philadelphia Public Library. And in it, there's this moment where this guy (voice sounds in his twenties, maybe, but I don't know) is trying to nail David down on how detailed he should be in defining his projects. And there's this hysterical, but very BFO moment for me as David is going back and forth with this kid.

GUY: "How do I know when I've defined all my projects?"
DAVID: "When it's off your mind."
GUY: "But what if I—"
DAVID: "When it's off your mind."
GUY: "But you could always make it smaller"
DAVID: "You get it to the point that it's off your mind."

(paraphrased, but you get the idea.)

Your system is complete when all the things that mean thing A are where things that mean A belong. Your system is complete when everything is off your mind. The lake isn't placid because it has captured every possible trajectory of any possible size rock that could be thrown into it. It is placid because the nature of water allows it to interact with everything from a pebble to a boulder, and then go back to calm.

[CJSullivan]

Right now, my apartment is a mess, my physical inbox is six inches tall, I have something like 40 messages that dropped through the cracks in my gmail inbox, and my NA lists are full to bursting.

Yet I'm sitting here having a cup of coffee, browsing the internet, and petting my cat. Why? Because my system is complete. All the things that mean something to me are where they should be.

That's it in a nutshell for me. You can either identify what your desired outcome is with GTD and work the system to get there as best as you can, or you can analyse GTD intellectually, looking for any chink in its armour. Would you rather be happy or right?

[Chas29]

But then how can you fully trust the system from day to day?


I'll play the Devil's advocate here...

You can "fully trust the system from day to day" once you have learned "how to capture everything that has your attention and concern."

You are essentially putting forth that it is impossible for you (or anyone) to capture everything that has your attention and concern.

You've mentioned in a previous post [essentially] that there are always a gazillion things that you could capture, but that you haven't captured. For the sake of argument, name one.

Once you have named one, I will then ask you, "Did this item have your attention and concern prior to this decision-making moment?" If the answer is yes, then I will have to ask you why you were unable to capture it.

If the answer is no, then David Allen's case rests: His system can be trusted because the current decision you are making is being based on the fact that you have captured everything that has your attention and concern.

Chas29

[mcogilvie]

That's it in a nutshell for me. You can either identify what your desired outcome is with GTD and work the system to get there as best as you can, or you can analyse GTD intellectually, looking for any chink in its armour. Would you rather be happy or right?

Well said!

[bishblaize]

What a fascinating thread!

My own view is this.

1) As many have commented, 100% up to date is a snapshot moment, coming straight after a review. And probably a monthly or even annual review at that. I dont even review my entire SDMB list every week. I dont need to be reminded of things to do when I move back up North in 5 years time, but I like the list anyway. Only a few times a year do I absolutely go through every single possible thing Ive thought of, and hence only then am I "current".

2) There's 100% and there's 100%. Could I include reviewing thoughts on what to do after I retire in my weekly review (I'm 32 now) - sure could. By not doing, am I affecting my ability to be maximally effective this week this month this year? Not at all.

3) The natural limit for ease and control is not in fact GTD, its what you can physically and mentally do. GTD and your computer can handle 10,000 projects and 10,000,000 Next Actions. You can't. So if there's a problem with being able to be complete and current, its more likely that there is a finite amount of time and at some point you have to call it a day and say 'thats enough'.

This will probably clarify nothing of course, but thats my view nonetheless.

[artsinaction]

This will probably clarify nothing of course, but thats my view nonetheless.

Actually, yes it did! And I especially like your use of the word "snapshot". I think of my finances in that regard... you can't actually finish them so my accountant gets a year-end snapshot of where my business is at 11:59pm on December 31st to work from.

And I also like your point about saying, "that's enough." We won't be done with our things to do until we die! And even then some of our stuff probably moves to someone else's to do list! So, yes, at some point, daily, we say enough.

Dena

[cwoodgold]

However this is also why I don't fully trust GTD system when it comes down to making action choices.

