I often use the phrase "get your reps in" when it comes to encouraging others (and myself) to improve on a desired skill. But, there is a caveat here because getting our reps in implies only doing something over and over and if we're not intentional (and reflective) with what that something is it can lead us to plateau or perhaps even worsen. Improvement requires more than rote repetition. As a SIDE quest in @Steve Webb 's 30 day challengers community, we read the book 𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐤: 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐞. Thought I'd share some of the key takeaways here beeeecause this group is about Inspired and Empowered Living and I'd love for us to be even more equipped through life! 𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄: Getting really good at something is not about talent or repetition, but it's more about HOW we practice. :) 1. Again, repetition alone doesn't build expertise, deliberate practice does. This seems like an "of course" moment, but I do think that a lot of us get stuck in the cycle of just repeating something over and over and hoping that we'll improve. 𝐒𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤? 1. 𝐁𝐞 𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐘 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 about the what. What are we improving? Vague goals KILL progress. Ex: "Getting better at communicating" is not specific enough. Think about the DETAILS of what it means to get better at this. Things like "I will interrupt less", "I will make eye contact", "I will summarize what the other person said so that they feel heard and so that I get feedback on whether I understood their point" "I will ask more follow up questions"--think of observable and trackable behaviors! :) ---We talk a lot about strengths in this group, BUT this is actually about zeroing in on weaknesses and training them directly! :) 2.𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 :We can't improve what we can't see. This is one of the fastest 'shortcuts' to growth--without the ability to see what's actually happening and getting 'correction'/correcting ourselves, we're more likely to reinforce mistakes or things that will be challenging to fix down the line.

Saw this quote in another community and it was such a good reminder as it applies to soooooo many areas of life. :) "I"ll start when I'm ready" sounds responsible. Thoughtful. Maybe even wise. But often times it's more likely to be self-protection which then leads to procrastination and timidity in action. This 'waiting' for the perfect moment can actually erode self trust over time if we don't take action. And that's a disappointing feeling. We rarely feel 100% ready (but that doesn't mean that we're not ready)..Feelings, while valid, are not facts...They inform, but they don't need to drive. Motivation research shows us that action is often the thing that creates clarity and confidence (not the other way around). Growth almost always requires movement (rather than perfect preparation). Something to consider: There’s also a 𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 at play: the belief that future-you will be braver, more disciplined, or more prepared than present-you. BUT!!!! Avoidance reinforces anxiety which makes us LESS likely to engage in the behavior. This is that erosion of self trust I mentioned earlier! (Check out @Sofia Martinez 's post that very much relates to this erosion of self trust: the-agreement-you-keep-breaking-with-yourself) Sometimes “I’m not ready” is valid, but I think that we need to be honest with ourselves and identify if /when that's actually the case. (Check out @Kate Galli 's post that is related--points out to some things that may get in the way of us taking steps towards goals!!: 6-aversion-factors-that-quietly-kill-your-progress) (The video is related to how to make stress your friend. Figured it would be helpful to put us in better positions for taking on positive risks! :) )

Empowered decision making... I semi-recently finished reading 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝘁 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆 by Mel Robbins. I won't go too in depth with my thoughts on it, but I will say that throughout the book, I would just randomly pause and think about how this idea is very much related to 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹. And this, this is something that comes up A LOT with clients, with other people in life, and with myself. 𝕃𝕠𝕔𝕦𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕥𝕣𝕠𝕝 This is basically how we approach and how we interpret the causes of events in our lives. People with an 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 tend to believe their actions influence outcomes, while those with an 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 attribute outcomes to luck, fate, or other people/other influences. The “Let Them Theory” aligns closely with this framework. At its core, “let them” is about relinquishing control over others’ behaviors (external factors) while taking responsibility for your own responses (internal factors)--the things that actually belong to you. Instead of attempting to control unpredictable external variables (which often leads to anxiety and rumination), we redirect our focus toward what is actually within our control: our interpretation, our behavior, and our limits. In that sense, “let them” ends up being selective control. It's not the giving up of power, it's the reallocation of power and wielding it in a way that makes sense. It's the ability to really assess the question "What's mine vs. what's theirs?" "Who is responsible for what?" This is not about blame, but rather about responsibility. This to me is an empowered stance. :) POLL: When something doesn't go as planned in your life, what's your go to response? QUESTION:Do you think “letting them” always reflects a healthy internal locus of control, or can it sometimes become avoidance disguised as acceptance? ****If you have the time, definitely take a look at the video! :)

