Appreciate you feel that way but this is a fallacy called ad hominem which attacks the person rather than the temerity of the argument.
This is logically fallacious and again not debating against the temerity of the argument. Simply put, this is another way of saying 'sounds good in theory but doesn't work in practice'. The problem with is if something is correct in theory and is sound, it works practically too.
It also implies that lack of ability makes you feel emotion and therefore emotions are something you can't control. This is the same kind of thinking that causes abusive husbands to think their wife causes them to feel angry.
It is called accepting reality. You don't have to beat yourself up everytime you fall short of your self-imposed expectations.
Yeah, of course! What do the experts know!
I agree that it could seem magical to some who don't think this way and because they don't, they believe that because they feel that way that all others feel the same but just hide it.
Again, this not addressing the argument.
Thank you!
Finally! An actual objection to the argument.
Your point is basically on the motivation to improve but it's again a somewhat moot point because unless you can show that the inverse form is false, then you are merely selling a benefit which is also true of the position I raised.
I would assert that motivation to improve can come from intrinsic motivation from sheer enjoyment of the game. Just playing to be better than others is not a good motivation which leads you down a dark path. So motivation doesn't have to come from an extrinsic source by means of antipathy towards others.
If your saying that enjoyment grows as skill rises, I would agree with that. However, you don't need to beat yourself up in the process.
Deadly - I don't know if you're representative of amateur psychotherapists, but here's what I see.
A guy posts on here wanting to tidy up a few ragged holes of golf, and admits that he feels disadvantaged by a lack of distance.
You feel able to offer some "insights in his personality" based on a 400 word internet post.
You then accuse everyone who disagrees with your analysis of logical fallacies and avoiding your argument and, of course, ad hominem attacks - although attentive readers will have noted your attempt to equate my position with the psychology of wife-beaters.
Just to be clear - I like Gallwey and Rotella. That would explain why I recommended their books in the last paragraph of my post.
I also think that your brand of emotional engineering is largely irrelevant to a mid-teens handicapper. Not completely irrelevant - just not significantly relevant compared to upgrading physical skills. But by shifting the focus onto some level of psychic inadequacy, you just might deter someone from ever doing anything to actually get better.
You said:
It is called accepting reality. You don't have to beat yourself up everytime you fall short of your self-imposed expectations.
Who said anything about beating yourself up? Set goals. Perform. Assess. And go from there. No self-flagellation necessary. I don't recommend people distort reality, although there is evidence that irrational optimists perform better than realists. And comparatively few of my heroes distinguished themselves by accepting the status quo as immutable.
On extrinsic vers intrinsic motivation - basically I think that it's not as easy to disentangle the two as you seem to assert.
Am I extrinsically motivated or intrinsically motivated if I flush my driver and I think:
"Wow that felt good"
"Wow that went far"
"Wow that sets up a birdie opportunity"
"Wow that's the longest drive of my life"
"Wow that's the longest drive of my group"
"Wow. Chicks dig the long ball"
I'm happy to accept the evidence that intrinsic motivation supports excellent performance - but haven't you noticed that the most glaring exemplars of outstanding performance (and presumably high levels of intrinsic motivation) tend to appear in fields where there are benchmark measures of performance relative to the field?
3 times in your post you talk about either not beating yourself up or avoiding antipathy towards competitors. Where is that coming from - because it wasn't in my post. I can compete against an individual or a field and not hate them. In fact, my 4 year old son can compete against his big brother and not hate him. It's called "playing".
I like to know where I stand, relative to the field. The knowledge helps me decide what I can work on and what I can improve. I think it's the improvement that brings the satisfaction, not the moving "up the field".
