Posted on

Learning theories, part 2: Do humans and other animals need different theories of learning?

Search and rescue training with Skye in Scotland

The exploration of learning and behaviour has led to the emergence of several theoretical frameworks, among which ecological psychology and behaviourism (applied to humans and other animals), and cognitivism (applied to humans only) are prominent. Each of these approaches provides distinct insights into how individuals learn and interact with the world around them, yet they also come with unique strengths and weaknesses. Here I will outline the fundamental differences between these three theories, delving into their key features, criticisms, and the implications for understanding learning processes. My motivations for comparing and exploring these theories are tethered to my desire to understand how humans and other animals (particularly horses and dogs), learn and interact with each other without having to use completely separate and incompatible theories for each species.

(Cover picture of Marianne working with Skye while training for search and rescue (SARDA) in Scotland).

Behaviourism

Behaviourism is characterised by its focus on observable behaviour and the principle of conditioning, where learning is understood in terms of stimulus-response relationships. This approach operates under the “black box” concept, treating the mind as an opaque entity with little regard for the internal cognitive processes that mediate behaviour. By emphasising external factors, such as reinforcement and punishment, behaviourism seeks to explain learning without delving into the complexities of thoughts, emotions, or motivations. While this can lead to clear, measurable outcomes, behaviourism has been criticised for oversimplifying the learning process and failing to account for the richness of experience.

Limitations of behaviourism

Critics of behaviourism argue that its focus on observable behaviour leads to the “black box” problem, which neglects the internal mental processes that contribute to learning. This can oversimplify experience, as behaviourism tends to reduce learning to mere stimulus-response associations. Additionally, behaviourism struggles to account for the complexities of language acquisition and the generative aspects of language use, as its models do not adequately address the role of cognition and social interactions in language learning. The emphasis on external reinforcement further presents limitations, as behaviours are considered to be performed primarily for rewards rather than for intrinsic understanding or motivation. This perspective also diminishes the recognition of agency.

Cognitivism

Cognitivism emerged as a counter to behaviourism, redirecting focus onto the internal mental processes involved in learning, such as perception, memory, and problem-solving. It likens the mind to a computer, emphasising the processing of information through the manipulation of mental representations and schemas. This approach recognises learning as a complex interplay of thoughts and cognitive strategies, allowing for the possibility of deeper understanding and insight generation.

Cognitive theories introduced significant advancements in understanding phenomena such as language acquisition, and they have fostered an appreciation for the ways in which prior knowledge influences the assimilation of new information. In this regard, cognitivism has provided important frameworks that underscore the active role of learners in shaping their understanding.

Limitations of Cognitivism

Despite its contributions, cognitivism has faced considerable criticism, particularly concerning its reliance on abstract symbols and representations. In our podcast conversation (Part 2. Exploring Learning Theories with David Farrokh: An ecological (systems) approach in practice.) David Farrokh highlights the “symbol grounding problem,” a significant issue wherein cognitivism fails to adequately explain how mental symbols relate to the real world and integrate into actual experiences. This lack of connection makes it challenging to understand how learning and comprehension emerge from purely abstract processing. Moreover, David argues that the deterministic and abstract nature of cognitivist frameworks overlooks the dynamic aspects of behaviour, resulting in a disconnection between cognitive processes and real-world actions.

Cognitivism also tends to neglect the embodied nature of learning, failing to recognise how physical and environmental interactions shape cognitive processes, which limits its applicability to practical learning scenarios. Additionally, the complexity of behaviour is often inadequately addressed within cognitivism, as it can become overly reliant on simplified cognitive models that do not capture the full breadth of human or other species interactions.

Ecological Psychology

Ecological psychology emphasises the dynamic interplay between organisms and their environments, presenting a view of learning that is rooted in the concept of “affordances”, opportunities for action that the environment offers based on an individual’s intentions and capabilities. This perspective encourages a departure from abstract cognitive representations, focusing instead on how individuals actively perceive and interact with their surroundings. Learning is conceptualised not as mere internal processing but as a fluid and situated activity, where understanding is shaped by real-world context and engagement.

A significant advantage of this approach is its consideration of individual agency; learners are seen as active participants who navigate their environments purposefully, adapting their behaviours in response to the myriad affordances they encounter. This provides a holistic view of learning that accounts for environmental, situational, and contextual factors, including the nested influences of different contexts and timeframes on behaviour, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of learning.

