Q & A 12.0

(upbeat music) - Welcome everyone to The Golf Beneath the Surface Podcast. I'm your co-host, Raymond Pryor, with me as my co-host, Chase Cooper, the man in the myth and the legend. How are we doing, Chase? - Doing great, how about yourself? It's busy season, so. - It's busy season. - We're both talking off air about how it's getting, getting kind of crazy. It is, it's a busy summer of golf, which hopefully for the people listening, they're getting a lot of golf in. And some of the questions that we can answer today might help them make that a little bit better, a little bit more enjoyable, so. - Been a minute since we've done a Q&A and the questions keep on coming, so let's get to them. - Let's do it. Okay, here's question one. The question is about sleep and learning, and we had talked about sleep and learning, especially around getting a golf lesson, a couple of many episodes ago, so people can go check that out, but just to refresh and then just kind of clarify this question. The question is how soon after about of learning, for example, a golf lesson or practice, would help learning from a short-term and long-term memory, standpoint. So there's a big body of research on how sleep impacts learning, and just a little bit of the neuroscience behind it. When we gather information from our day, whether we're in about of learning, or just going about our lives, it's what we're experiencing, and how our brain is learning, whether that's a reinforcement schedule, or a skill, or a motor pattern, or memorizing information, for example, something academically, that information is going into a short-term storage unit first, that unit is our hippocampus, basically, okay? And it gets put in there, but the hippocampus kind of has like one real significant flaw hence its short-term memory, and that is kind of limited storage. It can only hold so much. So think of it kind of like a flash drive, or an external hard drive where you fill it up, but if it gets full, what happens is, as more information comes in, it kind of spills out the other side, so information gets lost. So it's not, I'm full, and I stop information from coming in. It's more, I'm full. So new information coming in pushes out other information, all right? So this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a limitation to our short-term memory. Well, what moves all the memories and information and consolidates it, and sorts it, and organizes it, and moves that into long-term storage, which is more in our neocortex, is sleep itself, particularly REM sleep. I'm sorry, non-REM sleep, so that's our deep sleep, where basically short-term information gets moved from this hard drive or flash drive into like this infinite ish memory storage in our neocortex, where we can then pull from that as a long-term memory. And what happens is that gets distributed, particularly for something, for example, like a motor pattern, into the faster, stronger driven parts of our brain, like the cerebellum, and the basal ganglia, which run all our motor patterns, and all that type of stuff. So basically, those areas of the brain have better access to those than in short-term memory, which is why you could get a golf lesson, and it gets a little bit squirrely. You go sleep for a little bit and come back, and some of that information is consolidated and reorganized, or even some information lost gets restored in that. So sleep is wildly important for us learning stuff in terms of how information gets transferred, organized, and sorted, and even replaced when it's lost. So all that to be said, if I was gonna get a golf lesson, the best way to boost the learning that you do in that lesson would be to sandwich it between sleep. So not a knock against the golf teaching industry in any point, but if you have someone who comes to a golf lesson sleep deprived, it is essentially a waste of time. Sorry, okay? So I would want to make sure that I have slept really well the night before, and try to get my lesson as close to my sleep as I can and provide it I'm just awake and warmed up. So if I was going to get a golf lesson and I had the choice, I would want to do that earlier in the morning after I have just slept really well because what that means is my hippocampus, my short term storage is got a lot of space in it, and I would want to get as much from that lesson as I could in that. Then you would also want to sandwich it with sleep, meaning if I can take a nap afterward, that will then move that information sooner into my neocortex and into my long-term memory so that it doesn't get pushed out by information later in the day. So this doesn't mean that I need to go sleep eight hours before and eight hours after everything, but even like you could take a nap before you would go to a lesson or to practice. For example, if you're a college athlete and you're having a hard time sleeping, like if you can do, if you're going to practice for four hours, you'd be better off sleeping for 20 minutes of that before you go do that, then practicing that full time because you're going to get more information encoded in that. And then also if you can sandwich some sleep in afterwards. So a 20 or 30 minute nap after bouts of learning show that there's a 20 to 25% increase in learning both in the short term and then accelerated learning in the long term, not surprisingly, because now I have long-term access to that information. So for the question, the more you can sleep beforehand, the more space you have to be able to encode information among a host of other benefits that sleep offers us to be able to learn better energy, focus, hormone levels, all kinds of stuff, better mood, better focus, all that stuff. And then also afterward, if I take a lesson and then with, in hopefully, one ultradion rhythm, which is 90 minutes, if I can go get some sleep or at least some pretty significant down regulation, so I might not sleep, but I might sit with my eyes closed for 30 minutes and try to sleep, but even if I don't, there is still benefit to be gained from there. So to answer the question with some very specifics, it's like the sooner you can get sleep before, the sooner you can get sleep after, the more likely you are to be able to gather more of that information from short-term to long-term memory, not just to pull it in, but also to transfer it later. This would be ideal. But if we're just giving some day-to-day protocols for people who have lides outside of their golf lessons and their practice, get full night of sleep as often as you can the night before. If you can do your practice or lessons or learning as close to that full sleep as you can, great. If you don't, try to get a nap or some down regulation beforehand and try to get some nap or a full night of sleep as best you can afterwards. So long in the short of it, the better sleep you get both before and after learning, the better that learning is going to encode into your brain. So those would be some basic protocols for that. So, yeah. - I'm thinking about all my high school and college players that love taking naps all the time are like nodding. Like, yep, I love it. I love the advice dot, a couple of questions. Like when sometimes it's just from personal experience, like I'll take a quick nap. I don't take many naps anymore, but quick nap and I'll wake up like super tired. What's the science behind that? Is there something to keep that? 'Cause like my dad would call him power naps, he'd go take a 10 minute nap and wake up refreshed. And I wake up, and I feel like I've been in a days for a long time. - Yeah, the length of the nap matters. So you want to keep your naps under one old trading rhythm, especially it's probably more likely to be for adults, like 30 minutes. Anything after that and what happens is your brain starts to think, oh, we're taking a full night of sleep. - This is legit. - So it starts to really get in, you start to get into deep or sleep, which is harder to come out of. You're just gonna feel more groggy and more tired coming out of it because your brain has shifted into sleep mode. Where again, so a nap, it's kind of like a refresher. It's a recharge without it being clicked into, oh, this is a full-blown recharge. Also, if you're taking naps and you are regularly tired after, even if it's a 30 minute nap, it's probably an indication that there's some level of sleep deprivation either acute or long-term going on where your brain is going, oh, I'm really craving this sleep and pushing me more into that rather than just being a recharge. So a lot of college athletes, high school kids, even adults who aren't sleeping well enough would benefit greatly from a nap, but if that nap gets too long, it's trying to replace lost sleep or gain sleep deprivation or trying to get rid of sleep deprivation through a nap. It's a pretty good indicator for us as humans that if I'm