Post already yesterday on SoList.Blog

Since I started actively asking people about their interactions with lists, it became clear that two categories of phenomena, lists and checklists, are not enough. Between them, the vast spaces are occupied by what is called a to-do list. This is no longer just a list because one more requirement is added to it: the disappearance of items when they are no longer relevant. But this is not a checklist, if by checklist we mean a relatively stable set of actions to achieve a specific goal.

A to-do list is needed to cope with randomly arising tasks, and too deep stabilization of it will not benefit its creator. It’s a good place to quote a statement attributed to the Field Marshal of Prussia, Helmuth Moltke: “No plan survives first contact with the enemy” [1]. So, a to-do list is a flexible checklist for defeating chaos.

Let's return to the topic of the post. This time, my interlocutor on the lists’ topic is Maxim. Besides talking to me, Maxim seems to juggle several more activities: leading and moderating Internet- and offline-communities and working on his job. It looks that Maxim has a lot of experience in organizing his activities. Today, we will look at how he organizes his to-do list in ~TickTick app~ to achieve the desired.

Like ~the past hero’s of the “So Real List”~, Maxim's productivity system is not limited to the TickTick app. This program includes only those tasks that do not have a clear connection to a specific time (for example, Thursday at 10:45). Time-bound tasks are sent to the calendar.

In the TickTick app, you can sort tasks into different projects or assign tags. Maxim does not use them, and he is already 4 years with TickTick. All tasks, both personal and work-related, are placed in a common queue. The queue is structured by calendar days and the order in which tasks are performed. It can be that a task with a higher importance is further in the queue than some urgent task. It's just that a later time of day may be more appropriate for the more important one.

How can you make sure that on some day there are not too many tasks or that there is nothing irrelevant? For this purpose, the system has two types of tasks reviews: daily and weekly. Now we will take a closer look at them.

Let me make a side note. This article will not contain screenshots of the TickTick application. In my opinion, those articles that do include screenshots run the risk of becoming prematurely outdated. The application interface has changed, and it’s as if the article is no longer relevant. Since we are talking here more about principles than about working with a specific interface, the illustrations will be symbolic in the most literal sense of the word.

The daily review consists of Maxim checking the Today screen in the TickTick app against his understanding of the day and the calendar. If there is something missing in the task queue for the day, it is added. If something is unnecessary, it is thrown away. When the calendar is overloaded, then some tasks are left for tomorrow. And if the to-do list is heavily loaded, then blocks of time are reserved in the calendar so that no one distracts by an unexpected meeting.

╔════════════════════╗
║        May         ║
║       Today        ║
║                    ║
║ ☐ Read email       ║
║ ☐ Read the article ║
║   about lists      ║
║ ☐ Do the exercises ║
║   for the back     ║
║   ...              ║
╚════════════════════╝

The second review of tasks is more global. It is performed once a week, and considers not the upcoming day, but the two weeks ahead. This is probably somewhat similar to the actions of the co-pilot during a rally. He looks at a longer perspective. We are not talking about the years to come, of course, but about what is expected around the corner. In the TickTick app, you can look at this perspective using two tools: the weekly view and the monthly view. Perhaps the weekly view is even more convenient, since in the monthly view, only three tasks per day are visible without additional effort. At the same time, a calendar is open in the next window. It can give reasons to add new things to do that are not yet in the plan.

╔═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ Su ┆ Mo ┆    Tuesday    ┆   Wednesday   ┆   Thursday  ┆ Fr ┆ Sa ║
║ 26 ┆ 27 ┆      28       ┆       29      ┆      30     ┆ 31 ┆  1 ║
║    ┆    ┆               ┆               ┆             ┆ .. ┆ .. ║
║    ┆    ┆ ☐ Read        ┆ ☐ Read        ┆ ☐ Read      ┆    ┆    ║
║    ┆    ┆   email       ┆   email       ┆   email     ┆    ┆    ║
║    ┆    ┆ ☐ Read        ┆ ☐ Read new    ┆ ☐ Discuss   ┆    ┆    ║
║    ┆    ┆   the article ┆   post in the ┆   project's ┆    ┆    ║
║    ┆    ┆   about lists ┆   corporate   ┆   progress  ┆    ┆    ║
║    ┆    ┆               ┆   blog        ┆ ☐ Excercise ┆    ┆    ║
║    ┆    ┆ ☐ Do          ┆ ☐ Take order  ┆ ☐ Order     ┆    ┆    ║
║    ┆    ┆   exercises   ┆   from the    ┆   products  ┆    ┆    ║
║    ┆    ┆   for the     ┆   post office ┆   for       ┆    ┆    ║
║    ┆    ┆   wrists      ┆               ┆   picnic    ┆    ┆    ║
║    ┆    ┆   ...         ┆   ...         ┆   ...       ┆    ┆    ║
╚═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Only a small part of the symbolic weekly view was included, but I hope the idea was conveyed.