Limitations of Ecological Psychology

While ecological psychology offers valuable insights, it also presents certain limitations. The complexity of affordances, which are central to this approach, can lead to ambiguity, as determining which affordances are perceived and how they vary among individuals can be challenging. Moreover, the strong emphasis on context may hinder the establishment of generalisable learning principles applicable across diverse situations, leading to some frustration from those who wish for simple linear rules to supporting learning.

Critics also point out that ecological psychology tends to undervalue internal cognitive processes, which can result in an incomplete perspective on how people mentally conceptualise their interactions with the environment. Furthermore, the qualitative nature of ecological research can complicate efforts to measure and quantify behaviour.

Conclusion

Behaviourism, cognitivism, and ecological psychology each provide unique lenses through which to understand learning and behaviour. A strength of ecological psychology is its focus on real-world interactions and the agency of individuals, presenting a nuanced view that accounts for the dynamic relationships between organisms and their environments. Behaviourism, while historically significant, has faced criticism for its reductive approach to learning, overlooking the organism and the complexity of cognition and emotional factors. On the other hand, cognitivism has contributed significantly to the understanding of internal mental processes but overlooks the environment and grapples with the symbol grounding problem, emphasising abstract representations at the expense of real-world applicability.

As research continues to increase our understanding of both human and other animal learning and behaviour, the more it is evident that other animals are more like us than previously believed. The learning abilities of many other animals, along with the recognition of the implications of evolution, would necessitate that our learning has evolved over millennia and cannot be incompatibly different to that of other animals. Ecological psychology claims to be applicable to all organisms, human and non human. This opens up an opportunity for research to gain a better understanding of learning and skill acquisition in all animals, including multi-species (such as human-horse-dog) interactions.

Bibliography:

Part 2. Exploring Learning Theories with David Farrokh: An ecological (systems) approach in practice. https://www.buzzsprout.com/1975020/episodes/15754250

Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?: Frans de Waal. 2017

Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel. Carl Safina. 2020

Posted on

Learning theories: Behaviourism and Ecological Psychology.

Ecological psychology and behaviourism are both approaches within psychology that focus on understanding human and animal learning and behaviour. They are also both descendants of American naturalism, but they differ significantly in their theoretical foundations and methodologies.

Similarities.

Both ecological psychology and behaviourism prioritise observable behaviours and acknowledge the importance of the interaction between the individual and the environment. They both recognise that behaviour is influenced by environmental factors and reject the reliance on internal mental processes (abstract models and representations) that are a feature of cognitive theories including constructivism and social constructivism.

Both ecological psychology and behaviourism reject Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind and body are separate. Instead, they see mental processes as intrinsically linked to physical and environmental contexts, reinforcing a naturalistic worldview. Both use scientific methods to study psychology, relying on empirical data to draw conclusions about behaviour.

Although both approaches recognise the importance of the environment in shaping behaviour, behaviourists study how external stimuli influence responses, while ecological psychologists examine how people and animals interact with the affordances in their environment. The concepts of stimuli in behaviourism and affordances in ecological psychology represent foundational ideas in their respective frameworks, and they highlight key differences in how each approach understands the environment’s influence on behaviour.

Differences.

Theoretical Foundations:

Behaviourism is rooted in the work of figures like John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner (1), focusing primarily on the links between stimuli and responses. It discounts internal mental states, arguing that behavior can be understood purely in terms of conditioning (both classical and operant).

A stimulus is a discrete event in time and space that causes, or can be conditioned to cause, a response. A stimulus is an external event or object that elicits a specific response. It refers to any environmental factor that can trigger a behavioural reaction, such as sounds, lights, or other observable phenomena.

Ecological Psychology was developed by psychologist James J. Gibson* (2), influenced by behaviourism and sharing roots from American naturalism, it emphasises the relationship between individuals and their environments, focusing on how organisms perceive and act within specific contexts. The concept of stimuli is replaced by the concept of affordances, which describe the opportunities for action that the environment offers the individual.

Affordances are not considered causal like stimuli, but invitational, relational (to individual abilities and intentions), and act over multiple scales of time, events, and space.

An affordance refers to the potential actions or uses that an environment or object offers to an individual based on its characteristics and the capabilities of the individual. It emphasises the interactive relationship between the organism and its environment, highlighting a dependance on the specific context and the individual’s perception, embodying the idea that the same object can afford different actions to different beings, or different actions to the same being at different times or in different contexts (e.g., a wall may afford leaning against for a human, jumping over or avoiding for a horse, or walking along for a cat; a patch of grass may afford eating by a horse, lying on by a human, or digging a hole in by a dog).

