Presenting the first 1 Thing Done video.

Yes, it’s lousy. The lighting is bad, the sound is bad, and it’s got that horrendous camera whine that I may have since learned how to avoid.

But if you listen you’ll understand that the point is that I got it done and got it out there, using the tools I had available.

And the next one will be better.

Get one thing done. Then another. Make each one better. Rinse, repeat.

Also — in the video I talk a bit about Merlin Mann and in particular his old material from the early days of 43 Folders. Given the new video Merlin recently posted, I want to just want to clarify that a bit.

I don’t recommend you read Merlin’s older stuff because everyone desperately needs advice on notebooks, paper, space pens and new ways to order hamburgers. And I’m certainly not promising that all of those old posts will make you more productive. No guaranteed secrets to turbo charge super productivity in ten days or your money back call now operators are standing by.

I recommend the older stuff on 43 Folders because:

1. The posts are entertainingly written.
2. As Merlin acknowledges in his recent video, everyone needs strange, fun, and even low-impact input from time to time.
3. Maybe one in two dozen of those early posts will contain the very thing you need in that moment to get out of a rut and get something started or get something done more efficiently. That will be worth it, and that one thing will be different for everyone. Or maybe you won’t find that thing, but at least you’ll have enjoyed a few minutes of wit.

By all means don’t get sucked in, and don’t fool yourself into believing that reading productivity blogs — old or new — is any substitute for getting real work done. But in the right context and the right frame of mind, they can be a lot of fun.

A Unitasker is a tool or device designed to do just one thing.

I really like unitaskers.

Sadly, unitaskers are a favorite target of many who see themselves as anti-clutter, pro-organization, pro-simplicity. The idea seems to be that if you have tools that each serve only one purpose you will end up surrounded by countless tools, leaving your life cluttered and your spirit in chains. Alton Brown hates unitaskers in the kitchen. Unclutterer.com even has a weekly feature specifically to mock unitaskers.

I don’t have a big problem with Unclutterer’s “Unitasker Wednesday.” For many of the items featured I’d be happy to just label them “stupidtaskers” and leave it at that. For a more telling look into dogmatic anti-unitasker sentiment read through the comments to this old Unclutterer post on labelmakers.

In discussing the relative merits of labelmakers there are those who conclude “It’s a unitasker.” Then they sit back as if this revelation is enough to make their decision inevitable. It’s a unitasker, so they want nothing to do with it.

When someone proclaims refusal to own a “unitasker” I’m sometimes tempted to ask: do you not own a toothbrush? Or if you do, what exciting alternate uses have you discovered for it? Then I decide that I really don’t want to know.

Listen: it’s a labelmaker. Either you find it useful enough to own, or you don’t. There is no right answer. If you really think it will be clutter, don’t get one. If you’re not sure, check the Clutter Equation and decide whether it will provide more value than it costs. But to leave the whole decision up to whether a tool is treif or kosher based on its unitasker status makes little sense. This is true even is you are concerned about clutter, and it’s especially true if you’re interested in getting things done.

Maybe it’s my Unix experience, but I find that the most efficient and uncluttered way for me to get things done is to use simple, specialized tools. Let each tool do one thing very well. Honestly, what will contribute more to clutter in your life: a complicated tool that has dozens of features and dozens of uses, or a simple tool that is thoughtfully designed to get one thing done? I’ve had far more frustration from tools that try to do too much than from tools that perform one task simply and elegantly. When I want to dig a hole please give me a simple shovel, not an awkward chimera with pointy bits on both ends. When I want a decent-looking label please give me my labelmaker, not a roll of tape and a Sharpie.

This is not to say there is no room in my life for multitaskers. It is also unreasonable to reject a tool simply because it has more than one function. But when selecting a tool be sure to think about what you will really use it for, and whether or not it can do that thing — or things — well. Multitaskers are especially good when space, weight and portability are issues. I would not want to be without a Leatherman or comparable multitool in my satchel. (And I curse the fact that I can no longer take one in my carry-on baggage.) My iPhone is definitely a multitasker — it’s a digital multitool. And my MacBook is one king-hell multitasker — though I’m more inclined to think of it as an environment, in which I use a collection of different tools. Most of those are unitaskers, like WriteRoom.