doing stuff during the day where I'm kind of falling asleep or having a really time being awake, usually the primary indicator there is that you are not sleeping. - Okay, and that 30 minutes is kind of the window for the quicknaps, 25 minutes. - Yeah, quicknaps, 20 to 30 minutes. If you're an adult biologically meaning over the age of 18, you definitely don't want to go past 32 often because again, what's happening is now you're cutting into your sleep, your brain is either in sleep mode or it's also now cutting into your bedtime and nighttime sleep, that full eight hours, hopefully nine for most people. If you're really trying to optimize your waking hours, getting enough sleep is like got treated as sacred. If you're really trying to be a happy, healthy, high performing human being, that nighttime sleep where we get the full dose of sleep and all its benefits is like that is so much more important than we give it credit for. Naps are certainly helpful. Things we can do to promote waking are certainly helpful but we really want to be able to do that. to protect and leave sacred that night time sleep. That is where we get the most juice out of our sleep, which is, again, vital for everything we do when we're waking. And then going back to your comment about, like if if if I'm one that has a hard time taking a nap and actually going to sleep, just eyes closed for 25, 30 minutes. I suppose for 30 minutes, like a deep down regulation, whether that's through a meditative practice, a mindfulness practice, or just sitting with your eyes closed, there's a ton of benefits to that. They might not be the full benefits of actually falling asleep, but you're going to get a partial dose of it. And when it comes to sleep, some is always better than none for us, where okay, some benefit of just sitting and resting is still better than me just plowing through and then having a bunch of caffeine or something of that nature, right? Perfect. And then I've got two more follow-up questions. Can we train our brain to have a better memory? Like some people have idetic memories and like, is that a, could I even call it a skill? Yeah, for sure. Memory is something that we can improve there. Basically, if we were talking about how the basic training of memory works, it's not just learning it, but recalling it. So, for example, if you went and learned something from this podcast today, if you wanted to train your memory on it, you would go talk about it with somebody else and then go talk about it with something. So, memory is enhanced not by just having it, but how often I recall it over time, right? So, if you think about like adding a word to your vocabulary, not just learning it and what it means gets us into our vocabulary, what gets us into our vocabulary and kind of a voluntary non-like, I have to consciously add it to my vocabulary is using it repeatedly, right? So, by the way, not that dissimilar than training a golf swing. Like, learning a motion is one thing. Repeating that in a variety of settings and with a variety of different contexts is what starts to ingrain that over time. And then the other added later to that chase is like adding more senses to it. So, if I learn something, can I then go write it down and write it out? Can I then go speak it with somebody? So, I'm using a variety of different sensations. We call this multimodal learning. The more types of senses and ways that you can engage with that information or that memory, the stronger it becomes because now you have more areas of the brain and more neural pathways that it can pull from. Okay, so, if I go back to my high school college days, like, if I was cramming for a test, some of these things could have been ways in which I could have retained the information a little bit better or was by writing it down, was by going through and talking to it with colleagues and classmates and all that stuff. So, if you think about there's a big difference between learning and just recall or memorization. So, cramming for a test is like, let me just smash a bunch of information on my head to be able to pull out in the next couple of hours. There's some value in that. It's not long-term learning though. Long-term learning is I'm studying the information. I'm reading it. I'm writing it. I'm talking about it. There's probably meaning applying it, meaning doing some homework. Like, there's a variety of different ways where I'm encoding that in some ways that are far more long-term oriented than just memorize it and recall it. So, again, not that cramming for a test can't help you get an A or get a better grade or pass a test, but it is not learning information in a way where your brain is designed to be able to have access to that. And the significant layer of learning is can I apply and adapt this information? All right. So, if we're taking it out of academics and putting into a golf swing, like, okay, I know how to hit a draw, but can I off a flat lie? Flat lie, but can I do that off of a different lie or a different stance or with a different club or with a lower trajectory versus a higher trajectory? Like, you don't memorize that on a golf range and then be able to pull that out three months later. That is a long-term process of application, multimodal learning, and recall again and again rather than just I smash it in there and then I'm good to go, which a major misconception about something like a golf lesson is if I go golf lesson, I do it in there, that'll just, like we've talked about transfer, like short-term memorization is not long-term transfer. All right, so there's a significant flaw with that, but what takes short-term information and puts it into long-term information for our brain, long-term memory, that's that procedural memory that we've talked about or procedural processing versus more declarative, which is short-term conscious thinking through, what moves it to where we can get the most out of it, is sleep itself, the sooner before, the sooner after, is basically the rules for it. And then final follow-up on that, perfect segue, is like you hear famous guys, like an Elon Musk or even a member Steve Jobs talking about this a little bit where famously, Elon said he needs three or four hours of sleep and then he's super smart and, you know, genius level and can do all this stuff. What do you say, what's the research say on some of that? The research is very clear on people who claim that they need less than full dose of sleep, and that is that they are full of shit. I figured that was coming, I saw your smirk when I asked the question. There are certain people who can operate unimpaired with less than, I think, it's seven hours of sleep. But if you took the number of people in the world who can do that, by the way, it's a genetic mutation that allows them to do this. If you took that number of people and expressed it as a percent of the population and rounded that percent to the nearest closest number, the number would be zero. So if you think you are that person, the only way to actually confirm that is if you actually got a genetic test that would bear that out. Most people think they can get by on that, but what they've actually done is moved toward what we call baseline resetting, which is I just get used to being sleep deprived all the time and I think this is my best operating. And it's not in the same way that many golfers settle for a golf swing. I think this is the best I can do. No, it's not. You can do better, but you'd have to do something different to be able to do better. But for those who are like, no, I'm really good. My best amount of sleep is five hours. No, it's not. And nine is the, would you say nine in general's the goal? Eight hours devoted towards sleep is what we need for our brain to get all five old trading rhythms worth of sleep. But most people need to devote nine hours to sleep to actually get those because very few people in our modern world now sleep through the night without disruptions either because they're not really taking care of their sleep during the waking hours. As we get older, it gets harder to sleep. We spend a lot of time on screens. There are a lot of things that keep us from sleeping well at night because of our waking hours. Among biological and physiological things, the vast majority of people should be devoting nine hours of time to trying to get a full night's worth of sleep. And in that nine hours, you might only sleep six or six and a half of them. But that's still like even eight hours of sleep. You know, it was you come out of an old trading rhythm. There is some waking. It's very, it's hardly perceptible for us depending on how well we sleep. But that you don't just sleep for eight hours straight. There's some waking involved with that, which again, we want to do a podcast on sleep. We can get into that for sure. But the long and the short of it is