From an ecological psychology perspective, perception is not merely a response to a stimulus but involves active engagement with the environment, allowing the organism to recognise opportunities for action based on its own abilities and intentions.

The primary differences between the concept of a stimulus in behaviourism and the concept of affordances in ecological psychology lie in their definitions, methodologies, and the frameworks within which they operate. While behaviourism centres around external stimuli and conditioned responses within discrete scales of time, ecological psychology emphasises the active role of perception and interaction between organisms and their environments through affordances, over nested scales of time. 

Nature of Learning:

Behaviourism views learning primarily as conditioning. This can be through reinforcement and punishment (operant conditioning) or through pairing a conditioned stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus, leading to a conditioned response (classical conditioning). In both cases the focus is on observable behaviours rather than internal processes. Ecological Psychology emphasises learning as an active process of perceiving and adapting to affordances in the environment. It considers the dynamic interactions between organisms and their settings.

 

Action and Agency:

Behaviourism tends to downplay the role of agency, arguing that behaviour is largely a result of external stimuli without accounting for individual internal intentions. Ecological Psychology highlights the active role of individuals in perceiving and interacting with their environments, emphasising agency and intention.

Nature of Study:

Behaviourism often involves controlled experiments in laboratories or simplified environments to study behaviour in response to specific stimuli, often ignoring the broader context of real-world environments and longer scales of time. Ecological Psychology tends to engage in more naturalistic observations, studying behaviour in real-world settings and focusing on the interplay between organisms and their environments. 

Conclusion:

In summary, while both behaviourism and ecological psychology recognise the role of the environment in shaping behaviour, they diverge significantly in how they conceptualise learning, the nature of interaction, the role of agency, and the complexity of measurement in understanding behaviour. Behaviourism emphasises observable stimulus-response relationships, while ecological psychology focuses on affordances and the active, perceptual engagement of individuals with their environments.

Ecological psychology accounts for nested scales of influence in behaviour and learning, recognising that actions are influenced by broader contextual factors and different timeframes. This allows for a more comprehensive understanding of learning processes that incorporates various environmental and situational influences.

Where next?

In the next blog, we will explore ecological dynamics (the fusion of ecological psychology and dynamical systems theory) to highlight how this theoretical framework can be used in the design of learning environments and practice activities.

Related podcast

Part 1. Exploring Learning Theories with David Farrokh: From Behaviourism to Ecological Psychology.

If you enjoy these blog posts, please subscribe below (and share them too).

References

  1. Akpan, B. (2020). Classical and Operant Conditioning—Ivan Pavlov; Burrhus Skinner. In: Akpan, B., Kennedy, T.J. (eds) Science Education in Theory and Practice. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_6 accessed online at https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_6
  2. Lobo L, Heras-Escribano M, and Travieso D. (2018). The History and Philosophy of Ecological Psychology, Frontiers in Psychology (9),  URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02228.

* James Gibson’s wife Eleanor was also a developmental psychologist and contributed extensively to the field  of ecological psychology, continuing to develop their work after James’ death.

 

Posted on

Navigating Fear and Confidence: A conversation with Dr Rebecca Williams of Smart Climbing.

In this episode of the River Tiger podcast, I’m thrilled to welcome Dr. Rebecca Williams, a consultant clinical psychologist and climbing coach I have known for a long time. I’ve been eager to get her on the podcast for some time to discuss her insights into fear management and its role in adventure and equestrian sports, which I believe is such an important topic for athletes everywhere.

As Rebecca introduced herself, I was fascinated to hear about her background in clinical psychology—nearly 25 years in the field—and how her passion for climbing intertwined with her work. Rebecca admitted that she started out focusing on the technical aspects of climbing, but it quickly became clear to her that the mental side was where she could make a significant impact. I could relate to her journey, as I’ve seen first-hand how anxiety and self-doubt can hinder performance, mine and those I coach, whether in climbing, paddling, horse riding, or any high-risk sport.

We began by diving into the common misconception that fear and confidence are two sides of the same coin. Rebecca pointed out that many people think if you just eliminate fear, you’ll automatically feel more confident. But she clarified, “Fear is a natural and necessary emotion. We need it for our survival.” This really struck a chord with me. I’ve often seen many people try to push through fear without addressing it, thinking that sheer willpower or meditation and other cognitive exercises, would make it go away. But Rebecca emphasised that recognising and managing fear is crucial, it’s not about ignoring it.