Whether physical or digital, a good collection of simple unitasking tools can allow you to develop expertise in doing things, rather than in operating tools. If your tools are simple, they become transparent. Then there’s just the task and you, getting one thing done after another.

We interrupt this blog to point out that once again Merlin Mann just sums it right the hell up:

Inbox Zero Tumblr.

Rebalance the Equation

Part I introduced the Clutter Equation, a way to think about the things in your environment and how to identify clutter. If an object costs more — in time, attention, space, energy or money — than the value it brings to your life, it has a positive “clutter index” and you can safely call it clutter.

So once you’ve identified an object as clutter, what should you do?

Rebalance the equation. Get that clutter index down to zero or less.

The obvious thing to do is reduce the object’s cost. And the obvious way to do that? Get rid of it! That’s the most common anti-clutter advice there is, and it’s often the best. When’s the last time you even thought about that collection of old Tiger Beat magazines? Do you really think you’re going to read them again? Maybe someone is on eBay right now looking for them. Sell them, and you might have a few extra bucks in your pocket. If not eBay, then maybe the dumpster is the way to go — at least you’ll still end up with a little more room in your garage or one less bill for self-storage space.

But eBay or the trash are not the only answers.

You can relocate things. Maybe something is clutter because you don’t use it very often but it’s sitting in the middle of things and getting in your way. You may love that espresso maker, but if you only use it once a month does it have to be front and center on your counter? Put it away in a cabinet and make room for something you use more frequently — or, wonder of wonders, leave more open work space in your kitchen.

Another option is better organization. Organizing can reduce the space, time and attention costs for things that you want to keep. Just don’t get caught up in the idea that organizing has to be complicated or expensive. Organization just means putting things in an appropriate place, arranged in a useful or decorative way.

I tend to bring a lot of books into my house. For the longest time they just clotted into stacks all over the place — already read, waiting to be read, ready to be loaned to a friend, or too often just forgotten. Naturally this cost my family space — space we could have used for other things, such as breathing. It cost us time by turning cleaning and other activities into scrambles through a maze. And it cost us attention and energy by being such an unsightly distraction.

None of that is true anymore. Did we get rid of all of our books? No! We got rid of hardly any. Instead we organized them. Over the course of a few snowy afternoons Darling Wife and I entered all the books we could find into a computer database. (We use the free program Tellico on Linux, but there are other good options such as Delicious Library for Mac.) Some of the books were placed on our ample and now-organized bookshelves, with the shelf number noted in the database. Others were packed away in neat, well-labeled boxes, with box numbers that are also in the database. A few books were discarded or donated.

Now instead of a disastrous minefield of piled books we have an attractive library that takes up much less space and costs much less time, attention and energy.

And that’s not the only way organization changed the equation for our books. In addition to decreasing their cost, getting them organized increased their value. Now that we can find any one of our books in about two minutes we’ve been able to help friends by loaning them useful books at the right time, we’ve been able to re-read old favorites when the mood strikes, and we’ve been able to avoid trips to the bookstore by finding that we already have copies of most of the books required by our son’s English courses.

So in addition to finding ways to reduce an object’s cost, think of ways to increase its value.

One good question to ask is, why did you buy the thing in the first place? When you got the telescope that’s gathering dust in the corner you must have had some interest in astronomy. Why not clean the thing off, grab your kid on the next clear night and spend some time looking at the stars? Or that exercise machine — you must have envisioned it bringing more value to your life than just another place to hang clothes. Start using it.

Decrease the cost, increase the value. Toss, organize, and use your stuff to improve your environment and your life.

And there’s one more way you can use the Clutter Equation: to make better decisions about acquiring stuff. Before you buy something, ask yourself: if I add this to my life, what value will it bring? And what will it cost, day after day?