Oh, when David Allen talks about a "trusted system" I assume he doesn't mean fully trusting the system when making action choices. If I used only my systems for making action choices I might never eat lunch. When I think of a "trusted system" what I mean is that after I've written something in it, then I'm confident that I'll review it at an appropriate time and take care of it if appropriate (i.e. unless I'm generally busy doing more important things than it). Therefore I can relax and not worry about that particular item. The system might have only some more important things that collectively take up only a fraction of my time, but it's complete if there's nothing else I feel a need to particularly make an effort to remember to do: nothing else that I'll feel disappointed if I forgot to do.

In "Priority Management" I was taught the difference between "A" and "B" priority items like this: if, at the end of the day, you would think "Oh, I guess I didn't have time to do that. That's too bad." then it's a B; but if you would think "Oh, rats! I forgot to do that!" then it's an A. There's a somewhat similar difference (but at a different threshold) between things that I put in the system and things I choose not to record.

[TesTeq]

Actually, yes it did! And I especially like your use of the word "snapshot". I think of my finances in that regard... you can't actually finish them so my accountant gets a year-end snapshot of where my business is at 11:59pm on December 31st to work from.

Oh, what a great analogy!

Can you trust your bank statement? A paper or even an on-line document prepared by your bank. They create it, deliver it and you read it. But in the meantime you may receive your salary and some standing orders may be paid.

Do you still trust your bank statement? Is it up to date? 100%?

GTD lists are your life statement at a given moment.

[treelike]

I trust my GTD system a hell of a lot more than anything my bank sends me ;)

[rightbrain]

I've been having a bit of a capturing crisis

have you tried using a mobile phone to capture your thoughts/things......iuse a video format........and its amazing ..........i have even managed to capture my midnight dreams ........that i though were interesting at the time.


There are times when I go to process my inbox and find that I have done a lot of it already.


ha.ha......ive been there..........and i decided to stick with a motto.

THINK-DRAW-DO...........its one of my gtd principles.

never do anything without writing it down on a piece of paper.
once you have done the deed.....dump the piece of paper into your inbox to be processed the next morning.................

the morning after....when you come to the piece of paper again....process it.ie...either you will trash it or it will suggest the next action in line.

[CJSullivan]

have you tried using a mobile phone to capture your thoughts/things......iuse a video format........and its amazing ..........

When you say you use a video format - do you mean you video yourself capturing your thoughts, etc.? Just wondering! What does the video give you that a simple audio capture wouldn't (besides the obvious!)... I'm curious because I don't ever really like to see myself on video (especially with the perspective the mobile phone usually gives!)...

[cfoley]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have used audio capture before but never video. I find audio difficult to process, often needing to be transcribed first, and while video might be a bit better, I can't imagine it will be as good as paper.

I do use use my android to capture, reluctantly and only when there isn't a pen and paper around. After I unlock it and open whatever app I want to capture in, I have often thought of something else and lost the original item I was going to capture. When I start capturing, I often get inspired to capture more and paper is the best format for me. I can put totally different things on separate pages. I can brainstorm or mind map or even draw diagrams if I want to.

Although I'm very computer-orientated, I don't like digital capture except maybe for photographs. There is something about a captured item also being an object that makes me more inclined to process it.

[supergtdman]

I would argue that I have much more captured and better organised than most people, very likely even better compared to David Allen himself. I can organise lots of data very quickly and with little effort because I have spent a lot of time researching how to do it and set up tools and processes to make it as convenient as possible and automated as much as possible. Obviously David Allen's GTD system itself in isolation doesn't cut it.
I use GTD system but in addition to that I do all kinds of life logging, i.e. I track everything I eat, my health stats data, sleep, excercise, all my expenses, write a journal, capture daily pictures and sometimes videos, etc. I capture most of most of my thoughts and ideas, I say **most** because sometimes I get many thoughts flowing very quickly and it's impossible to capture them all even on audio/video.
You could argue that it's all just "general reference" but in practice you can't just file everything non actionable into some arbitrary categories and organise everything with a single label or whatever as David Allen suggests. That's not going to work. There is much more to this than that if you really want to keep all of the data really conveniently and easily usable. So there are in practice lots of sub-systems to manage every aspect of your life.

