I think a lot of the apparent "confusion" and "disagreement" in this thread and elsewhere is due to the fact that the word priority is self-contradictory:
priority: : something that is more important than other things and that needs to be done or dealt with first
This implies that the "doing order" is the same as the "order of importance". But we all know this is wrong; when we select things to do, we tend to batch things up and make the best use of the present context, energy etc, even if all of those actions are not equally "important".
When using the word priority, and want to be able to understand each other correctly, we would really need to specify clearly whether we are talking about the "doing order" or the "order of importance".
I get the impression that David Allen is skeptical to the idea of characterizing our Next actions in "phases of doing" (ABC). So am I.
Whether or not it is useful to characterize our Next actions by "level of importance/urgency/anxiety" (ABC) is a different matter. I find this very useful. Among other things it provides a means to applying differentiated review frequencies. It also allows us, whenever we want to find the best options in a given situation during the day, to quickly find and compare those tasks that would make the best use of the present context and those that would be most important overall, and choose wisely between these.
Last edited by Folke; 09-18-2013 at 07:10 AM.