Last week I finally got started on my #trilema backlog, working through nine days of log in three of reading, with an article published for each of the three. The plan, though, was to do some every day and be finished by now. The summarizing was rough on the first try, focusing too closely then not making it through even after overflowing the target time, but picked up after my Master’s advice to take it easier and work more from memory.
A Monday article completing the draft gbw-node series brought the total publication count to four, leaving Tuesday, Wednesday and Sunday dry. The trouble Wednesday was not having thought through the photo blogging enough to plan time to sort through the stack. (This was the case too for my earlier photo articles, just less noticeable as the stacks were smaller.) So the vacation article has had to wait.
Tuesday was a low point in productivity at least relative to plan, as I got none of the intended tasks done. Instead there was a fair amount of reading, some chat and blog comments, 0.75 hours explicitly noted as stupidity worship, and an early bedtime. Perhaps I needed a break, but from what I’m not certain; perhaps the heavier writing of the four prior days.
The wallet work, which my Master had figured should be the top priority, also suffered, getting only four hours of the planned 10, between Monday and Wednesday. Within that time though it moved well.
I was a better friend to my journal than weeks before, writing five entries.
I figured I’d have to set myself up properly to get the two reviews done, but come Saturday the schedule was looking tight. I almost passed on an invite for pizza and drinks at a new pub that evening, but once I got my article out I figured I’d go, just keep it brief and get the first review in before bed. But the conversations started to get interesting, and while I didn’t stay terribly late, the “brief” didn’t end up quite brief enough. On Sunday morning I scrutinized my time log from earlier Saturday, wondering why I’d started the “actual work” so late, even accounting for a grocery run. The main thing I found was unplanned time spent on current #t log reading and processing (MP had given detailed responses to Robinson and me). Since that surely could have waited a day or two, I suppose my root problem is still a lack of firmly reserved minimum time blocks for the critical tasks. Then that pattern basically repeated on Sunday, to where I ended up hoping to somehow squeeze both reviews in. The week provided plenty of reminders that time doesn’t just appear “later” because you’d like it to.
Some selections from the log:
jfw: I find I was not very productive yesterday. While I got a fair amount of reading in, I believe I used this in part as avoidance of getting started on writing; then there was stupidity worshipping in the same vein; and snowballing by not wanting to admit failure there thus not getting to other priorities either.
diana_coman: jfw: heh, one way to make all that avoidance work for you is to set it up explicitly (need to do task A you hate? cool, set up task B that you hate even more!)
jfw: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-01-22#1015800 – I have my doubts but maybe I’ll try it some time.
diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-01-22#1015809 – what doubts exactly? spell them out, maybe there is something to them or maybe it highlights a different trouble.
jfw: diana_coman: trying to spell out that doubt then – I would not be “fooled” by setting up task B: I’d know it’s a ploy to make task A seem more attractive by comparison; or if I did see B as truly urgent, I’d end up all the more glum for having both on the plate but not touch A because B was more important.
diana_coman: jfw: hm, you don’t seem to quite get the idea though: it’s not even meant to “fool”, no, and it’s not about more important either.
diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-01-23#1015837 – to flesh this out some more: dragging your feet on getting started on something is still a signal (others call it at times laziness, plenty of ways to call it too)
diana_coman: if you interpreted that as simply “I hate what I need to do for this”
diana_coman: rather than “I need to sort out something else first in order to be able to start on this”
diana_coman: then the answer to that is a straightforward escalation without any pretense
diana_coman: perceptions/projections of the sort “I don’t like it” are relative, there’s no escape to that part
diana_coman: hence the if you don’t like that, here’s worse so that you’ll like it
diana_coman: it is true however that the above will work *only* if you interpreted the signal correctly in the first place
diana_coman: so indeed if you got that initial part wrong, then the problem is different and therefore the solution to it will be different too
diana_coman: jfw: hence, it’s worth indeed to have first another open minded look at the signal, sure; so – what is it you got stuck on?
diana_coman: (re “ploy” and all that, note that there’s no fooling, just using the existing mechanism quite on purpose; if you want a practical example of that, do that simple experiment with temperature: get some water at room temperature, some hotter and some colder; keep for a while one hand in the cold water, one in the hotter; then put both (one at a time for less confusing direct reading) in the room temperature water and see how one …
diana_coman: … reports it “cold” and the other “warm” – while you even know why and how and everything, did the hands get “fooled” or not? the perception is what it is and gets reported as such regardless of what higher-level thinking says)
diana_coman: the above could be again restated as the older “get over yourself”, sure, but I think it’s way better to get *on with* yourself simply.
dorion: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-01-23#1015845 – part of his strong arm is seeing negatives/mitigating risks – doesn’t mean he hasn’t helped me see positives where I was focusing on negatives – but sometimes he expects from his weak arm feats his strong arm can do.
diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-01-23#1015858 – linked at the root with not being all that comfortable with handling uncertainty
diana_coman: jfw: did you count in there the fact that “trying to do all those” is currently yet-another-something-new and therefore a *task* in itself that you are taking on?
jfw: hah, I suppose not
diana_coman: jfw: btw, from the sounds of it, what makes you avoid/postpone/drag your feet there is not perceived difficulty but outright perfectionism getting in the way.
jfw: diana_coman: I was pleased with the improvement in the article quality dimension, unfortunately the time wastage did not improve. I find I engaged in various other chats first, which surely could have waited a bit longer, then once started I let it drag on about 3 hours. I recall this being mostly pondering & obsessing & some re-reading & outlining at first, then once I got moving it wasn’t so bad.
jfw: This then came at the expense of the wallet work time.
diana_coman: jfw: yeah, you need to learn to just get moving; time for pondering is when you go for a walk/set aside time specifically/can’t do anything else anyway, that sort of thing but not when you should just start on something; takes some practice though, like everything else.