My point is that from my experience the more objective data you have and the more you know - the more you realise how much stuff you actually just **don't know** at all. I'm not just a skeptic, I'm a critical thinker, I don't think in black and white. A lot of people here just pointlessly defend the GTD system and whatever.
I'm perfectly fine with GTD the way it is. It's not anywhere close to being complete though, that's all I wanted to point out. Yes, you could say that doing stuff which is not on the lists is also a part of GTD, and call all of it "work that showed up". It's too simple however and that's really just an excuse because not everything that's not on the lists is going to just **show up** and grab your attention at some point. I mean the best thing for you to do in any moment could be something you have no idea about at all whatsoever. It's not going to just **show up**, the option is always there but you just don't see it. I'm not talking about not having stuff like "sip coffee", "eat lunch" and etc. on the lists which don't really matter, I'm talking about stuff which could be life changing.

Anyway all I'm saying is that GTD is presented as something much more elaborate than what it really is by David Allen, all it really is - are just lists with reminders. Those lists alone are not going to give you "mind like water" state. They're not going to show you all possible options of what you might want to do. They can't be fully trusted. They can't be complete. They do help sometimes but that's all.

You could have all of your reminders externalised on the lists and still stay stressed and not know what to do because you still can't have enough data to make the best choice. Sometimes you can't even make a good choice, sometimes you can't solve some critical problems even when you have lots of knowledge, all of the money in the world, lots of experts giving you the best advice they can, and etc. Sometimes you just don't know.

[cfoley]

My point is that from my experience the more objective data you have and the more you know - the more you realise how much stuff you actually just **don't know** at all.

While I haven't tried to capture as much as you, I'd have to say my experience of other domains is similar. The deeper you get in an area of expertise, the more unexplored avenues you find.


A lot of people here just pointlessly defend the GTD system and whatever.

I'd agree here too. It's natural to defend something you have invested into either emotionally or financially. We have all invested emotionally. It's a big commitment to get GTD set up in the first place but to stick with it for years, as most of us have done, is a deeper level of commitment. Anyone with a Connect membership is financially invested and any staff members are invested in GTD on a much deeper emotional level and are financially dependant on it. (ironically, the staff seem less likely to blindly defend GTD on this forum. You'll notice that none have replied to this thread.)

I'm reading Making it all Work at the moment. I'm about half way through the book but one aspect of GTD that has been highlighted pretty strongly is the need to balance control with perspective. These are what David Allen called horizontal and vertical in the first book but these new labels seem more descriptive to me.

We haven't talked about perspective in this thread so I don't know how organised you are at the 20,000--50,000 foot levels. I know I'm very disorganised on those levels. I thought I had a good GTD system set up. Turns out I had done all the control parts from capturing and processing through to Do-ing, and none of the perspective parts.

You talked about your health so I'm going to run with that example. Maintaining a good health is probably on a lot of people's 50,000 foot life and visions list. When we imagine our futures, we all implicitly assume there have been no major health setbacks.

A couple of years ago, I needed to lose some weight. I tracked my calories, weighed in every day and logged my runs. This was in my pre-GTD days but now, I would call it a project. I did have a wild success envisaged, and I achieved it. Not only did I lose those pounds but it had the positive knock on effect on every part of my live that I hoped it would.

But now I'm just ticking over. I do weigh in but not every day. When I run, I like to see how far I've gone but I don't need to log it and counting calories is a thing of the past. My health is the way I want it so I monitor just enough so that if I start slipping, I'll catch it.

