Intend Philosophy & Paradigm
- This draft was originally written in 2015, with only minor edits since then.
I still stand by the core points. - Intend is a productivity app, but it's also a productivity philosophy/paradigm. This article outlines that paradigm.
- What is Intend?
- Intend is a new approach to goal achievement, in the form of both a philosophy and a software system. Its goal is to create consistent, coherent, processes, for people to realize their goals:
- realize what their goals are
- make their goals a reality
- Intend currently spans from the ground-level to about 35,000 ft on this planning abstraction diagram.
- (this thing above is called “Horizons of Focus” by GTDers)
- (I would now phrase things in this diagram differently, but I haven't made a new version yet)
- Since making that diagram, I've also beta-tested a shared purposes feature, which allows people to consider what impact on the world their goals are intended to have, and connect their goals with some purpose that others might also be pursuing.
- Virtually all to-do list software on the internet, whether implicitly or explicitly, is based on the GTD (David Allen's "Getting Things Done") philosophy.
- The main paradigmatic differences of Intend, compared to GTD-based systems are as follows: (these are expounded later)
- emphasis on doing, over organizing
- goals as fundamental, rather than tasks
- aliveness, over exhaustiveness
- proactive, rather than reactive
- Main actions: choosing & doing (vs organizing)
- Here are some of the primary marketing materials from the homepages of other todo-list sites:
- rememberthemilk.com: The best way to manage your tasks
- todoist.com: “...the world’s most powerful to-do list. Access tasks anywhere”
- any.do: “The World's Favorite Task Management App”
- “Toodledo is an incredibly powerful tool to increase your productivity and organize your life.”
- “If you like making to-do lists, you will love TeuxDeux.”
- wunderlist.com: “The only way to organize your life and business.” (old)
- Evernote: "Your notes. Organized. Effortless."
- All of these either talk about managing tasks or “to-do lists”.
- Intend is, by many appearances, a to-do list app, in the sense that it is an app (✓) where you make lists (✓) of things you intend to do (✓). But with Complice, the focus is on doing things, not on making and organizing lists.
- The main way that the app currently embodies this philosophy is by not offering any place in the app to write down a bunch of stuff that you're not planning to work on yet and may never work on yet. It's not that we think such lists are not valuable—they are. But they have costs, and one of those costs is that people get too focused on keeping the list organized, at the expense of focusing on what they're actually trying to achieve and taking actions towards achieving those things.
- A famous quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower:
- “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”
- Currently Complice essentially encourages you to plan elsewhere, so you still do the act of planning, but when you come back to Complice, you aren't faced with a bunch of old plans that are now in your way (worse than useless).
- More on this in the next section: Emotional draw: aliveness (vs exhaustiveness)
- Emotional draw: aliveness (vs exhaustiveness)
- I sometimes characterize the opposite of aliveness as staleness, as in “is your productivity system full of stale tasks?” but I’ll be charitable here and talk about the positive framing of GTD in this respect, which I’m going to call exhaustiveness.
- The first Step of GTD is Capture. Capturing things is important for getting them out of your working memory so you can focus on your work. But in my experience (and based on talking with people) it has issues as well:
- the to-do list has more inflow than outflow, meaning it gets longer and longer
- lots of low-value tasks get added and never removed, although they may still create guilt
- the person gains a new understanding of how it makes sense to approach that project/goal, but obsolete tasks don’t get cleared
- (they may not even realize there's a contradiction between their new understanding and their old tasks)
- The result of these issues tends to lead to the person keeping a separate list for newly emerged tasks that are of clearly higher-value than the original list, either within the same context or perhaps by starting to use a new app. The old “trusted system” is no longer trusted, because it’s full of stuff the person knows (at least implicitly) they don’t want to do.
- In principle, most of these failure modes can be combated with an effective weekly review that pares down the lists. In practice, almost nobody I've met actually consistently does the GTD weekly review (which means they aren't actually following the GTD system, but a hollow shell of GTD that nobody ever claimed would work).
- One of RememberTheMilk’s taglines, as of this writing, is “Never forget the milk (or anything else) again.” The idea here is that nothing escapes the system—you put things in, and you can keep track of them, and not forget them. This is great, but some things actually are worth forgetting. Or worth ignoring.
- Complice currently has two main ways of prioritizing aliveness over exhaustiveness.
- The first is that you can’t put in tasks for the future. The only futurey thing you can do is to state a single top priority for each goal, with an optional check-in date. Having a single top priority makes it more likely that this priority will be something the person is excited to work on, or that they at least feel is high-value. Although I have still sometimes noticed that these priorities get stale too. That can probably be mitigated somewhat by (after the check-in date) checking in again each day and asking the user “is this still top priority?”