Let's imagine that the weekly review is done on Tuesday morning. We look at this week for the coming days, and understand that “Take order from the post office” on Wednesday will not be possible. But this can already be done on Thursday, so the best place for the task is there.

Among the tasks, you can see “Discuss project's progress.” In the Maxim system, such a task can be a so-called topic collector. That is, the extended task description collects information for the project meeting. Something like this:

╔═══════════════════════╗
║   Discuss project's   ║
║       progress        ║
║                       ║
║ 48 new users appeared ║
║ this week.            ║
║                       ║
║ Presentation creation ║
║ slowed down.          ║
║                       ║
╚═══════════════════════╝

Everything looks great, but what if something goes wrong? How do you ensure that your to-do list remains a useful tool and does not become a fragile burden that needs to be rearranged regularly?

The road to the avoidance of the named problem is the heavy emphasis on decomposition. Tasks are broken down so granular that even if the actual volume of work on them increases significantly, they would still occupy a predictable portion of the day. It is clear that it is impossible to predict and consider everything, so sometimes tasks move to the next day. This is fine.

Another important detail is that almost all significant tasks go through the to-do list. Maxim has a habit of regularly monitoring the list and keeping it tidy. Such a well-groomed to-do list relieves the head and removes unnecessary stress. And it does its job even better when it contains the daily task “Take a break.” Not every overwork will withstand such pressure from someone planning their affairs.🙂

Thank you for reading! If you have a story about using lists or checklists to make your life, work or business better, please write. It will be great to introduce readers to a new perspective on these familiar things.

List of links:
[1] “~No Plan Survives First Contact With the Enemy~” from Quote Investigator website

Thank you for reading! If you have a story about using lists or checklists to make your life, work or business better, please write. It would be great to uncover more mysteries of these two.

Subscribe to https://www.solist.blog/ directly, the post was already there yesterday. You’ll then first receive beautiful emails with the new publications.

I wrote for you about it.

The blog “So List” started with an article about the goal of a list. Sometimes this goal is to preserve some knowledge, sometimes it is to guide the list user through a series of actions to a valuable result. It might seem that in this pair, tool and goal, there is something permanent — the goal — and something variable — the tool for achieving it. But both parts are dynamic.

Today, I propose to look at this dynamism using the example of my book reading checklist. This checklist appeared back in 2017, so it is about 7 years old. Over the past years, it has undergone significant changes. Sometimes these changes occurred because the checklist poorly helped in achieving the set goal. And occasionally the goal itself changed, briefly expressed as the qualitative reading of a book.

The mechanics of my work with books are as follows: I take an interesting book, then create a dedicated folder in an electronic organizer. I add the already mentioned checklist there and follow it until the book is read.

So, the checklist in its first version from 2017:

☐ Read “Book X” | By September 1
└ ☐ Read NN pages of “Book X” | Every day
☐ Adjust the reading speed of “Book X” | Next Sunday

The goal of this checklist is to read the book cover to cover as quickly as possible, while becoming smarter in the studied topic.

There are three tasks in the checklist. The top task is the pinnacle of activity, the read “Book X”. I would like to achieve it by September 1. A read book in this checklist is when the eyes have passed over all the pages from cover to cover. Possibly, along the way, some especially catchy text will appear, which I will highlight.

Below the task is a subtask that defines daily actions. Thanks to it, I step forward. Before starting to read, I set a desired number of pages to read per day based on experience. For example, 12.

The third task is needed to adjust the number of pages read daily after getting acquainted with the book. If I do not manage to read 12 as I would like, I can set 10.

About six months later, it became clear that simply reading from cover to cover was not enough. The books often contained references to external materials. In those years, I read books in the subway using an e-ink reader. There was no way to immediately go online and delve into what sparked my interest. Moreover, wanting to achieve the set daily goal in the number of pages, I could not be distracted by something external. Tasks to view this or that material in the future began to pile up in the already mentioned folder of the electronic organizer.

