Golf Mindset Shifting that Works!
MetaBrain Golf is a specific application of the Meta-Brain Labs' product called the Meta-Brain Chatbot, to address golf-related mindsets. The Company utilizes this product across verticals in self-improvement, workplace achievement, and in sports. The foundational thesis is that the human mind has been programmed throughout life (mindsets) and if it is programmed once, it can be reprogrammed. It's up to the person to decide which mindsets they want to keep and those they want to change. In Golf specifically, being the mind game that it is, it's about avoiding all distracting self-talk. This is difficult to do based on the inability to stop thoughts from popping up into consciousness. Therefore, applying mindset shifting to discover and reverse any "emotional" noise is a game-changer and easily performed with the MetaBrain Chatbot.
The MetaBrain Chatbot, based upon Adaptive Theory, helps people mindset restructuring that helps people align their beliefs with their goals, to achieve them with a lot less effort and/or stress. A discussion about the unconscious is important to realize that this process fits within and adds to existing theories underlying the function and role of the unconscious mind. There is disagreement between theorists across the natural sciences about the function and role of the unconscious mind. Some view it as a “shadow” of the conscious mind and yet others view it as unsophisticated and with minimal impact in life. In contrast with the latter, the cognitive psychology tradition, others view that the unconscious mind as being pervasive, and having powerful influence (Bargh, 2006). Adaptive theory subscribes to the idea that the unconscious mind is not only pervasive and powerful, but also the driver of behavior based upon directives stored in it. These directives are triggered, and behavior executed when similar external stimuli is sensed that matches previously experienced situations that are reinforced each time they are re-experienced. Adaptive theory also ascribes to the views found in phylogeny and ontogeny where actions of the unconscious mind precede awareness of it to the conscious mind—that action precedes reflection. This is important and the basis upon which the Adaptive Theory process is founded. Humans are highly automated, unconsciously reacting to stimuli as they navigate their world. We don’t want to believe this is true, that we aren’t actually deciding our actions, thoughts or feelings but instead these are foisted upon us, being at the mercy of our unconscious directives. Why do they exist? To follow primitive instinct, these exist to protect. To think through consciously we are slow and will probably choose wrong and hence the unconscious overrides and circumvents conscious choosing. It instead directs all decisions, actions, feelings, and thoughts. Most agree that conscious thought, for how people historically have thought about the mind, includes these qualities: they are intentional, controllable, serial, and accessible to awareness. No such consensus exists yet for the unconscious, however. The term unconscious was originally based on one’s unintentional actions. And this view of the unconscious with unintentional is how unconscious phenomena have been conceptualized and studied within social psychology. (Nisbett and Wilson’s, 1977) seminal article posed the question, “To what extent are people aware of and able to report on the true causes of their behavior?” The answer was “not very well.” If these processes weren’t accessible to awareness, then perhaps they weren’t consciously intended, and if they weren’t consciously intended, then how in fact are they accomplished? This latter question motivated social psychologists to investigate the ways in which the higher mental processes such as judgment and social behavior could be triggered and then operate in the absence of conscious intent and guidance. Consequently, this research operationally defined unconscious influences in terms of a lack of awareness of a triggering stimulus (Bargh, 1992). If one shifts the unconscious definition to the processor of stimuli that informs action, suddenly the true power and scope of the unconscious in daily life becomes apparent. This expanded and enhanced view of the unconscious is also more compatible with theory and evidence in the field of evolutionary biology, than is the view of cognitive psychology. As did Darwin and Freud, evolutionary biologists also think of the unconscious much more in terms of unintentional actions rather than unawareness of stimuli. Consonant with these basic assumptions in natural science, social cognition research over the past 25 years has produced a stream of surprising findings regarding complex judgmental and behavioral phenomena that operate outside of awareness. Because the findings did not make sense given the “dumb unconscious” perspective of psychological science, we have to look