- The second way that Complice prioritizes not creating staleness aversions is by not assuming that a task left undone today is a task you want to do tomorrow. With most apps, if you don’t do something one day, it just sticks around. This is pretty sane in a context where you might have decided a month ago that you wanted to do a task today, not realizing that today would need to be spent on something totally different. But since, in Complice, all intentions are set for the day-of, if you don’t do a task then it might indicate something else about the task being low priority.
- (talk about notdones propagator)
- Future implementations of Complice may also have a system for brainstorming potential future tasks, or breaking down big things into small tasks, but without the assumption that all of those necessarily will be completed eventually. Instead, the brainstormed list would act as inspiration for choosing one’s daily intentions, and tasks from it that are ignored would gradually be slid into a backlog, automating the process whereby the user makes a new list when the old stuff becomes stale.
- Since most people have at least a couple goals where there is some sense of “things I might do in the future,” they end up using other systems to keep track of those. I am aware of several users each of WorkFlowy and Evernote for this purpose. Perhaps these users will use those apps totally effectively, but importantly... with a list+Complice combo, even if the list goes stale, Complice will still be there, asking you what’s most important to do today. That might be some object-level things that are obvious, or it might be the task “purge my old task list” or even “switch from using workflowy to track future tasks to todoist”
- I believe that this kind of system works better than GTD-like systems for people who are pursuing personal goals where they get to decide what their priorities are and where most small tasks are not critical. Where small tasks are critical, other systems (including email inboxes) can supplement Complice for ensuring those are taken care of. An administrative or personal assistant would not want to use Complice to keep track of the tasks assigned by their employer. Many Complice users are students, self-employed, and/or freelancers. Of those who are employed, many have substantial control over how they approach their work assignments, and those who are not tend not to track their work-related tasks in Complice.
- Main nouns: goals (vs tasks)
- Many other to-do list apps feature, in their product demos, people buying groceries. Seriously? Groceries? You built this app so people could buy groceries better? RememberTheMilk has it in their name.
- Anyway, enough snark. While GTD-based systems have projects, the projects mostly are just buckets to put tasks into. Tasks exist as freefloating entities that might not be associated with a project at all, or might be in theory associated with a project but when you put the task in your inbox you didn’t assign it to a project, so you first need to process your inbox, etc.
- With Complice, goals come first. You can’t use the app without having at least one goal that you’re working towards. Most users have 3-6. At most 10 are permitted (each has its own digit, so you have a goal 1, goal 2, etc).
- You also can’t enter an intention (aka task) without indicating which goal it is for (or that it is a miscellaneous task). This means that it is really clear why you’re doing what you’re doing. That’s not to say that you will necessarily do the most strategic thing towards that goal, but it does make it more likely that you will do something rather than nothing, and also much more likely that you will notice that what you’re doing isn’t really strategic, because:
- at the end of each day, in the outcomes, you indicate if you did enough towards each goal such that if all other days of this reference class went like this one did, you’d be on track to achieving your goal
- if you do weekly reviews, then you get another chance to notice that maybe you’re not actually on track—that no amount of watching garfield cartoons will make you a skilled comedian
- I think that having goals come first means that users are more likely to forget to do random small tasks and less likely to forget to make progress towards their high-level goals, which I see as being probably a good tradeoff, especially if the person has other systems in place to ensure small tasks don’t get forgotten if they’re indeed really important.
- The goals-based approach has other cool potential applications, such as notation to indicate which actions make direct progress towards your goal versus which are auxiliary/support actions. For example, unless your goal is something like reading books, no amount of reading books on a subject will achieve your goal. Also if your goal is running a business, then you have a bunch of maintenance tasks like filing expenses, which are important for staying afloat but don’t ultimately move things forward.
- To some extent, you need to have a goal-oriented framework to do this classification, because otherwise it’s not clear what works directly towards it versus acts as a support task or upkeep. Technically you could just envision your entire life as “I start here, then I go here” and you could ask what moves you directly along that path, but I don’t expect that would feel intuitive for most people. In practice, using goals to distinguish the different paths you're moving on seems to be better than smushing them all together.
- Approach: proactive (vs reactive)
- This section has some overlap with both the pieces on Capture and also the section above on goal-orientedness. Essentially the distinction here is:
- GTD-based systems say “here is all of this stuff I could do… what shall I do?”
- Complice asks “what do I want to achieve… how can I achieve it?”
- This represents a difference between reactively prioritizing incoming demands (from coworkers or email newsletters) or random impulses, and proactively seeking ways to reach a goal.
- As described above, Complice currently doesn’t do that much to guide people towards strategic goal-approach, but for many people the bottleneck isn’t unstrategicness but lack of momentum towards goals at all. So Complice focuses on momentum. I have some ideas for how to increase strategicness too.
- In our Goal-Crafting Intensive workshops, we encourage people, once they've set some new goals, to come up with a thing to do towards each goal immediately (today or tomorrow) that they wouldn't have thought to do at all prior to having the goal. This also points at the distinction.