the vast majority of people don't sleep well enough or often enough or deeply enough because they're simply not devoting enough. And do you ever have a client that you recommend 10 or 11 hours of sleep? Does it ever get more? Very rarely. There is such a thing as too much sleep. But for most people, I would only recommend that if you are you've moved time zones, variety of different times, whatever, but for most people, you want to shoot for somewhere between eight and nine hours. And again, most people would benefit more from getting closer to nine. Okay. That's a long way to say sandwich your bouts of learning with which make your bouts of learning a sandwich with sleep bread. This question Chase was about, so I was on the podcast. How low can you go? I think you were a guest after I was there too. And I had a bit of, I guess it was a bit of a clip that I had to go find it a little viral where I was talking about how your brain is not designed to allow you to try to shoot a 65 if you're protecting from an 80. This is of course relative to your skill level, whatever those numbers might be. But just basic brain stuff on our brain is not designed to allow us to pursue freely while also trying to avoid something else. And apparently there was a bit of an online discussion in one of the more prominent statistical people in the field. Someone asked them like, are there numbers to bear this out? And then that person had a post that quite frankly was a lot of words to not say much at all. And the reason, and we don't blow people up on this podcast, that's not really our thing. My point with this is there aren't any stats from the PJ tour or the LPJ tour or live or any other tour that would bear that out for our brain because nobody tracks stats based on what a person is actually thinking and trying to do with a golf shot. It only sells you what happened with the golf shot really has no why. And we've talked about this on the podcast before where the stats that we get from golf are important, but they are not very predictive because they are not filtered through enough things to tell you not just what happened but why. They don't account. They basically only account for distance and the perhaps the club used and then where that golf ball ended up, they don't account for the wind, they don't account for the previous shot, they don't account for a person's internal psychological state, they don't even account for what time zone it's in whether that person is sleep deprived or not whether they have think like there are none. So you can go on and on about the stats. stay this, but they don't actually tell you why, which is why I always kind of push back on people, "Oh, my stats are this, my stats are this," and I always ask, "Under what conditions?" Right? So there is an infinite amount of data on psychological and neurological testing, showing very clearly that our brain does not allow us to pursue and avoid at the same time, and anybody's anecdotal experience will also tell them that as well. Are there stats from the tours to bear that out? No, there is not. And the reason why is because they're not measuring that in the first place. So you can have a long post and go through a bunch of stuff, but if that's not a filter that the stats are being run through, you cannot make any conclusive evidence about that. Hence, it was a very long post that really at the end of it, if you boil the down, said, "I don't know," and they don't. Yeah, I don't know the post you're referencing. I know the video and I got in there and made some comments on that, and I think a lot of people got locked into, like, "Well, if I can shoot 65, I don't always shoot 80," and it was like, "Don't worry about the numbers." No, that's just not really. It wasn't the point. The point was if you don't have the freedom to go out there and pursue your best and fail, and you're protecting against shooting 80, you're never going to have access to 65, which you said that clearly. And so I think the problem is it goes viral, and then people see it without the context, and then it was like, "Oh, it's 80 versus 65. I haven't shot 80s in a long time." Well, then it's like, "Well, PJ Tour player's average difference between worse, round and best, round and PJ Tour is 16, 17." It's a lot. It's a lot. They do do it, right? It does happen. It's 62 to 79, it's typically the range, but it still comes back to it. It's just more, "Are you playing freely? Can you accept that bad things may happen, and you're not going to avoid those bad things happening?" I would also point out, again, there's this viral thing, but also the PJ Tour, I'll just use that, and the LPJ Tour, because these are kind of our top tours, like Stroke's gained is kind of their primary stat that they use for a variety of different things, including gambling. It is a statistical analysis that would not fly in the vast majority of fields, because it is not predictive, and it is not taking into account enough filters. A Stroke's gained stat in the military would never fly. At most corporations, with that much money online, also never fly, because you really wouldn't get any information from it other than what happened. Say you're a big insurance company, and you're running these cat models of trying to predict what kind of policies need to cost what at what risk. You would never use something that doesn't tell you why something may or may not have happened. It is probably the best stat available to them right now, in terms of predicting not even really predicting, but relaying scores, but it wouldn't fly in the vast majority of fields. It's not a very sophisticated statistical analysis. Doug, if you could add one thing to make it more predictable, would you say portable EGs, like is that all? If you were going to actually go, "Did this person play this shot freely, you would neither need two things." You would need to be able to measure that in real time, which would probably be something brain activity oriented. What's actually like, did that person actually even hit the shot that they were trying to hit, is a question that you actually cannot answer with a Stroke's gained, right? So you'd have to be able to record brain activity in real time and match it to the outcome, or have people self-report that they did or didn't do that, which I do with my hair. Yeah. Or even just like, I was trying to hit it here, how freely did I actually do that? Would be massively valuable, but most people aren't really tracking that. They're looking more at the golf swing, or, "Oh, you can't hit it there for whatever reason." But if someone hits it somewhere, you don't really know why just yet. And even looking at a golf swing on a camera, that someone hit on the golf course, it's not super revealing unless the angle is exactly same. And you know the intent of the shot that they were actually trying to hit. Exactly. And even the shot tracers aren't perfect either. They don't always catch the ball just right and see the curves and all that stuff. Okay. You went viral. You got to get on social media and defend yourself, man. Viral. Okay. Here's our next question. This one's a pretty interesting one. The long and the short of it is talking about how our brain multi-tasks, which we've talked about before, it can, or at least it tries to, and that often becomes pretty disruptive to us. So the question is essentially, what I would like to know is if the priority of that brain is to achieve the goal of getting us out of discomfort, why does it not simply do the task of not three-putting so the golfer can exit out of the situation? So essentially, if I'm like, just don't three-putt and get me out of here as soon as possible, why doesn't it two-putt and just get out of there as soon as possible or perhaps one-putt? So the first reason for that is, well, that's not actually the task. So two-putting isn't really the task. The task is get me out of here and get on to something more comfortable. So what happens with that is your skills become deeply compromised, right? And that becomes true, like the more you want to get on to the next moment, the intensity of it, and the more tasks I add to that, to try to make sure I don't three-putt, like be perfect, steer this golf ball down there, don't hit it too hard, don't hit it too soft, the more compromised my physical skills become. Now what I'm doing is the process is basically called reinvestment, which is now I'm using the slowest, weakest parts of my brain to run more and more tasks and in an effort to try to get to the next moment, and the physical skills become so compromised that now the variance of my golf ball, meaning putting, gets so wide that the likelihood of me one-putting or two-putting massively decreases, because I essentially get worse at what I'm doing, right? So you can't eliminate risk altogether, including the discomfort