We touched on the idea of fear being information. She said something that resonated deeply: “Fear is telling you something important.”

Then we delved into how women often face disproportionate societal pressures that can diminish their self-confidence in sports. Rebecca shared insights about how the environment we’re in and the people we surround ourselves with can influence our choices. I couldn’t help but think about my own experiences ice climbing with another woman for the first time. It felt liberating to make choices and decisions myself rather than just following along behind someone.

We also discussed the challenges that come with significant life changes, like puberty and menopause. Rebecca framed it beautifully, pointing out that learning and skill development isn’t a linear path. Sometimes you feel like you take two steps forward and three steps back. Her perspective reminded me of how important it is to have patience with ourselves in this journey.

As our conversation evolved, we addressed traumatic experiences in sports—like serious injuries or witnessing accidents. Rebecca made it clear that going through such events requires a thorough re-evaluation of our values and beliefs about risk. This topic hits very close to home for me; after my ex-husband’s paragliding accident, I struggled for years with my ability to step up in front of a crowd to give a keynote or deliver to big groups. It’s a complex emotional journey, and Rebecca emphasised that it’s essential to take small steps back into the activity while being kind to ourselves.

We chatted about falling practice, a common recommendation in climbing. It was interesting to hear Rebecca challenge the idea that simply practicing falling is the solution to overcoming fear of falls. She suggested focusing on how to land safely instead, framing it as landing practice. This suggested how having a physical and psychologically safe environment is critical for athletes and participants. There’s a fine balance between learning the physical skills and addressing the emotional aspects tied to fear.

Before wrapping up, Rebecca highlighted her books, “Climb Smarter” and the “Fear of Falling Workbook,” both filled with valuable insights and practical tools for athletes looking to manage their anxiety and build confidence. I loved hearing about her upcoming events, like workshops on risk management with Mountain Rescue Teams.

Overall, I left our conversation feeling reflective, especially regarding the interplay of fear, confidence, skill development, and emotional intelligence in sports. Acknowledging fear is not a barrier to overcome, but a rich source of information we can learn from. I believe this episode will be beneficial not just for coaches and athletes but for anyone navigating high-pressure situations. I can’t wait to explore these themes further in future episodes!

To listen to the full conversation click here https://www.buzzsprout.com/1975020/15695564

About my guest:
Dr Rebecca Williams BSc D ClinPsy is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and performance psychology coach, working with climbers for the last 18 years.  She’s trained and experienced in psychotherapy, including CBT and ACT, holds a level 7 certificate in coaching and mentoring, and is a qualified climbing instructor (RCI).

Rebecca has delivered thousands of hours of individual coaching, group workshops, coach education and lectures, for climbers and coaches interested in improving their headgame for climbing.  She has facilitated workshops for Mountain Training Association, the Diploma in Mountain Medicine, NICAS, the British Mountaineering Council (BMC), and many climbing and mountaineering clubs.  In 2018, she delivered the psychology keynote speech at the International Rock Climbing Research Association Congress in Chamonix, and is a founder member of the International Association of Psychologists in Climbing.  She is passionate about using making psychology accessible and practical, and translating psychological research into mainstream techniques and coaching practices.

www.smartclimbing.co.uk

Author: Climb Smarter: Mental Skills and Techniques for Climbing

https://www.sequoia-books.com/catalog/climb/

Posted on

Exploring Movement, Adaptability, and Anti-Fragility with Dr. Paula Silva

In episode 31 of The River Tiger podcast, I had the privilege of engaging in a conversation with Dr. Paula Silva about embodied movement, adaptability, and the fascinating concept of anti-fragility. Paula’s expertise in biomechanics, movement, and the ecological approach to skill acquisition provides a rich framework for understanding how we can optimise human (and horse) potential and performance.

Embodied movement and the impact of normalisation

We began our discussion by addressing a common misconception in physical therapy and coaching: the notion that attempting to normalise movement patterns may be harmless. Paula emphasised that enforcing idealised movement patterns can be detrimental. By focusing exclusively on specific biomechanical norms, coaches and therapists may inadvertently restrict an individual’s capacity for adaptive and creative movements. This approach can even degrade a person’s ability to express functional movement patterns essential for their daily activities or athletic performance.