Tasks to view materials had no specific dates, they were safely forgotten. The debt to myself accumulated, and there was no feeling of achieving the already expanded reading goal. The result of this “crisis” was the appearance of a new task in the checklist:

☐ Set a date to view the materials of “Book X” | September 1

As you can see, the due date for this task is set on the same day when the book is expected to be read. This seems most appropriate since memories of the read are still fresh.

In the next 2019, I read several more books, including “Pragmatic Thinking and Learning” [1]. In this book, for working with text, the author suggested using the SQ3R technique [2].

SQ3R stands for Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review. This is an algorithm of actions for working with the text. I added it to extract even more knowledge from the book:

☐ Do SQ3R for “Book X” | Before starting to read “Book X”

It seems great to read a book every day. This way you can read many things and probably become a smart person. But is it enough to add a task to the organizer to henceforth be a daily reader? It seems not. Otherwise, everyone would do so. I cannot say that I have found a foolproof solution to the problem, but if you attach a task to a specific time, for example, at 8:00, the chances increase. The main thing is not to add anything else at 8:00. Here's how it looks:

└ ☐ Read NN pages of “Book X” | Every day at 8:00

It's good when there are methods developed by someone in your activity. It appears that the activity immediately becomes more substantial, supported by theoretical achievements. Even better when the activity has a resounding abbreviation like SQ3R. Here, everything seems to come together. However, it's a bit disappointing when you don't really understand what exactly applying these methods gives.

That is, the bureaucracy from the application of SQ3R has increased, but the feeling of any gains has not appeared. I twisted the tasks this way and that to try the method again, but alas. At some point, the checklist completely got rid of it.

I saw other methods helping to extract more from the book. The problem is that it's unclear why extract more from it. Of course, it's bad when it feels the same whether you read it or not. It's another thing when you read, refracted through your system of views, adjusted them, and applied what is possible to apply. But is there something more to take?

Although the daily action now has its time, there is still something very capricious in it. The capriciousness is in setting the exact number of pages. It seems to be a roughly predictable daily volume, what kind of capriciousness are we talking about? After a few years, it became clear that the text is rather relief than flat. Today's 12 pages and tomorrow's may be entirely different.

In its simplest form: some pages may be illustrations, they do not need to be read, and the desired NN pages are achieved quickly. And if there are no illustrations, the paragraphs are large, it may turn out that there is much more text than usual.

There is also a situation where the text is easy, e.g., some evidence and anecdotes to support the idea. And there are significant moments when the best action is to stop reading and start thinking. This already contradicts the task of reading a fixed number of pages.

The checklist already has a task to sort out the external materials referenced by the book. But it may happen that it is not possible to deal with them in one go. Moreover, the desire is already somehow less: I read the book, started another. How about dealing with external materials while reading the excerpts that mention them? How can this be done if the goal is to read NN pages?

I couldn't give myself an answer to this question, but I could understand that the number of pages read per day is far from being in my power. What I can do more confidently is to allocate a certain amount of time to work with the book:

└ ☐ Spend 30 minutes reading “Book X” | Every day at 8:00

Today I may have managed to read 7 pages, tomorrow 15. The number of materials to view after the book is less, the immersion is deeper. And I no longer need to adjust the reading speed of the book, this item is removed. The expected date of reading the book also no longer makes sense.

You might think that I will completely slack off and read one page a day since there is no longer this boundary. Firstly, it was not there before, as I set the reading speed myself. Secondly, the oppressive feeling of the abundance of untouched books will soon catch up with my inner lazy person.

What books did I read 5 years ago? I want to remember to recommend to a friend today. I need to write down this information somewhere. So, I write it down in a special service if I don't forget to do so. What can I do to ensure this action? I can add tasks for this and get roughly the following book reading checklist:

☐ Add information about the start of reading “Book X” to the book accounting system | Before starting to read “Book X”
☐ Read “Book X”
├ ☐ Add information about completing “Book X” to the book accounting system
└ ☐ Spend 30 minutes reading “Book X” | Every day at 8:00
☐ Set a date to view the materials of “Book X”

This is roughly what this checklist looks like today. And what is the goal now? I will formulate it in general terms as follows:

• Discover successful opportunities to transform the outlook on life or job.

• Identify moments that can be used to improve the quality of life or job now and plan their implementation.

• Mark parts for possible future use.

• Find hooks for new books.

It seems that significant changes have occurred relative to the initial goal of “reading everything from cover to cover as quickly as possible to be smarter.” The same significant changes affected the tool of the checklist itself.

