""A gold medal is a wonderful thing, but if you're not enough without it, you'll never be enough with it"--Cool Runnings ***Even if you don't read this, check out the video if you can!*** "I will be happy if..." "When I get this......then......" These are statements that I hear OFTEN in my clinical practice and there absolutely have been times when I've also fallen into this. So, we end up chasing whatever goal it is that we think will make us happy/fulfilled/enough and once we get there we feel a momentary high only to ask ourselves, "Okay, what now? What's next?" And then the goalpost relocates. Good times. This is the 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐲. It's "the false, often unconscious belief that reaching a specific destination, achieving a goal, or attaining a certain status will deliver lasting happiness". It gives the impression that there's some clean and satisfying 'arrival point' where striving ends and contentment begins. But the reality is that that arrival ends up being more like a layover. A temporary high, followed by a crash, which then we try to fill up again--hedonic adaptation at play here. So here's the thing though because I don't want any of this to imply that goals are bad or that we shouldn't strive. That's ridiculous. It's more about not assigning these goals the emotional weight that they weren't intended to hold and not making your worth as a person dependent on the achievement of these goals. It's about checking ourselves and seeing what underlying driving forces are at play for us when we're striving. A promotion won't resolve our underlying restlessness, a PR won't permanently quiet our self doubt (though it may give evidence that 'hey, maybe we're better than we think'), a cleaner relationship though it can provide a level of safety won't just eliminate internal noise. 𝐆𝐨𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞. ***𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 (𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡-𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐬)*** If you’re someone who’s good at pushing, achieving, optimizing, you’re especially prone to this.

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.

@Bruno Militz has been working on a communication series and in his latest post (communication-difficult-conversations-series) he spoke about how words, emotions, and authority work together. This reminded me of a DBT Mindfulness Skill (Wise Mind) and thought I'd share a little bit! :) In DBT, there are three states of mind: Emotional Mind, Rational Mind, and Wise Mind. The goal isn’t to eliminate emotion or become hyper-logical but rather to create a middle path of wise mind (integrating and honoring both!) I also kind of think of these on a continuum /spectrum. I don't think any person is just "purely" emotion minded or rational minded. They are both present. Wise Mind allows us to be intentional with how we relate to these. :) Let's take a looksie! :) EMOTION MIND Thinking and acting primarily from feelings. Here mood determines perception and urges feel.... urgent. Experiences are interpreted through emotional intensity. Here's the thing though...these emotions are still influenced by thoughts, so it's not like thoughts do not exist. Pros of Only Using Emotion Mind: -intuition and sensitivity -empathy and relational awareness -passion, creativity, and motivation -quicker detection of potential threats (protective function) Cons of Only Using Emotion Mind -can distort interpretation of events/experiences that are meant to be neutral -can be more impulsive or reactive -can be more challenging tolerating distress -feelings as facts cognitive distortion "If I feel it, it must be true” thinking RATIONAL MIND Thinking logically, analytically, and factually. Decisions are based on evidence, structure, and reason. Pros of Only Using Rational Mind: -clear problem-solving -decreased impulsivity -strategic planning -ability to pause and assess outcomes Cons of Only Using Rational Mind: -can invalidate or suppress emotions (emotions are there to inform--they don't have to steer, but they give us valuable information)

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! :)

In @Steve Webb 's 30daychallengers group, some of us are doing a side challenge and reading the book "The Scout Mindset". It's been an informative read and had me reflecting on approaches to integrating new/challenging information, challening beliefs, and just overall communication with others. Below I'll do a quick overview of the difference between solider and scout mindset. Curious about where everyone fits and what you all think about this. :) 🪖 𝕊𝕠𝕝𝕕𝕚𝕖𝕣 𝕄𝕚𝕟𝕕𝕤𝕖𝕥 The goal here is to defend-protecting our current beliefs like territory. Attributes of this mindset include arguing in order to win, looking for confirming evidence, can feel threatened by opposing views and doubling down when challenged. Think debates. The pros related to this type of mindset are: having strong convictions, there's a loyalty to values and people can be decisive under pressure. The cons to this mindset include having blindspots, having a hard time updating beliefs with new information, and can have the tendency to escalate conflict. 🧭 𝕊𝕔𝕠𝕦𝕥 𝕄𝕚𝕟𝕕𝕤𝕖𝕥 The goal here is to see clearly. The point is to get a clear view of the map even if it challenges you. Integrating new information. Attributes of this mindset include being curious about opposing views, being on the search for disconfirming evidence, being comfortable with saying "i was wrong" or "I've updated my beliefs", and being able to adjust beliefs with new information. The pros related to this are that it contributes to more accurate (or updated) thinking, it's growth oriented and it can build trust because the other person feels heard. The cons are that it can feel destabilizing, it can contribute to slower decision making, and it can be perceived as less certain. --- Here's the thing...We all use both of these. The questions become "when" and "why". 𝐏𝐎𝐋𝐋:𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨: 𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍:What’s one belief you’re currently holding like a soldier that might benefit from a scout’s curiosity?