Okay, I'm a big "offender" of this. I double text (and triple and quadruple text) and I can get elaborate on details making some texts sound like little novels...And now, voice memos? A whole new ball game....yikes! But also...ooooh! :) Although never my intention, I'm sure there have been a few casualties along the way as a result of me doing this. (Feel free to send me a message and lmk! ha! ) But, I've been thinking about how much meaning we assign to different texting habits. 𝗗𝗼𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 (sending another message before the person replies) often gets labeled as “desperate” or “too much.” Perhaps it can even fall under the category of anxious or insecure. But honestly? Sometimes it just means someone is engaged, excited, or had another thought (or 10, ha). Context matters. I think that we internally 'know' where the energy is coming from. 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁𝘀 get a similar reputation. Some people see them as overwhelming; others see them as thoughtful and emotionally available. A long text can mean someone wants to be clear, transparent, and thorough. It can also mean they process externally. And it can also mean that they've been burnt in the past and want to be understood. Again, context matters and I think that we can recognize internally where this is coming from too. In my experience, the “best” type of communication isn’t about message length or timing rules. It’s more about clarity over mind games, consistency over intensity, directness over guessing and mutual effort over one-sided pursuit. I think that it's really important to communicate our 'go to' style so that we don't have to guess what it all means. I also think it's helpful to communicate/assess how things may land when we receive a text. Additionally, I think it's really really important to assess our whys behind what/how we're communicating and also how we're taking things in from the other person. (Why am I sending a novel right now--would it suffice to send something shorter? Is the other person more likely to be receptive if I send something shorter and if I don't double text? AND ALSO Why do I feel overwhelmed when I get a long paragraph or why do I feel anxious if a person doesn't answer for a long time or answers with a very short response? What's going on internally? Communication happens between two or more people. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝗼 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 AND 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀.

Thought I'd do a few posts about attachment styles because I do think that these play an important part in the health of relationships and I think that it's helpful to recognize where we are/the things that contribute to our interactions with others. :) 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 Attachment theory suggests that early caregiving experiences shape our internal working models and these serve to answer two core questions: 1)Am I worthy of love and care? 2)Are other people reliable and safe? Those answers guide our emotional regulation patterns, fight/flight response, and relationship behaviors. I actually think that attachment styels, while foundationally built when young, can also be impacted later in life with different types of experiences....Someone can be securely attached but if they encounter an unsafe relationship (or a relationship where signals are mixed, where one doesn't really know where they stand with the other person )it can potentially create an environment where someone secure can all of a sudden appear more anxious/insecure because that's the appropriate response to the situation. If they stay in a situation like this long enough, it can contribute to longer term effects that will then potentially lead to a more insecure attachment. (thinking about the impact that trauma has on this as well). 𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐓𝐲𝐩𝐞 (I maaaaay do a more in depth one for each of these in the future, but here's a brief overview). 1. 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 Core belief: I am worthy. Others are dependable. Yay! Nervous system: More regulated baseline; able to tolerate distress without catastrophizing; more CURIOUS. :) Curiosity is our friend, people. :) Conflict style: Direct communication, repair-oriented., honest/transparent; ability to take risks; Psychological strength: High emotional resilience and integration of autonomy and intimacy. 2. 𝗔𝗻𝘅𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 (𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗼𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗱) 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 Core belief: I might not be enough. I could be abandoned/rejected. Nervous system: Hyperactivated threat response (heightened sensitivity to rejection cues).