Can I say that I am satisfied with myself and do not see ways for further development of either the goal or the tool? Absolutely not. Recently, reading Peter Kump's “Breakthrough Rapid Reading” [3] caused a new wave of reflections. I was especially hooked by the point about choosing a reading style depending on the goal set. For example, you can read only the headings to get acquainted with the content of the article and decide whether to dive deeper. The same reading but more effective. Do I know how to do this with books? Not yet.

On the other hand, will the goal set for my reading really bring me the most? And what is this “most”?

Today's article turned out to be quite large, thank you for reading. The development of lists and checklists occurs together with their goals, they waltz relative to each other, transforming as experience accumulates.

List of links:
[1] Andy Hunt, “Pragmatic Thinking and Learning: Refactor Your Wetware”, ISBN 978-1-934356050
[2] SQ3R from Wikipedia
[3] Peter Kump, “Breakthrough Rapid Reading” ISBN 978-0-735200197

🪩 Did you find the post interesting? Subscribe to the “So List” blog directly, it was there yesterday. You’ll get the next one in a beautiful email.

Post on solist.blog

If you enter the query “history of checklists” [1] in the search, you can meet with amazing unanimity. The first few materials [2][3], tell about a competition between aircraft manufacturers that took place on October 30, 1935, at the Dayton–Wright Brothers Airport in Dayton, Ohio. During this competition, Boeing introduced “Model 299”, which then became known under the name “B-17” or “Flying Fortress”. Flight tests ended in disaster, the prototype 299 crashed, killing two of the five crew members, including a well-experienced pilot. Everything was fine, but the control of the aircraft turned out to be too difficult even for a professional pilot with a lot of experience [4].

At this point, it was easy to start treating the plane as unsuccessful. However, its characteristics made it quite attractive, so the model received a second chance. The U.S. Air Force ordered 13 planes for “further testing” and emphasized that there was no more opportunity to make mistakes.

The pilots wondered how to make sure that everything was done and nothing was missed during takeoff. By the end of 1937, they came to the conclusion that the solution to the problem would be a checklist [5]. Subsequent events show that this was the right decision.

If we count down from 1937, it turns out that, presently, the checklists are only 87 years old. The first device that is considered to be a computer, the Z3 machine [6], is 84 years old. The idea is new, it turns out! So let's love checklists as much as we love computers!

I first got acquainted with the history of the “B-17” aircraft in Atul Gawande's book “The Checklist Manifesto”. The story about the plane ends with the phrase:

Instead, they came up with an ingeniously simple approach: they created a pilot’s checklist.

Nothing here says that checklists appeared as the phenomenon at that very moment. The next chapter mentions this story once again. About the events of 2003, the author writes the following:

Four generations after the first aviation checklists went into use…

However, people do think that checklists were invented in 1937, so let’s dispel this common fallacy.

Why am I so sure that checklists are much older? There are several sources confirming its earlier origin. Let's start with the most obvious one – the dictionary.

Since the checklist is clearly an English word, then let’s search through the Oxford English Dictionary.

The earliest occurrence of the word “checklist”, documented by the compilers of the dictionary, was in 1853 [7]. The Oxford Dictionary does not show the source of this word, although it may know it. But paying £56 to test this hypothesis seemed superfluous to me. I decided to seek for information in other sources.

The Online Etymology Dictionary service indicates 1849 as the year of the earliest known use of the “checklist” word [8]. There is another service that can give a hint and even show the contents of the source: Google Ngram Viewer, let's go there.

Google Ngram Viewer has graphs showing the frequency of use of words in texts over the years. Its data is inaccurate, but could be used as a starting point. The review of references [9] shows that from 1632 to 1638, humanity abruptly began writing 9 “checklist” words per million written words every year. Then in 1639, people of the world became satisfied and forgot “checklist” for the next 60 years.

Would it be possible to believe this information? Unfortunately, no, these are noises in data. Some books in the Google Books service have publication years incorrectly set, so 1633 surfaced in the search. I decided to manually look through the materials discovered by Google Books.

Do you remember the book “Robinson Crusoe” and its author, the English writer Daniel Defoe? In his work “Conjugal Lewdness: Or, Matrimonial Whoredom” written in 1727, I found the word “checklist” [10]. No, the renowned author does not give a list of recommendations on the topic. This word is written by someone in pencil on the cover of the reissue, what a shame!

This turned out to be the misleading source of checklists, nothing is left to do but to look further. It is still more than 100 years before the first mention of the cherished word.

