Do you have a "learning style"? Maybe not
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
Been gettin' out allot lately, paying my dues again.
I never have learned much from winning/losing is my teacher.
The greatest players of all sports have all been beaten to a pulp in match play, one time or another.
The greats will always keep on Keepin' on and don't walk away because ''it's too tough''.
Having played at a very high level till the mid 90's/divorce, here's how I improve.
In competition I'll make critical errors....these moments become etched in my mind on where my problem/weakness lies.
From those moment in time I return home work thru that and improve.
I'm fortunate enough tho to be able to Fix my problems because of my past.
I never have learned much from winning/losing is my teacher.
The greatest players of all sports have all been beaten to a pulp in match play, one time or another.
The greats will always keep on Keepin' on and don't walk away because ''it's too tough''.
Having played at a very high level till the mid 90's/divorce, here's how I improve.
In competition I'll make critical errors....these moments become etched in my mind on where my problem/weakness lies.
From those moment in time I return home work thru that and improve.
I'm fortunate enough tho to be able to Fix my problems because of my past.
While the wording here might seems harsh, it’s meant to help.
STOP, this shit.
Reviewing errors and asking questions like how did I do wrong here, are destructive.
Tasking the mind with how exactly you failed, is a horrible exercise in negative imagery.
Watching the greats, in whatever sport, after a mistake, reveals a different method.
They review the exact swing or methodology that they wanted instead, proper technique, situation connected, instant repair.
That solution, is rehearsed over and over, in the moment, almost erasing the mistake, making it just one instance in a series of correctly executed ones.
Rewriting history is something we do all the time.
“If I had known that, I would have…” creates a whole different timeline going forward, incorporated learning.
Without that process, many players let the moment define them.
Others realize they are, so much more than a mistake, here and there.
The sooner they can let it go and reduce its significance the better off they are.
The same applies to great shots.
File them away and move on.
It’s hard to make the next shot, with one hand patting yourself on the back.
Don’t become your own eraser of greatness.
Double down on it defining you, by finishing the job.
Last edited:
from post above by lmac007
"The same applies to great shots.
File them away and move on.
It’s hard to make the next shot, with one hand patting yourself on the back.
Don’t become your own eraser of greatness.
Double down on it defining you, by finishing the job."
thats a great saying.....
"The same applies to great shots.
File them away and move on.
It’s hard to make the next shot, with one hand patting yourself on the back.
Don’t become your own eraser of greatness.
Double down on it defining you, by finishing the job."
thats a great saying.....
Great shots have a feel. And when the greats get ''in that zone'', they smooth out and everything seems to slow down and become easy.
If you want to argue, go after another poster.
If you want to argue, go after another poster.
Not looking to argue or go after anyone.
Trying to help with mindset control.
Knowing what success looks and feels like is the key.
Putting intended outcomes first on the priority list, keeps us on track.
There was a ''term'' from my generation that held water.
Analysis Paralysis....
Analysis Paralysis....
Yes. We used to call it 'paralysis from analysis.'
I stand uncorrected Fran, adjectives not needed in the Midwest. 
Prepositions either.I stand uncorrected Fran, adjectives not needed in the Midwest.
pj
chgo
Isn't he saying his idea works so well that it should be made illegal, as in a joke?
That's how I read it.
Jeff Livingston
Pin
Registered
This is a lot to get to grips with because of the interplay of feel and visual.
The feel, especially as a sense of whether the subconscious has 'got it right' (so you're ready to go) ties in with 'my' idea of the subconscious working in this manner. I accept your point about the visual component.
But how do we really know what the subconscious prefers? What does it 'look like' to have a visual (or auditory) preference in the subconscious? And for a person with a V or A subconscious, what does the relationship between the kinesthetic function and the V/A function look like?
I suppose part of the answer is in the work of the psychologist you mentioned, and part is in your explanation of your own stroke. But I guess it's a difficult kind of experience to convey.
I think we're on the same page. The momentum that certain processes have seems to be something often overlooked. It makes me dubious of the value of, for example, Lee Bret's 'switch cue'. The idea that you immediately stop the conscious brain activity (not conscious thoughts, but neural activity) and start the subconscious ones. I can see that there's some value in what he's doing, but it's nudging the underlying brain activity in a particular direction, not stopping and starting it on a dime.