that you're feeling, and you can't eliminate variance altogether, and then both of those become massively, massively compromised. The more I'm just trying to get to the next thing, because getting to the next thing doesn't include the quality of how those are being executed, and it requires us to just add more tasks that are disruptive to actually just doing the thing in front of us. So why don't we just don't three-putt and get on to the next thing? Well, most people would really love to, but the way they go about that actually increases the likelihood of three-putting or worse, because the way I'm asking myself to go about that is massively compromising to the skill behind. Yeah, I think back to when I struggled with driver, and it was like, I can't hit it right, don't hit it right, don't hit it right, don't hit it right, it was really hard for me to then lock into that, actually try to hit a shot, because my brain went, say we're too tight or right, don't go over there, don't go over there at all costs, don't do it, and it's really hard to do anything else. Yeah, and we also might say focus focus on anything else. It's very difficult to focus on a singular pursuit-based task about where you actually want to go while your mind is trying to filter through every single way to try to avoid where you don't want it to go. In that case, I'm going to guess chase you missed left a lot. Most of the time, yeah. Right, so if I go don't three-putt by whatever means that would be, let's say it's a downhill putt, well don't hit it too far, I'm probably going to leave them very short and leave myself a lot of testy putts to not three-putt, and if it's uphill or a situation where I might hit it to, or hit leave it short, then don't hit it too hard, like basically the task that would then hit me to the next thing by not three-putting makes it more likely for me to three-putt because now I have an opposite miss that I have to deal with more frequently, right, so if it's don't miss right, I'm probably going to miss left a lot. If it's don't hit it too short, I'm probably going to miss long or vice versa, in which case then again, I'm getting worse at the thing in an effort to just get to the next thing. And then you start playing better golf courses and let's say rides out of bounds, but way less usually, it's like 18 at sawgrass, left water stinks, but the right trees aren't good either, so then you start playing this, well don't go left, well don't go right either, and then you actually hit it left because you flinch it in part. If you think about a challenging pin location while you're putting, that typically means that there's going to be two straight putts by definition, one downhill, one uphill-ish, and then the rest of them are going to be pretty challenging brakes to read, so if I'm always trying to not three-putt, I'm probably going to be more likely to put myself in a spot where I have a more challenging putt coming up next because I haven't really taken on sitting in the discomfort of the first one, all right, so. Okay, you go for a couple. How do you get yourself to step off a shot when something small grabs your attention right as you're getting ready to take the club back? Is there anything we can train in our psychology to help with this? One of the things that I'll always say is, you know, and I use your analogy of like, you know, water crashing into the rocks on the seashore, like, if it completely grabs my attention, don't shank it and I can't get my brain to go back into what my pursuit-based task is, then I will try to challenge my players to back off, back off, or even if it's in the takeaway, kind of tiger style of like stopping the swing. A lot of times, I'm to the point now where like, I've done all the connected breathing exercises and stuff to where like, I can, I can fill myself, or since myself saying, don't shank it or don't hit it left, and then I'll redirect and say, no, what do I want? You know, can I accept that I'm ashing this ball or I may hit it left? Yes, okay, now what do I want? And if it happens quickly, I'm okay with not backing off and just still staying in the pursuit-based task. But I've, I've, I think I've done a good job with my players this, this semester, especially this season, especially of getting them to be okay backing off because a lot of players just don't want to do it. I mean, did you're going to be out there for five hours anyway? Like, you can make up time. I don't want to back off every shot, but if mentally we keep getting all these distractions, sometimes that's the only option. So my question to you on this would be like, from a psychology standpoint, like, how can we train our brain to be better at whether it's dealing with the distractions or kind of refocusing or re-centering back to what we're trying to do? Yep. So, a couple of things. First is we might really pay attention to what is my overall task orientation, even when I'm just going into my round. If I go in with a, this is a tough round, like, just don't screw this up or don't hit this certain miss or don't three put, I'm going to get more quote-unquote intrusive spontaneous thoughts related to those tasks that might be in competition with the thing that I'm actually trying to do. So, if I'm establishing, this is how I want to play today, this pursuit-based thing, I'm going to try to play this shot and my willingness to accept variation, including very unwanted variation is high. My brain doesn't have the task that I need more spontaneous thoughts about, particularly, while I'm standing over a mouthful, which is our brain understands like, okay, we're doing it now. This is the moment of truth, right? Having said that, we still have thoughts, spontaneous things pop up, even if we're really high acceptance and really high pursuit. And our external environment also doesn't just stop doing things simply because we're standing over a golf ball so that could be someone talking, cars driving by, somebody else hits a shot, like, all kinds of stuff can can be disruptive to that. So, to the point, like, have I established a task orientation for my brain when I go play golf that would really require me to only have my brain thinking about stuff that is aligned with that. So that means high pursuit, high acceptance. And then also to your point, I want to mindfully train myself to pay attention to my thoughts and feelings in a way where when I have them, they are just thoughts and feelings, they are not facts, they are not pre-cursors to my future, and they are not commands that I must follow simply because they exist. It's just a thought or a feeling that my brain spit at me. And then if they are strong enough or disruptive enough, being willing to step off of a golf ball. And just resetting to a pursuit based task with a high level of acceptance. And what I always remind people, look, I'm not an advocate for slow play. I think the purpose of stepping into a golf shot is to try to hit it. But there are times when, quite frankly, our brain is cooked on something else. The worst thing we can do is hit that golf ball anyway. In terms of what is it that we are reinforcing for our brain. So if every time I'm over a golf shot going, "Uh-oh, don't hit it left." And I hit it anyway. I'm essentially reinforcing to my brain. Hit me with that thought now because that's what I did afterward. So whatever thoughts and feelings we then act upon, not have, but then act upon, get reinforced. So the more I have thoughts I don't necessarily like or aren't helpful for me, I step off and go, "No, that's not how I'm going to do it." The less frequent and the less intense those thoughts are going to become over time. And then what I always remind people is I don't love slow play either. But you know what? Takes a lot more time. More shots. So if I step off and hit a better golf shot more often, that still takes less time than hitting a shot that could go anywhere because I was thinking about who knows what. And now I've got an extra shot on this whole most likely. Right. I've always loved what you said about, you know, being non-judgmental with your thoughts. Like they're just thoughts. I've always taken that to heart. But the one thing I haven't really thought about that you kind of hammered home just now is accepting by having a high level of acceptance of the thoughts and like the thoughts. It's kind of the same thing. They're just thoughts. But I'm kind of curious how, you know, having more acceptance allows us to redirect a little bit sooner. And I guess it's because we start to, if we don't accept that we're going to have bad thoughts, then we judge our thoughts more and then we get into the vicious cycle. And then they become something I have to do something with. Right. So if I'm not accepting, accepting means you're allowed to just have it without judgment. So it's not a good