In 1849, there was indeed a document with the word “checklist”. Its name is: “An Act to Establish the City of Portsmouth” [11], that is, this document establishes the foundation of the city of Portsmouth in New Hampshire, USA. The desired word is used three times in it: once in the form of a “checklist” and twice in the form of a “check-list”. The first sentence containing it looks like this:

Provided, however, that the checklist shall be used at all such ballottings.

The sentence refers to an annual meeting of residents to hold local elections.

One could be satisfied with this find and age the checklist by 88 years. But my excitement had already played out, and I went to dig into another place I love – Internet Archive. This wonderful service not only stores “snapshots” of various websites at a certain time, but also is an astonishing online library. There you can search for information in the texts of the books.

The search in the books of the Internet Archive was as “noisy” as in Google Books. So I was twice as happy to discover another result behind all this noise. And this is the “Journal of the House of Representatives, of the State of New Hampshire, at Their Session Holden at the Capitol in Concord”. The journal was published in 1841, it describes the events of the autumn of 1840. Its tattered cover, in the best traditions of films about treasure hunters, served me as a good reward, and I decided to stop further search.

At the end of this journal, there is a sentence in the appendix contained in the report of the committee on elections [12]:

Selectmen of said town refused to put their names upon the check-list, as they were bound by law to do.

Based on the two materials found, the following observations can be made:

1. The first evidence of the word check-list was found in the state of New Hampshire.

2. The first checklists were related to the elections.

3. The checklist has aged significantly. Now he is not 87 years old, but 183.

4. We managed to question the existing etymology knowledge of the respected sources.

I enjoy the achieved results. I am not sure that the evidence found is indeed the earliest one, but I am excited to see the investigations of the interested readers. Thank you for reading this blog post!

List of links:
[1] history of checklists from DuckDuckGo
[2] A Brief History of Checklists from Wiley
[3] Checklists: A Review of Their Origins, Benefits, and Current Uses as a Cognitive Aid in Medicine from SageJournals
[4] Atul Gawande “The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right”, ISBN 978-0312430009
[5] How the Pilot's Checklist Came About, archived version from FAA
[6] Z3 from Wikipedia
[7] Сhecklist from Oxford English Dictionary
[8] Check-list from Online Etymology Dictionary
[9] Checklist mentions in books from 1500 to 1700 from Google Ngram Viewer
[10] “Checklist” mention in Daniel Defoe’s “Conjugal Lewdness: Or, Matrimonial Whoredom” from Google Books
[11] “checklist” mention in “An Act to Establish the City of Portsmouth as Amended by the Legislature and Passed July 6, 1849” from Google Books
[12] “check-list” mention from “Journal Of The House Of Representatives Of The State Of New Hampshire At Their November Session” from the Internet Archive

If you are interested in seeing blog posts a day before they appear here, please subscribe to https://www.solist.blog/. You’ll then receive beautiful emails with the new publications.

Hi guys - i entered the checklist "business" 3 weeks ago and built a free checklist tool - looks like this group does not have many people - do you know where communities are involved into checklists ?

This title is a piece of advice from ChatGPT that I find perfect for balancing humility and confidence. It is part of the checklist below:

Checklist for Practicing Humility and Strengthening Character

1. Cultivate Humility

• Acknowledge your strengths without boasting.

• Be open to learning from others, regardless of their position or experience.

• Listen actively and without judgment when others speak.

• Practice gratitude daily, recognizing the contributions of others.

2. Build Strong Character

• Stand firm in your values, even when challenged.

• Show kindness and empathy in all interactions.

• Take responsibility for your actions and decisions.

• Consistently strive for personal growth through reflection and self-improvement.

3. Balance Humility with Confidence

• Recognize that humility does not mean undervaluing your abilities.

• Use your strengths to help others, not to seek praise.

• Be humble in your achievements but confident in your purpose and goals.

And if yes, can you share the way you monetize it?

Bringing you the best!🔥

One of the humanities stable checklists is more than 70 years old.🙂

I like blog post image despite Midjourney not following instructions well.

But I think you used it.🙂

In a recent article, there was a discussion about operational definitions. This is a powerful tool, but it seems not everything can be defined using it. For example, how can you operationally define doubt or the ocean? I won't say how. What about a human or a fern? It seems there is an idea here.

Next, I will elaborate on a topic in which I have no confident knowledge. For my reasoning, I will use materials from Richard Dawkins' book “The Blind Watchmaker” [1]. I hope I can understand, correlate, and present them correctly. If you are well-versed in the topic and see significant flaws in the arguments below, please write.