This insight stems from Paula’s journey in physical therapy, which began in Brazil. As she studied biomechanics and movement, she noticed a disconnection between what patients desired and the rigid parameters of standardised rehabilitation practices. Patients often found that the prescribed movements failed to translate into real-world functionality. The realisation that our movement capabilities are shaped by context led Paula to embrace an ecological perspective, which recognises the dynamic interplay between the individual and their environment.

The concepts of resilience and anti-fragility

A significant portion of our conversation revolved around understanding resilience and anti-fragility, particularly in relation to athletes and rehabilitation clients. Resilience, Paula explained, can be understood as an individual’s ability to maintain performance under stress or recover from perturbations. In contrast, anti-fragility refers to growth and improvement that arise from exposure to stressful conditions.

By practicing movement in varied, challenging contexts, individuals can cultivate anti-fragile responses that enhance their ability to adapt and thrive when faced with new or unforeseen challenges. Paula illustrated this concept using the analogy of training a muscle: to stimulate growth, one must expose that muscle to increased resistance and variability rather than merely focusing on perfecting the same movement repeatedly.

This distinction is crucial in athletic training, where the objective should be to establish the capacity to adapt to fluctuating environments rather than fixating solely on perfect biomechanics. The integration of variability in training allows athletes to explore a wider range of movement patterns, equipping them with the necessary skills to respond effectively to uncertain situations they may encounter in competition.

Playing with dosages and variability

The idea of dosage and optimal practice in training also emerged as an important theme in our discussion. Paula and I explored how appropriate doses of challenge, offering just enough variability to encourage exploration without overwhelming the athlete or reducing motivation, can help prevent injury and foster adaptability. As athletes practice movements with different degrees of difficulty or in unfamiliar contexts, they develop better perception-action coupling and, in turn, become more anti-fragile.

In equestrian sports, this approach could translate to training horses in diverse environments rather than relying solely on uniform, controlled conditions. Horses that have access to varied terrains and contexts may benefit from increased adaptability, leading to better performance and reduced risk of injury.

Navigating the athletic landscape: An ecological approach

As we continued our conversation, Paula reflected how, as coaches and therapists, we need to shift our focus from rigid, prescriptive methods while recognising that everyone’s body is unique. Therefore, allowing for variations in movement patterns is imperative for both skill development and personal expression.

One core tenet of this ecological understanding is the acknowledgment of the multi-faceted complexity of learning and performance environments. Paula stressed the importance of training in settings that mirror actual performance scenarios to promote effective problem-solving skills. By simulating real-life challenges and allowing athletes to practice responding to dynamic situations, coaches can facilitate the development of movement, perceptual, and decision-making skills that align with athletic demands.

Creating a culture of exploration and curiosity

Another pivotal aspect of our dialogue was the importance of creating a culture that supports exploration within coaching. Paula noted that fostering an environment where athletes feel encouraged to experiment and express movement is essential for learning and performance. Instead of enforcing strict biomechanics or perfectionist ideals, coaches should celebrate diversity in movement and support athletes in discovering their unique movement solutions.

This notion highlighted the need for vulnerability, where mistakes are embraced as a natural part of the learning process. Paula’s observations reflect the idea that adaptability and creativity thrive when individuals are encouraged to step outside of their comfort zones, ensuring that they become resilient and anti-fragile athletes in the long run.

Conclusion: Empowering athletes through adaptive movement

My conversation with Dr. Paula Silva shed light on the multifaceted nature of movement, adaptability, and anti-fragility. By understanding the significant interplay between movements and environmental contexts, coaches and therapists can create training programs that empower individuals to explore, adapt, and grow through their experiences.

This discussion underscores the importance of fostering a training culture that values curiosity and exploration. By prioritising movement variability and embracing individuality, we can unlock the full potential of athletes (human and horse), leading to performance breakthroughs and enriched experiences in the world of equestrian sports and beyond. As we continue to unravel the complexities of movement skill acquisition, we need to focus on adaptability as an essential pillar of effective coaching and athletic training.

 

 

My podcast with Dr Paula Silva

Part 1. Becoming anti-fragile: The importance of training for growth beyond resilience. A conversation with Dr Paula Silva.

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1975020/12825589

 

Raph Saib (ecobrazilianjiutiteiro) on Instagram made this super reel after listening to my podcast with Paula.

