You're making the assumption that 1, priorities are so dynamic that by the time I've recorded a change, they've changed again; 2, that I can
pick out the tasks most important to someone else from a LONG, not short, list of things that need to be done. I have no short lists in the lab.
I just don't always remember which things are super important to my boss. That's why I find priorities so useful - otherwise, I will
forget something. It'll be in my list, but I won't get to it as quickly as the boss expects, because I don't recognize it as a priority.
If I'm going to be able to trust my system, it has to hold on to the things that I will otherwise forget, and one of the things that I forget, that I know I forget, is how important different tasks are to my boss. It imposes a certain amount of hassle on me, but much, much less hassle than forgetting to email some results to the postdoc that left the lab 2 years ago and is just now getting around to publishing his paper on my sweat blood and tears.
Originally Posted by BwanaZulia
I think you just gave a perfect example why actually recording and managing priorities is a mistake. They are constantly changing, are too numerous and possibly blinding because of their complexity.
Your mind has the great ability to scan a small list (context) and pick from there what the biggest priority is.
We can go around like this all day. If we base these things purely on personal preference, my use for priorities is just as valid a reason for including them in OF as your non-use is for excluding them.