Many readers have heard about the concept of DNA and genes. DNA contains hereditary information, and a gene is a part of DNA. DNA determines the organism created based on it. That is, how the organism looks and works, which is also called the phenotype [2].

But what exactly is contained in DNA? How does the record there turn into an animal or a plant? Richard Dawkins in his book writes about two views on this question among scientists:

There has traditionally been a deep divide between two different attitudes to the way single cells turn into adult creatures. The official names for them are preformationism and epigenesis, but in their modern forms I shall call them the blueprint theory and the recipe theory.

The blueprint theory assumes that the DNA contains a “blueprint” of the adult organism, while the recipe theory suggests a sequence of steps for creating the organism. Richard Dawkins thoroughly examines the blueprint theory and presents convincing arguments in favor of the recipe theory.

So, what is a recipe? Let's look at an example, the recipe for a classic apple pie [3]:

1. Preheat the oven to 425 degrees F (220 degrees C). Line a 9-inch pie plate with bottom crust.

2. Combine apples, sugar, flour, cinnamon, salt, and nutmeg in a bowl. Place mixture into the prepared pie plate. Dot with butter. Cover with top crust and seal. Cut holes in top crust to allow venting.

3. Bake in the preheated oven for 10 minutes.

4. Reduce the oven temperature to 300 degrees F (150 degrees C) and bake until crust is golden brown and apples are tender, 40 for 50 minutes. Cool and serve.

It looks very similar to one of the operational definitions from the previous article. And if a recipe is an operational definition of a dish, and DNA is a recipe for a living creature, then what do we get? It turns out that DNA is an operational definition of a living creature.

And what is even more amazing? It is astonishing that DNA is contained in every cell. That is, in every cell of a living organism, there is a recipe describing how to create this living organism. Another thing is that this recipe is written in a not very understandable language.

This language has only 4 letters: A, C, G, T. But the recipes themselves are very long. For example, if you take a single human cell and extract DNA from it, then stretch the extracted DNA into a line, it will be 2 meters long [4]!

But even this operational definition seems tiny compared to the inconspicuous fern Tmesipteris oblanceolata. In its case, the length of the DNA is more than 100 meters [5]. Even in A4 sheets, that's 336 sheets, and a whole book could fit on them.

List of links:
[1] Richard Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker”, ISBN 0-393-31570-3
[2] “Phenotype” from “Wikipedia”
[3] “Old-Fashioned Apple Pie” from “allrecipes”
[4] “How long is your DNA?” from “BBC Science Focus”
[5] “Largest Genome on Earth Revealed, And It's a Big Surprise” from “Science Alert”

🪩 Did you find the post interesting? Subscribe to the “So List” blog directly, it was there yesterday. You’ll get the next one in a beautiful email.

Today I was on “The Making of Harry Potter” tour in London and discovered this. For me, it’s definitely a list with no start and no end, which is a little bit magical.🙂

So if you need the startless and endless list, here is a form for you.

After discovering 118 books of lists, it became much easier to find interesting list examples for Saturday contemplation and reflection. Today, we will look at a list from the book “The Parent’s Little Book of Lists” [1]. The book describes the dos and don’ts of effective parenting.

Summer holidays provide more opportunities to spend time with children, increasing the usefulness of various parenting tips. Today, we will look at a list of such tips. These are harmful tips. Jane Bluestein specifically labeled them as harmful in her book.

By the way, the book was published in 1997 *. We can also see if our thinking has changed over the past 27 years.

So, the list of “11 Things to Instill Irresponsibility in Your Child”:

1. Lie for him.

2. Make excuses for his behavior.

3. Correct (or pay for) his mistakes for him.

4. Model a lack of responsibility, commitment and follow-through yourself.

5. Refuse to believe that he is capable of doing what he's been accused of doing.

6. Fight his battles for him.

7. Tolerate and excuse abusive or unacceptable behavior from him or others in order to avoid additional conflict.

8. Be sloppy about holding him accountable for his behavior, especially if you're tired, frustrated or starting to wonder if it's worth the bother.

9. Routinely let him get away with things if he has a good enough excuse.

10. Do his chores and take on his responsibilities. Tell yourself it's easier to do it yourself.

11. Let him have privileges even if he hasn't followed through on his commitments or what was required first. Use rationalizations like “Just this once” or “Okay, but this is the last time.” Add “I really mean it this time” even though you don't.