Is my good health any less important to me? Of course not! It's a hell of a lot more important to me than my job or my house or my cat, but I spend more time collecting, processing and doing on those areas of focus than I do my health.

I don't know about your circumstances but weighing in and charting runs sound to me more like completing actions than collecting what's on your mind. I don't know how much you have analysed your perspective on areas of focus, etc. If your health is where you want it, I bet you could spend your time better easing off on the data gathering to concentrate on something different.

When David Allen talks about capturing everything and putting 100% into a system, I don't think he means it as literally as you are taking it. Remember his audience. He is writing for people who have not yet embraced GTD, people who track projects and actions in their heads. He is trying to get people to lose the reluctance to write things down to capture the trivial things like bread and milk and the difficult things like relationship problems.

You could spend 100% of your time scribbling frantically to keep up with a stream of consciousness and still not be able to write fast enough to get it all. I don't think anyone is disputing that and I don't think anyone is advocating it either, not even David Allen when he suggests capturing 100% of everything is a system.

[cwoodgold]

Hi, supergtdman. You quoted material from GTD saying among other things "the groundbreaking work-life management system" and "Capture anything and everything that has your attention and concern". You also said:


Wouldn't it be much easier to explain GTD to someone if instead of trying to present it as some sort of an ultimate uber system with lots models and what not, you'd just say ...

and you also said in a later post, "Anyway all I'm saying is that GTD is presented as something much more elaborate than what it really is by David Allen, ..."

(Begin preamble) That's fine ... and it's just that I disagree with you, and if you keep saying things I disagree with then I might keep posting to state my disagreement. I've also posted things on this forum disagreeing with things David Allen has said. I'm a bit like the character in this xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/386/ I'm sorry if you feel outnumbered, because a lot of people are disagreeing with you on this thread. I'm certainly not intending to make you uncomfortable.

However, you're making a statement about another human being (happens to be David Allen in this case) which is a bit on the negative side, so I feel compelled to come to that person's defense, as I would come to yours or to another participants' on this forum if the situation were reversed. Again, sorry for any discomfort this may cause you. Unfortunately if you want us to stop saying things like this you might have to just stop repeating the ideas we disagree with, even if it's unpleasant for you to leave some of our statements unanswered. I'm not sure what other solution there is. I hope that actually you're having fun participating in this thread.

Different people have different opinions and in this sort of thing there's no single objectively true answer as there may be in mathematics. You may see things differently than others do. I'm not necessarily trying to change your opinion, but I'm stating mine. (End preamble.)

I disagree with the statement "GTD is presented as something much more elaborate than what it really is". Perhaps what you mean is that the material you quoted earlier ("groundbreaking", etc.) is presented in very positive terms, like an advertisement. I think it is. I can see how this might be annoying to some people. However, I also think it's perfectly accurate. Your statement seems to me to be claiming that it isn't accurate. I don't think you've quoted a single statement by the GTD people that isn't accurate and reasonable in my opinion, and I haven't noticed specific arguments by you explaining why you disagree with specific statements (if you do).

I disagree with "... presented as some sort of ultimate uber system..." "ultimate" means final. You haven't quoted anything that makes any such claim. It says "...the result of thirty years ..."; this doesn't mean it can't be improved.

Your short explanation of GTD completely leaves out some elements of GTD that I consider important, of which some examples are: the "physical" in identifying a physical action; sorting by priority; sorting by context before sorting by priority; the steps in the natural planning system.

I think the nub of the disagreement on this thread revolves around statements
like "Capture anything and everything that has your attention and concern".
Since you log a lot of things, it seems possible to me that most people are able
to capture anything and everything that has their attention and concern,
but that for you to do that isn't feasible because you're interested in and
concerned about a lot more things than most people. So maybe a 100% complete
system in the sense of GTD is possible for most people but not possible for you.
I'm just speculating.