thought, a bad thought. It's not something I should or shouldn't be having. It just is. It's not a fact. It's not a precursor to the future. It's not a command I must follow. It's also not something I have to do something with. It's just an idea. The more I build that kind of flexible relationship with those thoughts, then I can have them, but they don't have to occupy any of my effort, my focus, or my energy. Right. So we used to think a long time ago that high performers never had certain thoughts and feelings. It turns out they have them all the time. They just don't give them any like value, basically. So this is just an idea who gives a crap what it is. Right. And so the more I learn to go, that's just a thought that I don't about what I don't want to happen or this is just a feeling I'm having right now. But I don't treat it as if it, oh, if it says this, it must be true. That if I'm having this, that must mean a certain thing for my future. And that if I have this, I must follow it as if it's command. Like if I have the thought, don't hit it left, then I better not hit it left. It's just, yeah, it's just a thought about not hitting it left. Then what happens is I don't have to do something with my thoughts and feelings, which means I can focus on doing something with the actual task at hand. Going back to A versus V, I have to get up to a good start because if I don't, I'm not going to shoot, I'm not going to play well today. And if I don't do that, then the college coaches aren't going to want me here. I'm not going to team or all that stuff. And it just layers upon layers. And then if you also go, I cannot have the certain, I must not have these certain thoughts. Because if I do, that means I'm in trouble, then I have to do something with my thoughts. I either have to avoid them, suppress them, change them, fix them, get more positive, whatever that might mean. In which case, then now the priority is not my performance. And executing golf shots, the priority is doing something with my thoughts and feelings. Yeah, it's really, really, really good. More, it's more work is not always, is not always the answer. Sometimes you just let live in it. Look, you're, we don't, we don't get extra points in our performance for thinking a certain way. Right, performance happens in a, did I execute this shot in a way that is consistent with how I want to do it now? We might say thinking in certain ways is more conducive to that. But if I have thoughts that are not conducive to that, I don't need to go fix them and do something with them. If I almost just treat them as if they're just some, a passing mental event or passing emotional event and do nothing with them, then what that allows me to ask questions, what do I want to do? And how do I want to do it with this actual physical golf shot in front of me? That's the priority. Our internal experience is not the priority when we're playing golf. It's the first domino that if it's in a certain space, it's hard for us to actually prioritize the thing that's, that's the actual priority. So the more we learn to just have thoughts and feelings and do nothing with them, which if you're going back to my book, I have a contemplative mindfulness practice where you learn to just think and feel freely with doing nothing with them. That cognitive diffusion we call it, which means having thoughts and feelings without having almost seeing them at a distance, then allows space between our thoughts and feelings for us to go, well, what do I want to do and how do I want to do it? And do I even want to do anything with this thought or this feeling? And the less we do stuff with our thoughts and feelings, when the time is for us to actually be doing something physical, the better off we are with that physical thing. And do you feel like the more likely the brain is going to, like you said, kind of stay on the task-based approach, like this is what we're going to do. We're doing the thing and we don't need the random spontaneous thoughts as much. The more you have thoughts and do nothing with them, the less reinforced having thoughts becomes. So if I want to have fewer intrusive thoughts, it's not about turning them off. It's about having them and doing nothing with them and then eventually your brain kind of is like, well, I guess we don't really need that. And it starts to become soft. Now that happens over time gradually, but that one of the primary symptoms, like byproducts of people who practice mindfulness regularly is they get fewer intrusive thoughts. And when they do, they're less intense. That's good. All right. This next one's a little long. The question or the person that's into question lists a couple of names. I'm going to kind of weed them out. All right. Another coach teaches that his whole thing is centered around how the only thing that really matters is the ability to take in and hold your target when you're over the golf ball, which will help lower brain activity. Brain wave activity. The person asks the question is wondering how this relates to the yep, something that they've struggled with with short human putting. But for the purpose, we'll just say putting is it enough to be able to hold the target in your mind really well to get rid of the yips. The coach seems to insinuate that when there's an interruption, the signal between the brain and the muscles, it's because the brain is distracted. Thus elevating brain wave activity and increasing the probability of a yep. And the questioners experience, there are times where I, they feel like they're holding the target really well, but but they'll still get pussed. So he's wondering if there are any gaps that we could close between the coaches model and then the acceptance model. Totally. So that coach, whatever they're talking about from a neurological standpoint is technically correct. If I'm only holding the task of go toward that target and that's the only thing, what that means is my brain activity is decreased in intensity and frequency, meaning alpha and theta weight. So lower brain activity, which means the neural pathways, the connection between those and my muscles is as streamlined as it can get. So it's going to be more efficient. Okay, so that is technically correct. We might say, when the task, which golf is a target sport, is the target, and that's the only task, then what happens is I have a very clear connection between my brain and body for a pursuit paste task toward that target. That is 100% correct. The caveat to this is our psychology is in front of our neurology and the order of operations. So what that instruction is assuming is that you don't have any other tasks attached to that that would impede that and supersede it, which by the way, the source of the yips is anxiety and anxiety supersedes. It's an avoidance based task, which our brain neurologically supersedes over pursuit based tasks, the survival mechanism. So if I have the yips, the source of the yips is anxiety, and I don't address the anxiety behind it and the opposite of anxious, which is avoidant of the future is accepting of the future or an open ended future. Then I can hold that target in my brain, all I want, what my brain is really running is don't do this, don't let this happen, what if this happens, so on and so forth. So again, the assumption is that there's nothing, no other task that would supersede just holding a target in your head. So I would push back on any neuroscience that is saying the only thing that matters is holding a target in your head. No, it's not what the asking the question what would keep you from just holding that target in your head and what we know from the science on both the psychological science and the neuroscience on flow state is that flow state is this is the only task. It's immersion in the task at hand. You can train being present more often, but you can train your focus to be on the target as much as you want. If in the background, it's don't get judged by other people, don't do this chip, don't have the yips anymore, don't do this. You can hold that target in your brain as much as you can, there's always going to be something in the background running behind it. So anything that falls under the category of nonacceptance gets an avoidance based task, which will go in the up the priority list relative to a pursuit based task. So while it is absolutely correct that if you were just holding that target in your head, you would have the most streamlined approach to your physical skills that is running on the assumption that there's not any other task that is competing with that or not just competing but oppositional to that meaning an avoidance based task at the same time. Another caveat to this is perhaps you were holding a target in your head without any other task competing, but your technique is not very good. In which case did you yip meaning