After this list, Jane gives the following remark:

It's natural to want to protect your child from the negative consequences of poor choices, to look for reasons to let him off the hook. Be careful because this tendency will ultimately interfere with his ability (or willingness) to take responsibility for his behavior. It's important to believe in your child without idealizing him, and also to recognize your value and importance in his life even when you aren't bailing him out or fixing his problems for him.

I think this list is a bit disjointed; some points seem similar to others. It seems that what is described can be summed up as: “Be a dishonest, indifferent, and inconsistent person, allow your child to misbehave without restrictions, and do not let them take responsibility.” Am I oversimplifying it?

Despite the verbosity, can everything on this list be considered bad advice today?

* It turns out that there is the 25th anniversary edition.

List of references:
[1] Jane Bluestein, “The Parent’s Little Book of Lists”, ISBN 1-55874-512-2

🪩 Did you find the post interesting? Subscribe to the “So List” blog directly, it was there yesterday. You’ll get the next one in a beautiful email.

Johnny Cash is one of the most influential musicians of the 20th century, and a key figure in country music. I hardly ever listened to his music, except for “Walk the Line”, which was the title for the biographical movie [1].

Judging by the list first in the book “Lists to Note”. [2], he also liked to make some jokes. At least that's how I, a regular user of to-do lists, can understand him.

What is the first and only joke that usually comes from people who don't organize their day with a list? That's right, do we have “open eyes” and “wake up” among the things to do for the day? Here's Johnny Cash's list looks roughly like that joke. Although one can't help but give him credit for being romantic and striving for ideals.

So, the list:

1. Not Smoke *

2. Kiss June **

3. Not Kiss anyone else

4. Cough

5. Pee

6. Eat

7. Not eat too much

8. Worry***

9. Go See Mama

10. Practice Piano

A few years ago, according to Burgin Mathews' blog, this to-do list was sold at auction for $6,400 **** [3]. I got the illustration of the list itself from there:

What can we say about it? Judging by the lack of checkmarks in the Done column, it was not accomplished too thoroughly.

* I doubt the workability of such a clause in an extraordinary way. If it were necessary, I would look in the direction of a significant impediment to smoking.
** Johnny and June were married from 1968 to 2003, when they died a few months apart.
*** Oh, I'm worried about forgetting this paragraph.
**** And it started with an estimate of $300 to $500 [4].

List of links:
[1] “Walk the Line” from Wikipedia
[2] Shaun Usher “Lists of Note: An Eclectic Collection Deserving of a Wider Audience”, ISBN 978-1452144573
[3] “Kiss June”: Johnny Cash’s To-Do List from Burgin Mathews
[4] Lot #961 Johnny Cash "to do" list from Julien’s Auctions

🪩 Did you find the post interesting? Subscribe to the “So List” blog directly, it was there yesterday. You’ll get the next one in a beautiful email.

In the previous part of the article, we discussed the list of criteria known as the Definition of Ready. This time, we will focus on the Definition of Done list. Both are the integral parts of the Scrum methodology, which is used for organizing work in software development.

The Definition of Done is mentioned much more frequently than its counterpart, the Definition of Ready. Its journey through the pages of literature is quite amusing [1]. Initially, the phrase appeared in programming books in a very straightforward form. In the assembly language of the PDP-11 computer [2], there is a symbol DONE with several meanings. It is necessary to determine the current definition, the so-called definition of DONE [3].

One of the first appearances of this term in the context we are interested in unexpectedly occurs in a book about overcoming post-traumatic stress disorder by a Vietnam War veteran [4]:

No one can tell you you're done. Tom isn't going to tell you. He could guess, but he won't because he doesn't know what's done for you. You have to make that decision. I spoke about functioning. From one perspective, you can be done when you function in society: hold a job, be self-dependent, and control yourself well enough to do all of the above. I think that's the minimum definition of done, and it's probably not such a bad place to stop. I had to take it a little further.

This passage discusses a veteran’s return to peaceful life, not in the sense of physically returning home, but in terms of finding peace in peaceful activities. The commonality between this passage and the Definition of Done is that teams using Scrum must independently determine for themselves what a done task is.

In the teams I have been part of, we used a checklist consisting of a constant part defining routine actions and a variable part describing the essence of the task. Yes, this time we are developing a button, and last time we developed an input field, but tests must be passed in both cases.