In the past, sometimes I'd get into the zone, then kind of freak myself out by how well I was playing: my psychology would become all conscious internal, pulling me right out of the zone. But I could still squeeze a couple of 'zone' shots out, in that state, before my play caught up with my 'choking' psychology! A really bizarre experience.
I struggle to accept this one, TBH. The idea that physical sensory input and emotion inherently have to be connected in this way. Why would they be? I do suspect two distinct styles (at least) that have just been wrapped up together in diagnosis and theory, thus far. But then, what do I really know? It just seems fishy.
Well, here's how I saw it. In glancing through the book, I saw in the book that the author is saying that there are certain physical genetic traits that lend towards excellence in sports. The author also mentions certain physical genetic traits in certain races of people. So, when the poster said if you replace physical with intelligence, that it could almost be illegal, it seemed like he was criticizing the book, saying that the author was one step away from saying that certain races were superior to other races. And I wasn't criticizing the poster for saying that because I hadn't read the book ye, and based on what I saw, it's possible that the poster's critique was correct and that maybe the author of the book was out of line. The poster had a knee-jerk reaction to my post and never explained what he meant by that comment, so we'll never know.
If a poster isn't going to take the time to make sure his post is clear, then he will have to deal with the consequences of others not getting his point.
Last edited:
You are correct....Thanks
Getting the nuance of a post is hard on a forum vs. inside a pool hall, for example.
Thanks for clarifying this,
Jeff Livingston
There is no switch that turns off one sensory mode and turns on another.
Just because we are right handed or left eyed doesn’t mean the other hand or eye aren’t in use.
The right/left example has that digital analogically sense to it, and that’s where it’s analogy is flawed.
Sensory preference has more than two senses in play.
Which one is drawn into the foreground is a matter of selective attention.
The other sensory information isn’t turned off, it just becomes the background and part of peripheral awareness.
My description of my experience and Lee of his are missing all that backdrop, but it’s there, and available resources, just not front and center in awareness.
This is about finding the natural ebb and flow of sensory awareness that triggers your best game.
The separation of mind and body is an old one, more on a computer model, digital, input from the mind running the machinery, the body.
The modern take is more integrated, in what they call embodied cognition.
Neurons exist throughout the body and form integrated functional clusters, needing no connection to the brain in the head.
There is an enteric nervous system that in spite of severed nerve connections to the brain in paraplegics functions to keep them alive.
Heart/lung transplant patients function locally despite severed connections, making the transplants possible.
Further research shows that when connected most of the information flow is one way, from the body to the brain.
Seretonin from the gut is instrumental in mood.
An emotion only crosses the awareness threshold into consciousness, more an after the moment reporting to “head”quarters.
The ability to break things down into parts and arrange them into timelines explains the role of the conscious mind
An emotion involves a collage of physiological responses, presented on a timeline, telling a story, instantaneously.
It is set in the present, pulling together a history and also a suggested future response, an impulse reaction, based on a present time orientation, in some cases, more a “I wish I could” inner reaction.
By the time it is in our awareness, we had no conscious decision making input.
Much of this happens below the threshold of awareness, but when it crosses that liminal boundary we gives the clusters names.
We wear our physiology, in smiles, frown and underlying postures.
Change the parts and the whole takes on a new persona.
Vision has a part of the brain we call the visual cortex, other parts specialize in other sensory functions.
The consciousness aspect of mind seems to be such a specialist, having the ability to veto impulses and change the context narrative enough to generate different functional responses.
The labels we give emotions are based on the cluster of physiological responses involved and reactive impulses involved, how we feel.
Fear triggers adrenaline, increasing heart rate, sweat, and a myriad of other stress triggers, shutting down digestion, sexual function and triggering elimination functions.
Emotions being experienced separate from their physiological effects causes cognitive dissonance on my end.
Last edited:
There is too much information here for me to read, especially since it is without supporting facts. Anyone can throw out data without proof. Now it's my turn. Information does not alway flow from the body to the brain like you wrote. Not at all. Do some research. The brain takes in information from outside stimuli or from itself and creates a command for the body to perform, like a movement, for example. The body does not move and then send that information to the brain. It's quite the opposite, and the point of origin for that information is the opposite of where you say. If the body is injured I don't know how the information processes and flows and it's probably one example where the brain gets information from the body, but it doesn't always react that way like you are trying to make everyone believe.