I think actually it's stated a little too simply: perhaps it should be
"Capture anything and everything that has enough of your attention and concern
to be worth the time it takes to write it down, review it, eventually erase it etc."
I think that's what it actually means: I think most people would read
"attention and concern" as meaning more than a teensy, weensy momentary
bit of attention and concern.

For example: I stopped to read a poster where someone was asking for
a math and reading tutor for a child. It was fun for me to read it. If I weren't
working full-time, I might like to contact them and do the tutoring;
I enjoy that sort of thing.
However, I didn't record the phone number, because the chances that
I would actually decide that I want to do it are low enough that I considered it not worth the
effort of recording and storing the phone number. The chances
are extremely low but not quite zero that sometime in the next few
weeks I might decide I want to. (I do record other numbers
where the chances are low but not quite that low.)
So, it had my attention and concern but not enough
to be worth recording. I think the person who wrote
"Capture anything and everything that has your attention and concern"
didn't mean record things like that, and that most people reading
it wouldn't understand it to include things like that. Maybe you're
taking it very literally and understanding it to include things like
that, which would not be good advice ... i.e. to spend time writing
things that one thinks aren't worth taking the time to write.

[TesTeq]

I disagree with "... presented as some sort of ultimate uber system..." "ultimate" means final. You haven't quoted anything that makes any such claim. It says "...the result of thirty years ..."; this doesn't mean it can't be improved.

I've heard David Allen saying that there are no plans for "Getting Things Done" (GTD) second edition because GTD is as simple and as complex as it should be and it is already described in the book.


For example: I stopped to read a poster where someone was asking for a math and reading tutor for a child. It was fun for me to read it. If I weren't working full-time, I might like to contact them and do the tutoring; I enjoy that sort of thing. However, I didn't record the phone number, because the chances that I would actually decide that I want to do it are low enough that I considered it not worth the effort of recording and storing the phone number. The chances are extremely low but not quite zero that sometime in the next few weeks I might decide I want to. (I do record other numbers where the chances are low but not quite that low.) So, it had my attention and concern but not enough to be worth recording.

I like this example. I simply trust my capture choices too.

[cwoodgold]

I've heard David Allen saying that there are no plans for "Getting Things Done" (GTD) second edition because GTD is as simple and as complex as it should be and it is already described in the book.

That's fine; however, producing a work and stating that one has no plans to improve on it is not the same thing as claiming that one's work is "ultimate". Many authors publish books without publishing later revised editions, for example; this is not the same thing as presenting one's work as an "ultimate uber system".


I like this example. I simply trust my capture choices too.

Thanks! One way to put it is: my system is complete when I've captured everything I considered worth capturing.

[rightbrain]

When you say you use a video format - do you mean you video yourself capturing your thoughts, etc.? Just wondering! What does the video give you that a simple audio capture wouldn't (besides the obvious!)... I'm curious because I don't ever really like to see myself on video (especially with the perspective the mobile phone usually gives!)...

i video objects in the context for the thoughts i want to capture.......i never video myself...........

if i get an idea in a supermarket .........by looking at something.....then its easy to
come back to that thought ......6 month down the line if its video rather than audio...and i have to talk less......a picture is worth a thousand words.

another advantage is my mobile creates a thumbnail of the first thing i shoot with the video.........so i can sort my videos via thumbnails.........

[CJSullivan]

i video objects in the context for the thoughts i want to capture.......i never video myself...........

if i get an idea in a supermarket .........by looking at something.....then its easy to
come back to that thought ......6 month down the line if its video rather than audio...and i have to talk less......a picture is worth a thousand words.

another advantage is my mobile creates a thumbnail of the first thing i shoot with the video.........so i can sort my videos via thumbnails.........

Oh! I get it! Neat idea. I do take pictures of stuff pretty regularly and then file in Evernote, but I'll have to try the video idea. I can capture that in Evernote too, and have my thoughts about said object along with it... Thanks!