 

Posted on

Embracing the Journey: Insights on Skill Acquisition and Embodiment from Jo Kelly

In a recent episode of the River Tiger podcast, I had the pleasure of speaking with Jo Kelly, known as the Barefoot Athlete on social media. Jo’s dynamic background in movement coaching, adventure sports, and performance psychology provides invaluable insights into skill acquisition, embodiment, and the role of the environment in athletic performance.

Jo’s journey into movement coaching spans over 25 years, beginning with a Sports Science degree in the late 90s. Initially focused on personal training and fitness, he soon discovered a lack of depth in rehabilitation knowledge. This led him to explore physical therapy, where he spent a decade working with athletes on rehabilitation and recovery. Through this exposure, Jo began to recognize the importance of understanding how we interact with our environments and how this relationship shapes our physical experiences.

His journey took an unexpected turn when he stumbled upon barefoot running, an interest that aligned with his passion for understanding our connection to the natural world. Jo describes barefoot running as a means to explore the sensations and feedback our bodies receive from the ground. It allowed him to rediscover the joy of movement, which, he recalls, had fueled his childhood adventures in Dartmoor, where he jumped over locks and climbed trees.

What stands out in Jo’s philosophy is his emphasis on “thinking with your feet.” This concept speaks to the intelligence embedded within our bodies, reminding us that our physical experiences profoundly influence how we interpret and interact with our environments. Jo finds this particularly significant because, as we move, we can process tactile feedback, allowing us to make split-second decisions that enhance our performance.

Reflecting on his own experiences, Jo emphasised the importance of resilience in coaching and learning. He posits that training should incorporate the potential for errors and variability, encouraging individuals to experiment and adapt rather than striving for perfection. In this context, he proposed that the surprises and challenges encountered during training should not be avoided but embraced as opportunities for growth.

A critical element of this approach is the understanding of embodiment, which emphasises our connection to the world around us. Jo and I discussed how this embodied intelligence can be lost if we become too focused on analytical thinking, often leading to a disconnect between our physical experiences and cognitive processes. He noted that many athletes might rely on secondhand information from coaches or theories rather than tuning into the direct feedback provided by their bodies and environments.

Jo’s insights align with the concept of “working the problem”—an idea that emphasises the need for athletes to engage dynamically with their surroundings. This shift from rigid instruction to a more exploratory mindset can foster creativity and adaptability. Jo highlighted the lesson from his time as a beach lifeguard, where quick decision-making in unpredictable environments is crucial. He stressed the need for training environments to replicate real-life scenarios, allowing individuals to practice problem-solving in contexts that mirror the complexity and unpredictability of actual performance situations.

One of the most compelling points Jo made was about confidence and the journey to achieving it through competence. He believes that individuals often lack confidence because they have not successfully navigated challenging situations before. By creating training environments that simulate risk without the catastrophic consequences, coaches can help athletes build confidence through competence, ultimately leading to improved performance when facing real challenges.

Throughout our conversation, it became evident that fostering an environment where mistakes are accepted is paramount to personal and athletic growth. Jo’s approach encourages participants to embrace their experiences, fostering curiosity, enjoyment, and ultimately, a love for movement.

As Jo continues his journey, now pursuing a master’s degree in performance psychology, he aims to deepen his understanding of these concepts and apply them in innovative ways—both to his practice as a coach and to his everyday life. In doing so, he hopes to inspire others to explore their own movement journeys creatively and fearlessly.

The takeaway from our discussion resonates with anyone involved in sports, coaching, or personal development: the journey of skill acquisition is not just about achieving competence but also about embracing the rich tapestry of experiences—mistakes, successes, and everything in between—that lead us toward flow and connection with our environment. By nurturing this perspective, we can create resilient individuals ready to tackle the surprises life throws their way.

To listen to the podcast episode with Joe, click the link below.

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1975020/15602358

 

My guest was Joe Kelly and you can find him on X (Twitter) @BarefootAthlete and on Instagram: @barefootathlete

Here is the film of the paraglider with the tangled wing that Joe talks about in the podcast https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzITu4ZoJz7/?igsh=MWRwaHFlYzRxNHN2

And some videos of the catch game that Joe mentions from the sessions he runs:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BvT8nUQHSav/?igsh=MXhqb2I4dzNmZm40eQ%3D%3D

https://www.instagram.com/p/BtQrzKLHQAC/?igsh=MTc5Nmk1cDhsY2RyeA%3D%3D