anxiety drove the physical motion by either hesitation or jerking or does your technique bottom out the club too soon or not soon enough or so on and so forth. So there are some layers to this to be able to kind of assess and diagnose, but if your technique is relatively sound and your low point is functional or at least semi consistent and you're holding a target in your head. Now the question is what else is in there right and without again a level of acceptance anything on the unacceptable list goes on in avoidance based task was and it will supersede whatever target you're holding in. One of the things that's tricky with this type of training so let's say you know we're training that to quiet our brain waves in whatever way possible in practice when no one's watching in the gun you know the lights aren't bright you can get to that point where acceptance goes up and it's there's nothing that really matters but. When we and we're so solely focused on the the whole or the right edge of the target or whatever it is on the pot but when we get into the tournament or when the stakes get higher and acceptance levels aren't high enough then that's in your point that's where avoidance takes over and it doesn't matter what we're focused on the brain we may go you be all day long. We there's a period of time in the late 90s and 2000s when there's a pretty heavy body of research on just focus training like the way to be focused is to just train your focus to just narrow narrow narrow narrow narrow. What we are seeing more and more now is you do not have you could train focus all you want if there's a psychological task or psychological framework that is pulling you towards something else you cannot just train your way around it right so my pushback on all the neurological kind of focus band just control your brain waves hold the task thing is again it is assuming there's nothing else pulling your focus away and what we also see is that when our psychological framework is shaped in a way. That pushes us toward being present it's almost too easy for us like I always tell players what you're looking for is it feels suspiciously easy for you to be task oriented what that means is there's nothing else competing with it right so again can these be really valuable tools and is the neuroscience behind that instruction technically correct yes. And again focus band stuff can be helpful tool in the same way that a launch monitor can be a really helpful tool but you cannot take them to the course so that means it's up to me to check my first domino in this domino effect is my psychology what am I bringing to this task that would keep me from actually being neurologically and physically focused on executing this task and I need to be the one who can read whether I'm doing that because I can't do that. I can't bring a launch monitor or focus band on the golf course so to be like even my pushback a little bit on like how much people are leaning on launch monitors is they're not learning where they're making contact on the club face or not learning or the same thing with these focus bands or something like I'm not learning am I even paying attention to how I'm showing up for this golf shot and what is it that I'm actually asking myself to do because something else does it for me and I don't have to work to figure that out. So while they can be really helpful tools I the analogy I use is they're kind of like training wheels when you're learning to ride a bike they're very helpful for getting a feel of oh this is what it means to be presently focused and target focused. But at some point I got to take the training wheels off and learn how to do this myself otherwise I can only ride so fast for so long. So all the like neuro and biofeedback things again can be very helpful for us getting this is what it feels like in the same way that a launch monitor can show you your path or your face. But I need to be able to orient to those while I'm playing if I want to be high performing when it's actually happening and those things are not available to me. There's no I'll just kind of end the rant on this there is no more finely tuned device to paying attention to what we are showing up with and what we are engaging with. Then us if we are actually paying attention to that and asking hard questions that we typically don't. And then also allowing ourselves the psychological space meaning stop fighting against this stop fighting against that there's no more finely tuned device than our own nervous system for this way better than any. A digital device we have right now and for your listeners at home at least from my experience in duck you've got way more experience with this but it takes time like this stuff getting to a point where you're aware enough of your thoughts takes time in my. My kids that have been working with this for the last couple years there's so much better at it now than they were when we first started they were on time for every shot when we first started and now they they recognize way more of when they just weren't where they needed to be. And it's it's it feels like an 18th 18 month to and it's in you're always working on it but it feels like it takes a good long bit for conversations to continue to happen and then them to just be more aware of everything going on and it's just not something you're going to flip a switch on. No doubt like learning to interact with our internal experience in a more observant and curious way and intentional with that takes time in practice because we don't typically do that in many areas of our life. So going back to the original question about how task based we're staying task based but we're not bringing acceptance into it and so the brain default back like give me a survival based situation where I was almost thinking like and this isn't complete survival based but like bungee jumping I want to go bungee jumping but when I get up there I can't I can't pull I can't jump I can't pull the cord like. What other situations could you think of were like we kind of we're thinking we want to do it but then the brain takes over and it's like not going to work I have a friend who's a sky dive instructor and he bases as like half of the people get up there and they really do want to jump out of the plane but can't get him to do it. Right where basically your brain is like no we're not doing that so what that would need is there's a certain level of acceptance of falling and dying that you would need. Right or another one in our modern life tastes like think about how many people are afraid of speaking in front of other people like public speaking is the number one fear for human beings for like the last hundred years and it is not life threatening in any way. Well why the consequences are people are going to judge us so if there's a part of me that goes I am absolutely unwilling or is unacceptable to be judged in a certain way by certain people. Then there's going to be a layer of anxiety to that and the task is not going to be go speak and share ideas or converse with people it's going to be don't get judged and that will supersede any pursuit based task in that so it happens more frequently in our lives than just golf whether it's chipping and putting and all that stuff where we have something that we'd really like to pursue. But there's another avoidance based task for some experience that we are unwilling to accept that gets in the way it's I see that person that I think is attractive I want to go talk to them but I don't want to get rejected or judged and so I just don't. or when I do, I'm some inauthentic BS version of myself like that happens a lot yeah and if you were to say like well the target is this jump out of this plane or to speak your thing just hold that in your mind again that is assuming there is not an avoidance based unacceptable experience that is not superseding that which you would have to really tune into your own what am I bringing to this to be able to do that it's really interesting I use the public speaking knowledge a lot I'll ask people like hey how do you how are you with public speaking I'm not great okay so we've got to go speak to a thousand people in Dallas at Jerry World about golf would you do it no what if I paid you a thousand bucks hmm interesting I may I may be willing to do that okay what if there's 10,000 people no chance what if I paid you 10,000 bucks okay I would go and then with parents I'm always like okay you guys don't like public speaking so now imagine that whole scenario but you're in front of 10,000 people and then you have brain fog and you go you have a little lapse and like you're freaking out you're on stage everybody now there's starting to be an eerie quiet over the over the arena and they're kind of making like you're losing the crowd and I come up to you and I tap you on the shoulder I'm like