- Other resources
- Articles that I resonate with and that ultimately I want the Complice philosophy to be compatible with (though the app may not yet be particularly optimized for that)
- > The book missed its publication date. Fans started asking questions. Then, after two more years, Mann published a self-lacerating essay in which he abruptly announced that he was jettisoning the project. It was the 3,000-word howl of a man who had suddenly grasped the irony of missing morning after morning with his three-year-old daughter because he was “typing bullshit that I hoped would please my book editor” about how to use time well. He was guilty, he declared, of “abandoning [my] priorities to write about priorities … I’ve unintentionally ignored my own counsel to never let your hard work fuck up the good things.” He hinted that he might write a different kind of book instead – a book about stuff that really mattered – but it never appeared. “I’m mostly out of the productivity racket these days,” Mann told me. “If you’re just using efficiency to jam more and more stuff into your day … well, how would you ever know that that’s working?”
- > Part of the problem is simply that thinking about time encourages clockwatching, which has been repeatedly shown in studies to undermine the quality of work. In one representative experiment from 2008, US researchers asked people to complete the Iowa gambling task, a venerable decision-making test that involves selecting playing cards in order to win a modest amount of cash. All participants were given the same time in which to complete the task – but some were told that time would probably be sufficient, while others were warned it would be tight. Contrary to an intuition cherished especially among journalists – that the pressure of deadlines is what forces them to produce high-quality work – the second group performed far less well. The mere awareness of their limited time triggered anxious emotions that got in the way of performance.
- I try to embody a sense that no matter how much time I have, it's enough. Even if part of how I make it enough is by hustling, there's still an underneath spaciousness, usually.
- > But worse perils await. DeMarco points out that any increase in efficiency, in an organisation or an individual life, necessitates a trade-off: you get rid of unused expanses of time, but you also get rid of the benefits of that extra time. A visit to your family doctor provides an obvious example. The more efficiently they manage their time, the fuller their schedule will be – and the more likely it is that you will be kept sitting in the waiting room when an earlier appointment overruns. (That’s all a queue is, after all: the cost of someone else’s efficiency, being shouldered by you.) In the accident and emergency department, by contrast, remaining “inefficient” in this sense is a matter of life and death. If there is an exclusive focus on using the staff’s time as efficiently as possible, the result will be a department too busy to accommodate unpredictable arrivals, which are the whole reason it exists.
- Another frame: efficiency in vs efficiency out.
Trying to optimize the efficiency of resource use (costs & staff time in this example) produces a very different effect than trying to optimize for units of value created per opportunity (quickly treatment for each patient)
9 linked references
Intend
- Here's a slightly-edited piece from a few years ago on the Intend Philosophy & Paradigm
January 28th, 2022
- short video explaining the Intend Philosophy & Paradigm
January 9th, 2022
- a friend wrote this, which resonates with Intend Philosophy & Paradigm:
- > what if I just archived a todo list the minute I developed an ugh field around it? if I don't regenerate an item on the next to do list, then it wasn't meant to be
Podcast summaries
- Keywords - barn-raising collecting barn-raising resources metaphor meta-team meta-vision Goal-Crafting Intensive Intend Philosophy & Paradigm Intend Philosophy & Paradigm Intend Philosophy & Paradigm me as project advisor / biz consultant / design jammer / co-visioner steward ownership What are the components or dimensions required for collaborative culture? Self-Organized Criticality Everything is a Remix how do we arrange the world so that I get to eat bananas in Canada and everyone is satisfied with the arrangement? UBI
- Keywords - brain hemispheres McGilchrist's brain hemisphere model Perceptual Control Theory barn-raising Internal Family Systems blindspot blindspot feedback is hard (but possible!) it's only possible to be rational within a frame make shared or different frames explicit Change doesn't just happen Intend productivity Intend Philosophy & Paradigm how to think about goals PCT internal conflict much of human collaboration scales sublinearly but it's possible to scale superlinearly What are the components or dimensions required for collaborative culture? Geoffrey West Questions for teasing apart the concept of commitment commitment/choice is a confused way to relate to stances/mindsets Everyone is basically living in a dream mashup of their current external situation & old emotional meanings everyone is constantly overgeneralizing acceptance isn't the same as acceptance safety self-trust right hemisphere left hemisphere self-energizing
With Jonny Miller — Podcast with Jonny Miller Transcript › Outline of ideas discussed. (I'm M, Jonny is J)
- 29:11 - 43:49 - Reconnecting to desire, aliveness vs exhaustiveness Intend productivity Intend Philosophy & Paradigm how to think about goals PCT
Roam
- perspectives/arguments/essays, eg Intend Philosophy & Paradigm
June 1st, 2021
- addendum to Intend Philosophy & Paradigm that jives with post-regret
November 28th, 2019
- Added some high-level notes about my app/business Intend, as well as a detailed document (drafted years ago) about how its paradigm is different from GTD (the system most to-do list apps are based on) Intend Philosophy & Paradigm