Complice is an intentionality app, and it's also a philosophy/paradigm.
This page, by founder Malcolm Ocean, outlines that paradigm.
Virtually all to-do list software on the internet, whether it knows it or not, is based on the GTD philosophy (David Allen's "Getting Things Done") or some similar underlying assumptions.
The main paradigmatic differences of Complice, compared to GTD-based systems are as follows:
Keep reading and we'll explore each of them...
Here are some taglines from various to-do list sites:
All of these either talk about organizing tasks or “to-do lists”.
Complice is, by many appearances, a "to-do list app", in the sense that it is an app (✓) where you make lists (✓) of things you intend to do (✓). But with Complice, the focus is on doing things, not on making and organizing lists.
The main way that the app currently embodies this philosophy is by not offering any place in the app to write down a bunch of stuff that you're not planning to work on yet and may never work on. It's not that we think such lists are not valuable—they are. But they have costs, and one of those costs is that people get too focused on keeping the list organized, at the expense of focusing on what they're actually trying to achieve and taking actions towards achieving those things.
A famous quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower:
“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”
Currently Complice essentially encourages you to plan elsewhere, so you still do the act of planning, but when you come back to Complice, you aren't faced with a bunch of old plans that are now in your way (worse than useless). You can also do some strategic thinking in your weekly/monthly/quarterly/yearly reviews, but it doesn't turn into a giant list of tasks.
More on this in the next section...
I sometimes characterize the opposite of aliveness as staleness, as in “is your productivity system full of stale tasks?” but I’ll be charitable here and talk about the positive framing of GTD in this respect, which I’m going to call exhaustiveness. The first Step of GTD is Capture. Capturing things is important for getting them out of your working memory so you can focus on your work. But in my experience (and based on talking with people) it has issues as well:
The result of these issues tends to lead to the person keeping a separate list for newly emerged tasks that are of clearly higher-value than the original list, either within the same context or perhaps by starting to use a new app. The old “trusted system” is no longer trusted, because it’s full of stuff the person knows (at least implicitly) they don’t want to do, so they (reasonably) don't want to use it.
In principle, most of these failure modes can be combated with an effective weekly review that pares down the lists. In practice, almost nobody I've met actually consistently does the GTD weekly review (which means they aren't actually following the GTD system, but a hollow shell of GTD that nobody ever claimed would work).
One of RememberTheMilk’s taglines, as of this writing, is “Never forget the milk (or anything else) again.” The idea here is that nothing escapes the system—you put things in, and you can keep track of them, and not forget them. This is great, but some things actually are worth forgetting. Or worth ignoring. (Not to mention that if your list gets too long you'll end up forgetting about things anyway)
Complice currently has two main ways of prioritizing aliveness over exhaustiveness.
Future implementations of Complice may also have a system for brainstorming potential future tasks, or breaking down big things into small tasks, but without the assumption that all of those necessarily will be completed eventually. Instead, the brainstormed list would act as inspiration for choosing one’s daily intentions, and tasks from it that are ignored would gradually be slid into a backlog, automating the process whereby the user makes a new list when the old stuff becomes stale.
Since most people have at least a couple goals where there is some sense of “things I might do in the future,” they end up using other systems to keep track of those. Perhaps these users will use those apps totally effectively, but importantly... with an organizer+Complice combo, even if the organizer goes stale, Complice will still be there, asking you what’s most important to do today. That might be some object-level things that are obvious, or it might be the task “purge my old task list” or even “switch from using workflowy to track future tasks to todoist”.
It seems to me that an aliveness-based system works better than an exhaustiveness-based system for people who are pursuing purposeful goals (personal or professional) where they get to discern what their priorities are and where most small tasks are not critical. Where small tasks are critical, other systems (including email inboxes) can supplement Complice for ensuring those are taken care of. An administrative or personal assistant would not want to use Complice to keep track of the tasks assigned by their employer. Many Complice users are students, self-employed, and/or freelancers. Of those who are employed, many have substantial control over how they approach their work assignments, and those who do not tend not to track their work-related tasks in Complice.
Many other to-do list apps feature, in their product demos, people buying groceries, and listing out each grocery they need. While this is a legitimate thing to want to build an app for, it's a completely different use-case from Complice.
While GTD-based systems have projects, the projects mostly are just buckets to put tasks into. Tasks exist as freefloating entities that might not be associated with a project at all, or might be in theory associated with a project but when you put the task in your inbox you didn’t assign it to a project, so you first need to process your inbox, etc.
With Complice, goals come first. You literally can't access the rest of the app before first setting at least two goals that you’re working towards. Most users have 3-6. You get up to 10, each with its own digit, so you have a goal 1, goal 2, etc).
Then, when you go to enter your intentions for the day, you have to explicitly indicate which goal it is for using the goal's number, or you use an ampersand to indicate that it's a miscellaneous intention that isn't associated with one of your goals. This means that it is always really clear why you’re doing what you’re doing. That’s not to say that you will necessarily do the most strategic thing towards that goal, but it does make it more likely that you will do something rather than nothing, and also much more likely that you will notice that what you’re doing isn’t really strategic, because:
I think that having goals come first means that users are more likely to forget to do random small tasks and less likely to forget to make progress towards their high-level goals, which I see as being probably a good tradeoff, especially if the person has other systems in place to ensure small tasks don’t get forgotten if they’re indeed really important.
This section is mostly implied by the above sections, but it's worth pointing at directly. Essentially the distinction here is:
This represents a difference between reactively prioritizing incoming demands or proposals (from coworkers or email newsletters) or random impulses, and proactively seeking ways to reach a goal. If you're doing anything self-directed or creative, you want your energy coming from within, scaffolded by a context that reminds you what you care about.
In our Goal-Crafting Intensive workshops, we encourage people, once they've set some new goals, to come up with a thing to do towards each goal immediately (today or tomorrow) that they wouldn't have thought to do at all prior to having the goal. This is another way to point at proactive vs reactive approaches.
Proactively pursuing a goal doesn't automatically imply strategically pursuing a goal, but for most people the bottleneck isn’t unstrategicness but lack of intentional momentum towards goals at all. So Complice is mostly focused on momentum. You can't be strategic without something to be strategic towards! And to the extent that you're genuinely trying to achieve something and regularly assessing how that's going, you'll tend to develop or seek out better strategies.
There's some science on this—if you're curious, you can check out the Mechanisms section of Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey, a paper that summarizes decades of research into how goals affect performance.