[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. ;)