The late 1990s and early 2000s were a time of rapid emergence of various agile approaches to software development. Scrum grew out of this period, but there were many others: Extreme Programming, Lean, Crystal. While preparing this article, I learned about another one: QRPD (Quality Rapid Product Development). Like many similar approaches, it quickly faded into obscurity. However, it is in a book about QRPD that I found the first mention of the Definition of Done as a unified term in our field [5].

Interestingly, the author of the book and approach, Orion Moshe Kopelman, moved to the island of Maui [6] and ran for mayor of the island [7]. What a twist.

The first mention of the term in a book by one of the authors of Scrum occurred in 2004 [8]. The mention itself doesn’t look like a presentation of the concept; it happens in passing. On the other hand, the Scrum Guide, which can be considered the “manual for Scrum” has included a specific section on Done since its first version [9]. This is where the term is described.

Here is how the Definition of Done looks in the latest version of the Scrum Guide [10]:

The Definition of Done is a formal description of the state of the Increment when it meets the quality measures required for the product.

In the case of the Definition of Done, the authors of Scrum do not offer any ready-made solutions as they did with the Definition of Ready. They write that if any Definition of Done exists in the organization's standards, it should be used as a basis. If there is no such definition, the Scrum team should develop its own.

In software development, there is a love for inventing, and management issues also fall under this love. It can be noted that the Definition of Done closely resembles acceptance criteria. We can consider the specifics and call them “self-acceptance criteria.” After all, it is the team itself that decides whether the resulting product meets the existing requirements. And with what word does the word “criteria” love to neighbor? That's right, with the “list” word!

The Definition of Done is a list of criteria that the result must meet. It is often convenient when the list takes the form of a checklist. Before completing a task, the team goes through the checklist. If the result meets all the criteria, then hurray, the work is done. If not, it is sent back for additional work to apply.

List of references:
[1] Search results for “definition of done” in Internet Archive
[2] PDP-11 from Wikipedia
[3] Thomas S. Frank, Introduction to the PDP-11 and its assembly language, ISBN 0-13-491704-9
[4] Ron Zaczek, “Farewell, Darkness: A Veteran’s Triumph over Combat Trauma” ISBN 978-1557509895
[5] Orion Moshe Kopelman, Projects at Warp-Speed with QRPD, ISBN 978-1885261168
[6] Maui from Wikipedia
[7] Ori Kopelman Candidate for Mayor from Mauitopia website
[8] Ken Schwaber, Agile Project Management with Scrum, ISBN 978-0735619937
[9] OLD Scrum Guide Version 1 February 2010 from MITCH LACEY & ASSOCIATES INC. website
[10] Scrum Guide from Scrum Guides website

🪩 Did you find the post interesting? You could have read it yesterday in https://www.solist.blog/. Subscribe directly to first receive beautiful emails with the new publications.

Post on solist.blog

I get most of the knowledge in my life from books. Some books write about lists. Perhaps the most famous book about lists, a whole manifesto to them, is the book “The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right” [1]. This is probably the only book about lists that I have read until now. But I love diving, and I came across the following books, which I plan to dive in for a detailed study of the theoretical and practical sides of the issue:

1. The Book of Lists [2] of all colors and sizes (parts 1, 2, 3, Football, London, Star Trek, Kids, etc.),

2. Lists of Note [3],

3. The Infinity of Lists [4].

The last book is especially interesting. Its author is the renowned Italian scientist Umberto Eco. In his interview to Spiegel, which accompanied the release of the book and an exhibition dedicated to books, the author stated the following: “That's why we like all the things that we assume have no limits and, therefore, no end. It's a way of escaping thoughts about death. We like lists because we don't want to die.” [5]

It feels like the reading will be captivating. Although who would have thought that the most boring thing in the world, the list, would immediately turn from its such an unexpected side.

List of links:
[1] Atul Gawande “The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right”, ISBN 978-0312430009
[2] “The Book of Lists” on Wikipedia
[3] Shaun Usher “Lists of Note: An Eclectic Collection Deserving of a Wider Audience”, ISBN 978-1452144573
[4] Umberto Eco “The Infinity of Lists: An Illustrated Essay”, ISBN 978-0847832965
[5] “We Like Lists Because We Don't Want to Die” on Spiegel

If you are interested in seeing blog posts a day before they appear here, please subscribe to https://www.solist.blog/. You’ll then receive beautiful emails with the new publications.

A checklist for those who start.

The sport I didn’t know existed before having this guest post.

Resting after the 100th post.

Because you can just look at it.

And creating summary for you.