hey just believe in yourself just believe yourself just be calm just hold the target in your head just hold the target and they all laugh and I'm like that's golf that's when your kids are struggling like there's not just a calm down you know an easy button we can press and get out of there it's you got to work your way through it that's right and by the way with that we don't force shame or judge ourselves into a different nervous system so we don't force ourselves into pursuit based tasks we don't judge ourselves or shame ourselves away from avoidance based tasks so again is the neuroscience behind this correct and by the way I am almost always trying to get my clients to be more target oriented okay but again if you don't clear the psychological space there's no neurological space for that hence even most of the research in neuroscience right now is still indicating that psychological interventions are still the most impactful neuroscience interventions not some type of you know like neuroscience based hack where you just kind of tap into a brain short term something or other to try to change your chemical or your neurological balance yeah it's almost you can almost call them distractions when you're in exactly from an anxiety ridden standpoint like you you focus more on the quiet ira you focus more on the target like it can help but if you're in avoidance based it's still gonna you're still gonna fail right and again what we see from all of these and I'm gonna use the phrase neuro hack because it's become pretty popular not just in golf but kind of around the world that these neuro hacks are things that naturally happen when you have space to pursue freely that's good right like my eyes get pretty quiet on the back of a golf ball when I'm not asking myself to don't three put in don't get judged by other people and my you know thinking about what I want to happen or the target orientation is a natural mood place for our focus to move what I'm not also asking it to avoid something else it's just not the bill and all it's never gonna solve all the problems that is all to say though none of that is necessarily easy but it is relatively straightforward so quick quick one real quick I think we can cover it pretty fast guy asked on the Scott Cox episode a doc you mentioned a study about the quickest way lower handicaps they weren't sure if that study was released but interesting you guys maybe taking a little deeper dive into the debate rages on about distance but I think this is more fairly golfers and for the mid the high handicaps there might be better options number one the studies clearly show that the further you hit it the more likely you are to play shoot lower scores it just makes everything everything easier if and I say this to a lot to my I have a lot of students that come in and don't care what they shoot they just want to make a golf swing they want to hit the ball better they want their swing to be prettier they want to just go to the range and hit the ball better I have a ton of students that do that right if our goal is to shoot the lowest score we can if the ultimate goal of golf which it is is to shoot the lowest score and I got paid based off of shooting lower scores and it was all based off of handicap levels I want all my players to hit it far enough relative as far as they can comfortably and and make it you know without risk of injury and then then it becomes no three putts no double chips there's a lot of scoring that happens on the green part I'm a humongous advocate of better ball striking for for my elite players because great ball striking will will beat out world-class short game on the PGA tour you've got to hit it great to play out there that's true most most of the of the greatest short gamers on tour are not the money leaders it's it's the it's the worries in the scotties that hit it better than everybody else and so I teach more to that but if we're going to get everybody to shoot lower scores don't three putt hit it further improve your short game and then as the scores start getting better then you bump up greens and regulation and get the ball striking to catch up so the studies that they're referring to or we were referring to are indication of where people so here we're seeing like there is some value in strokes gained and lost and where they are being gained and lost based on your handicap and what the research clearly shows is that higher handicap golfers are losing a ton of strokes to three putts multiple chips penalty strokes and being in places that really stress their current skill level which is not quite good enough to play certain shots very well right so if you were a really high a 20 handicap golfer and you wanted to lower your scores the fastest I would argue it's probably not chasing distance it would be making sure that your in play more often which would probably be more about figuring out where does your dispersion yeah stride that include and where you need to aim to make sure that your dispersion includes as much in bounds as possible and playing to the middle of greens with your approach shots so that you are far more likely to have a putt and then also if you're chipping you're in a bunker the objective get it on the green right so the three putting is the least influential part of their scores it's mostly shots before you get to greens that is cost it and although putting is certainly part of it it's not the most disruptive to it so here I would actually advocate very strongly for looking at what your dispersion is and some type of scoring aiming system relative to your handicap because again those scoring systems can be super helpful for minimizing lost strokes due to blank but to your point as you get better it's more about where do I gain strokes to lower my score so essentially for me lowering my score does that mean I need to raise my floor or does it mean I need to push my ceiling and the worse you are or the by worse I mean like the higher your handicap is and the less skilled you are the floor is where you are going to gain more strokes or not lose as many strokes and therefore gain strokes and if you're the more skilled you become the more you need to push your ceiling to raise your score or lower your scores and that usually means hitting it closer hitting it farther so you can hit it closer and then trying to make more puts more often so again it's kind of understanding where you are in your skill arc and then addressing well what would help me really raise my floor if you're higher if it's about losing strokes by the way I would put myself more in that category too like I make plenty of birdies but penalty strokes now again I hit driver everywhere because I've never seen a hole that didn't fit driver but for different points so if I was playing in a tournament and I wanted to have the best chance it would probably be me being more conservative off the tee and perhaps into greens but again far be it for me to tell anybody how they should go and shout out you know a friend of mine and and Roman you know a well scot faucet has done a great job of digging and I think like to get somebody from a 20 to a 15 or a 10 sometimes it's really just decade stuff like just play the game better you know and and I love what he he preaches the tiger five and I've created some for my own players their own little five like what are the things like you know get easy easy up and down and get them up and down no doubles or or worse without penalty strokes you know sometimes no double chips or no three trying not to three pot you know just little little things you know not short citing yourself when when when you shouldn't you know and they can be adjusted but you know if you haven't heard a decade or you haven't heard of some of scot faucet stuff his course management stuff really gives a lot of you know early golfers into the game are really good blueprint of how you're really supposed to play and and and shooting lower scores is Raymond pointed out a lot of times it's it's bogey avoidance versus making more birdies once you get to a certain level I you know we would all argue it changes a little bit but early on quit making doubles and triples and you'll shoot lower scores yeah and get just to kind of reiterate what the stats show us is that 18 handicaps and scratch golfers average basically the same amount of birdies around which is one so the difference in their score is they're very different floors not necessarily very different ceilings then when you're trying to go from scratch to plus to pro your ceiling has to be pretty high but your your floor has to be really high but your ceiling has to be much higher yeah correct okay one last one before we get out of here just to try to wrap things up the question from somebody the long in the short of it if you're gonna boil down why is it that when our identity is