The GTD Cult

I finally tried out the material in David Allen's 2001 cult classic book, "Getting Things Done" (widely known as "GTD").

I'd had plenty of infected cult members try to turn me before - I always resisted.

What finally did me in - what allowed me to listen with an open ear - was a 2007 scholarly paper by Francis Heylighen and Clément Vidal, "Getting Things Done: The Science behind Stress-Free Productivity".

Turns out that Allen's ideas and methods mesh very well with the science of cognition and research in knowledge-worker productivity. Indeed, Allen's GTD seems to naturally guide the user into a state of "Flow" - the optimal balance of challenge vs. skill where we feel highly productive and "in the zone".

As Csikszentmihalyi, Abuhamdeh & Nakamura describe it, "Flow is a subjective state that people report when they are completely involved in something to the point of forgetting time, fatigue, and everything else but the activity itself. It is what we feel when we read a wellcrafted novel or play a good game of squash, or take part in a stimulating conversation. The defining feature of flow is intense experiential involvement in moment-to-moment activity. Attention is fully invested in the task at hand, and the person functions at his or her fullest capacity [emphasis added]."

The preconditions for getting into a state of Flow are

1. A sense of control
2. Clear goals
3. Match between skill and challenge
4. Feedback on progress

Turns out, GTD helps you gain a feeling of control, helps you see your goals more clearly, encourages you to pick your challenge of the moment based on your circumstances (including skill), and helps provide you feedback.

There's more to it, of course - I encourage you to read the paper. I still haven't read Allen's book, however, I did order a copy yesterday. Actually, five copies.

On Forced Union Dues and Political Speech

I attended this year's annual Dorchester convention and on Sunday I spoke on this resolution:

RESOLVED: Oregon law should prohibit persons or entities from using money for political purposes if collected with government resources.

This was generally taken to mean that union members could not be forced to pay dues for political activity with which they disagreed.

Looking now at my notes, I believe I said:

We must be cautious when adopting any measure under the guise of freedom, when the undeniable effect of that measure is to provide us [Republicans] with a political advantage.

If we were proposing here that union members be muzzled - be prevented from participating in politics - then that would be a reduction of freedom.

If we were proposing here that union members be prohibited from spending their own money on politics - then that would be a reduction of freedom.

If we were proposing here that union members be prevented from associating freely with each other for political purposes - then that would be a reduction of freedom.

This resolution does none of these things.

We must remember the plight of the union member today who is forced against her will to subsidize public political speech with which she disagrees. Her right of dissent - the sacred right of every minority, to be free from the tyranny of the majority - her right to be free is currently crushed by the self interest of the union bosses. Every worker has both the right of free speech and the right to refrain from paying for speech with which she disagrees.

This measure may benefit Republicans incidentally. It benefits union members profoundly. This measure advances the cause of freedom. I urge you to vote "yes" on this measure.

The measure passed by a 20-to-1 ratio.