outside of psychology to understand them and their implications for the human mind. Happily, when placed in the broader context of the natural sciences, especially evolutionary biology, the widespread discoveries of sophisticated unconscious behavior guidance systems not only make sense, but they also turn out to have been predicted on a priori grounds (Dawkins, 1976; Dennett, 1991, 1995). Our evolved design has caused us to be highly sensitive and reactive to the present context of our lives. Just as evolution has given us general “good tricks” (Dennett, 1995) for survival and reproduction, culture and early learning have fine-tuned our adaptive unconscious which we were born into offering contextual priming to more precisely adjust to events and people in present time (Higgins & Bargh, 1987). Evolved, priming effects are present soon after birth, underpinning the infant’s imitative abilities (see Meltzoff, 2002). Such priming effects depend on the existence of a close, automatic connection between perception (our mindset) and behavior. This tight connection has been discovered in cognitive neuroscience by observing mirror neurons in the premotor cortex that become active when one perceives a given type of action as well as when one engages in that action oneself (Frith & Wolpert, 2004). Under the present argument that the unconscious evolved as a behavioral guidance system and as a source of adaptive and appropriate actional impulses, these unconsciously activated preferences should be found to be directly connected to behavioral mechanisms. The idea that action precedes reflection is not new. Several theorists have postulated that the conscious mind is not the source or origin of our behavior; instead, they theorize that impulses to act are unconsciously activated and that the role of consciousness is as gatekeeper and sense maker after the fact (Gazzaniga, 1985; James, 1890; Libet, 1986; Wegner, 2002). In this model, conscious processes kick in after a behavioral impulse has occurred in the brain—that is, the impulse is first generated unconsciously, and then consciousness claims (and experiences) it as its own. Yet, to date, there has been little said about where, exactly, those impulses come from. Given the evidence reviewed above there are a multitude of behavioral impulses generated at any given time derived from our evolved motives and preferences, cultural norms and values, past experiences in similar situations. These impulses have afforded us operating motives, preferences and associated approach and avoidance behavioral tendencies, as well as mimicry and other behavior priming effects triggered within our unconscious based upon interpreted stimulus triggering a response based upon mere perception. There certainly seems to be no shortage of suggestions from our unconscious as to what to do in any given situation. In Adaptive theory (Day, 2022) we believe that unconscious impulses trigger a response and generate behavior based upon its interpretation of sensed stimuli. The unconscious mind pushes related thoughts and feelings to consciousness, in unison with behavior. The precise behavioral response and the thoughts, feelings tagged to it, is based upon the perception directive, previously encoded, most closely associated to the sensed, interpreted stimulus. It is these directives, when personally-decided are maladaptive, are restructured by reinforcing its reversal over a 2-week period, changing behavior permanently. REFERENCES Bargh JA. Why subliminality does not matter to social psychology: Awareness of the stimulus versus awareness of its effects. In: Bornstein R, Pittman T, editors. Perception without awareness: Cognitive, clinical, and social perspectives.Guilford; New York: 1992. pp. 236–255. Bargh JA, editor. Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes.Psychology Press; Philadelphia: 2006. Dawkins R. The selfish gene.Oxford University Press; New York: 1976. Day, A. Meta-Brain, Reprogramming the Unconscious for Self-Directed Living; Made for Success; Seattle: 2022. Dennett DC. Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life.Simon & Schuster; New York: 1995. Frith C, Wolpert D, editors. The neuroscience of social interaction.Oxford University Press; New York: 2003. Gazzaniga M. The social brain.Basic Books; New York: 1985. Higgins ET, Bargh JA. Social perception and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology. 1987;38:369–425. James W. Principles of psychology. 2. Holt; New York: 1890. Libet B. Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1986;8:529–566. Meltzoff AN, Meltzoff AN, Prinz W. The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases.Cambridge University Press; New York: 2002. Elements of a developmental theory of imitation; pp. 19–41. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review. 1977; 84:231–259. Wegner DM. The illusion of conscious will.MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 2002.