[LeonB]

I don't think "the 2-minute rule" (originally from Dave Allen of 'Getting Things Done') or the article above frame procrastination as "laziness."

It clearly about "Task Initiation" which is a problem related to "Executive Function". None of the related authors would ever frame it as being about "Laziness". That's like... the last thing Dave Allen would do.

Also "identifying the next action" (which is what you're suggesting) is also very much a Dave Allen technique. Dave Allen adds the 2-minute rule on top of that -- if it's 2 minutes or less, don't bother tracking it, just do it straight away... that way you won't pay the cost of tracking a whole extra item in your task management system.

[reificator]

I'm specifically talking about this article, which as far as I can tell does not credit or mention Dave Allen or 'Getting Things Done'.

In my reading, this paragraph in particular is where it sounds like a solution for laziness more than a solution for "identifying the next action":

> The idea is to make it super easy to get started. Once you pass the starting point, which is arguably the hardest step, you start to gain momentum to keep doing the task itself

I think you and I agree about the benefits of this approach, all I'm saying is that I don't want people to dismiss this advice because they think it's targeted at "lazy people".

Also the two minute rule you describe appears to be different than the two minute rule as described in the article.

[LeonB]

It credits lifehack, who credit Dave Allen. Though the ideas/details have been twisted along the way, the “2 minute rule” is straight from Dave. All credits on it lead back there. It’s not a contentious idea, the guy’s still alive. It’s his idea.

[Zanni]

The Lifehack article, by James Clear, is the source of the confusion. Clear takes Allen's Two-Minute Rule as the first part of his own Two-Minute Rule, the second part of which is something like Allen's Next Actions. It's a mess. The article posted here rehashes the second part of Clear's rule, completely divorcing the name of the rule from its original context.

[LeonB]

Yeh you’re right. But the other element he’s throwing in is Fogg’s Tiny Habits. So it’s those three combined, in such a way that he makes it his own, and as demonstrated here, achieves a bit of erasure along the way.

Also - that life hack article - he’s published that same stuff many many times before. It’s basically an extract from his book. He republishes it every where. And it works, he takes ownership of the idea in people’s minds.

[reificator]

You described Dave Allen's 2 minute rule as immediately doing things that take under 2 minutes while determining what work needs to be done, instead of marking them as a task to be done later.

The article describes taking long and/or involved tasks and inventing an artificially limited 2 minute version of them that you can begin more easily.

That's very twisted along the way, and does not seem like Dave Allen's original idea. It seems like a conflation of two very different ideas of his that are meant to solve different problems.

I never said Dave Allen's idea was contentious. I never criticized 'Getting Things Done'. I highlighted a facet of the article that I believed people could easily misread and therefore reject as not applicable to their image of themselves.

Please read my posts without the assumption that I am criticizing Dave Allen or his work.

[LeonB]

Yes, the name "2 minute rule" has been taken, and mixed up with a bunch of other ideas from the same place (and related places). That's why it's twisted.

> I never said Dave Allen's idea was contentious

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had. I meant, the idea that "the 2 minute rule" is effectively a Dave Allen trademark, is not contentious.

Sorry if I seem antagonistic, totally not my intention. I'm in Queensland sitting underneath a large storm at the moment. I do think we're on the same page re effective executive function techniques themselves. ;)

[srtjstjsj]

If you say "inertia" instead of "laziness", the sting is removed.

Internia is why it's hard to start working and easy to continue once started.

[reificator]

Sure, that's better wording, but I also don't think this method solves inertia because of the two minute restriction.

What this seems to do is remove inertia stemming from being overwhelmed with options by clarifying what actually needs to be done.

[LeonB]

This sent me down a rabbit hole looking for the difference between inertia and momentum. Which showed me, above all, that the people who write dictionaries aren't qualified to write about terms from physics.

I also see that effort it takes to get started on a thing as similar to "excitation energy" in chemistry -- that discrete amount of energy, below which, the system will not change, and above which, bam! it all happens!

By understanding the "next action" you're lowering the "excitation energy" requirement. But that's not a great metaphor to use with the general public. This is why James Clear writes the books, and I just writes the comments.