paired to outcomes it becomes such a threat response for us and the long in the short of that is that the research shows us that it is so disruptive because our nervous system is designed to resist and avoid whatever is in direct proportion to how it threatens our identity So if I identify as a quote unquote, good golfer. Anything that falls under the category of bad golfer must be met with a certain level of resistance. So long the short of it is that we resist indirect proportion to what we find is threatening to our identity. And our identity is something that as human beings, our nervous system is designed to protect. So it's very important for us to figure out like identity defined as these are the labels that I have attached myself to. So what those labels are, we want to be really picky with. You could make an argument that human beings really do not need to identify with anything, but it's probably not very likely. But anything that I have attached my identity to is going to, I'm going to need a level of resistance that is, again, proportionate to the level of potential threat involved. So whether that's being judged by other people, shooting certain scores that I don't like, hitting certain shots, I don't like, I mean, the amount of pro golfers I work with who find it very threatening to just hit the type of shot that quote unquote, professional golfers should never hit is really, really high. Well, why do they have such a resistance to a miss that quite frankly, most of the time, it's very unlikely that they'll hit it. And two, they have no idea how consequential it's going to be until they actually hit it and find out why, because it's a bit direct threat to the identity of I'm the type of golfer who should never hit those kinds of shots. - That was me on that show. - Quick question on this, does the crazy off subject, but is the rest of the animal kingdoms, brains, like mammals and stuff, do they fight the identity stuff the way ours do, do any idea on that? - The research that I'm familiar with would suggest that human beings are unique in how much they identify and how many things. So the intensity and frequency. So for example, I have a dog, it's very clear to me that she identifies in some way as that's my human, this is my house, these are my things. And she will have an appropriate threat response if someone knocks on the door or barks and so on. So like there is some level to that, but my dog is not identified with what collar she wears or whether someone down the street thinks she's cute or she's not cute or whatever it might be. So human beings we identify with more things. And this is in part because we have larger frontal lobes that can create these associations and think our way through stuff and a nervous system that feels things very directly. So the intensity and the frequency with which and the amount of things we can pair our identity to to try to find acceptance and approval and significance and safety within groups is really, really high because we don't typically, we are more social creatures than many others. Now, there is some evidence to suggest that really highly social creatures are not quite to the degree that humans are, but similar. So elephants, dolphins, for example, both animals with like relatively large brains compared to us as humans. Also have similar identity things and when those become at threat, they feel lost in a way. There's some evidence on like certain pods of whales. Also do that. So I don't know for sure, but there is some research on this, but it does seem that humans because our brain is so much more capable of those types of associations that we experience them more often and more frequently and more intensely. You know, even if you think about something we've talked about fixed in growth mindset. In a fixed mindset, I pair my identity to outcome. So if there's any threat to those, not only does that register to me as a threat, but I feel that in a more emotional way because the parts of my brain that those are associated to are the more feeling-based centers versus in a growth mindset. I start to see things and feedback and error feedback more cognitively, means I get curious about them, which means one, they're not as much of a threat to me if at all. And two, I don't feel that in a more sensory-based way. I feel it more in a kind of way than a, it's kind of a way, right? So those types of things, that response is proportionate to how fixed my identity is to this thing versus how flexible it might be in relation to that. - All right, I'm gonna cover all that you need to cover on your set. - I think we got to more than enough. That's all I have on my end. - I'm gonna leave us with this and this is more to you 'cause you read a lot more than I do, but we got what's on the golf and eat the surface reading list. I will tease. We have a discussion coming up in the next couple weeks about a book that's coming out that I'm currently reading. You've already read it. I'm in, I'm on like chapter two of it. Your, my boy over here reads a lot faster and better than I do, so it takes me at my Oklahoma education, takes me a minute. So I'm currently reading that one book that I read and it asked about past books you'd recommend. One book that I loved that I read when I was younger was The Master Class by Jim Hardy. And it was back in the day, the one playing two playing stuff and I was all about the Hardy stuff with E.J. Fister teaching me all that stuff. And that was a fantastic book. It's an older one, you may have to go find it, but that was a great book on like, called The Plusses and Minuses, a little bit of steepeners and shallowers and kind of got my brain kind of locked into that. So for you golf nerds out there, go read The Master Class by Jim Hardy. Jim's a great human being and he's done a lot for the game, but it was a, you may not agree with everything. I wouldn't agree with everything in the book now. That's not what it's really designed for, but it's a really good kind of golf nerdy book for you, you nerds out there like me. Where? I would recommend we are going to have Dr. Lu Benoit on the podcast to talk about his new book. I think it'll be a very valuable read for many people just in terms of how do I learn how to swing the golf club better and practice in a way that is conducive to that. It's aligned with a lot of really good research, much of which we have already talked about on this podcast, but he does a great job of organizing that. For anybody who really feels a lot of anxiety, anger, not just in golf, but in their life or feel like you're kind of getting in your own way a lot. There is a book by a fellow named Albert Ellis who is kind of one of a foundational members of psychology back in the '70s, '60s that still holds up now. The book is called "How to Stubbornly Roof Use" to make yourself miserable about anything. And it is essentially a form book, the beginnings of what A-shaped and V-shaped thinking is. And again, the A-shaped thinking creates extra and avoidance-based tasks for us that would keep us from being just thinking about a target when we're actually that is the task in front of us. It is a great book to read about the ways we think about things that add more to them than they actually are and tend to make us feel pretty miserable whether that's anxiety or anger or frustration or stuck or whatever that might be. So I promise you it'll be the driest reading you've ever read, but it will also likely be a very valuable read to you. - Okay, Chase, where can we find us? - G-B-T-S podcast on Instagram, Chase will go off on Instagram @bts-mindset.com. - Please keep sending us your questions. We will get to them when we can. We have a series of guests lined up and then maybe some shifts in the podcast in terms of its structure and frequency and all that stuff in the coming months, which we're all working out. All that to say, we are very appreciative of those who are listening and joining us here. And we hope to do some better work for you coming forward. So, and we're still talking about doing some golf schools. So if you're still, we got some suggestions. I sent out some stuff on socials and had some ideas and then our hello, can you go guys or want to talk about maybe doing something out there which would be kind of fun out in the UK. So that's something in the works too. It will, we will put it together at some point. We've been talking about it for a while. - We've got a lot going on under the G-B-T-S umbrella that we are excited for and hopefully will be valuable for the people. So again, thank you to everyone who's been joining us for all this and listening along. And see you next time on the golf beneath the surface podcast. - Hey, if you're going to take us home, you've got to say it right. So, go beneath the surface. - Thank you guys, see ya. - See ya guys. (upbeat music)