342. The Practical Science of Interrupting Your Own Autopilot Behaviour

342. The Practical Science of Interrupting Your Own Autopilot Behaviour

To exercise consistency and become the person who follows through, join The ACT Score Challenge [https://www.skool.com/exercising-self-control-1199/about] today. You might think change begins with clarity: know your values, define your goals, commit to what matters. This is a good start. However, the brain doesn’t care about any of that. It cares about physiological efficiency and cues. Until you engineer the right cues, your highest values remain background noise while your conditioning runs the show. We’ve already established that your brain runs on two systems, that System 1 is the default, and that System 2 only activates when an alarm forces it awake. What the series did not cover in detail is the practical question that follows: how do you deliberately build the alarm? Hey there. It’s me, Kore. And you’re listening to Exercising Consistency: From Fitness to Flourishing. Image generated using ChatGPT. Waking The Lazy Pilot We could say System 2 is lazy, but it’s more accurate to say the brain strives to preserve glucose. It’s more efficient to run the body on conditioned protocols. So at every opportunity System 1 is predominant. It’s an energy-saving feature that allowed our ancestors to navigate familiar terrain without exhausting themselves on every decision. But it creates a specific vulnerability. When an established System 1 protocol is running smoothly, nothing triggers System 2 to intervene. You can hold genuine values and important goals, but still drift along on autopilot. The good intentions are real. The autopilot simply does not consult them. This is why knowing what matters to you is insufficient. System 1 does not respond to abstractions. It responds to cues. A value like “I want to be present with my family“ is an abstraction. A cue is the phone buzzing in your pocket while your child is talking. System 1 reaches for the phone. System 2, if it’s dormant, never enters the room. The gap between your highest values and your daily behaviour is not a gap in sincerity. It’s a gap in engineering. You need something that wakes the pilot. The Alarm Is Already Inside System 1 The brain’s built-in alarm is the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). It fires when System 1 encounters a prediction error: a mismatch between what conditioning expects and what circumstances deliver. You go to your car to drive somewhere, but it has a flat tire. The mismatch triggers a surge of noradrenaline. System 2 wakes up. The problem is that the alarm only fires on concrete mismatches. It does not fire on abstract misalignment. System 1 will run a protocol indefinitely, without triggering the ACC, as long as the protocol produces no immediate negative consequence and encounters no physical obstacle. The behaviour can be entirely at odds with your values and the alarm stays silent. This means waiting for System 2 to spontaneously notice the gap and intervene is a losing strategy. It will not notice. The mismatch between your values and your behaviour is invisible to the ACC. It doesn’t matter enough. You must make it matter. Engineering the Tripwire You can install your own tripwires. You cannot override the ACC, but you can plan and condition new triggers into System 1. The alert becomes automated. System 1 itself monitors the tripwire. When the wire is tripped, the alarm fires, and System 2 is forced awake. There are two types of engineered tripwire. First: implementation intentions. Developed by psychologist Peter Gollwitzer, these follow an if-then or when-then format. For example, “If I reach for the fridge out of boredom, then I drink a glass of water.“ The physical act of touching the fridge door becomes the cue. The decision was already made, in advance, by the conscious mind. It will take repetition and practice, but over time System 1 will execute the new protocol naturally. Second: environmental forcing functions. With this you modify the physical environment so that System 1 cannot run its conditioned protocol without hitting a mismatch. For example, the alarm clock put across the room on the dresser. When System 1 reaches to hit snooze on autopilot and realizes it’s not within easy reach, the physical mismatch triggers the ACC. System 2 wakes up and registers the intention that was set the night before: to stand up within 10 seconds of hearing the alarm. Why This Matters Your highest values are abstractions. Things like integrity, patience, health, courage. System 1 does not process abstractions. It processes cues. Tripwires are how you convert values into cues. Every engineered tripwire is a bridge between what you believe and what you actually do. The implementation intention converts the value of health into a specific fridge-door trigger. The forcing function converts the value of integrity into a physical mismatch of where you put the alarm clock. The alternative is waiting for System 2 to spontaneously notice that your behaviour has drifted from your values. Spontaneous noticing is not a good strategy. It ignores how the brain actually functions. Your defaults determine your destiny. System 1 will run whatever protocol you’ve conditioned, whether it serves you or not. Tripwires give you leverage over that autopilot. They turn values into triggers, triggers into action, and action into identity. Don’t wait for alignment. Engineer it. An Invitation When you’re ready to turn consistency from an idea into a lived experience, start Day 1 inside The ACT Score Challenge [https://www.skool.com/exercising-self-control-1199/about]. That’s it for today. Catch you next time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit stoicstrength.substack.com [https://stoicstrength.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

341. You Can't Control The Impulse, But The Choice Is Yours

To exercise consistency and become the person who follows through, join The ACT Score Challenge [https://www.skool.com/exercising-self-control-1199/about] today. Over the past three episodes, I laid out a mechanical model of behavioural change. A training protocol designed for the brain you actually have. And a feedback loop that converts conscious choice into subconscious skill. The model is deliberately stripped of moral language. System 1 fires an avoidance response. That response is physical, not ethical. Neural pathways do not have intentions. They have inputs and outputs. The reflex is amoral. But a question follows from this that the model does not answer on its own. If the avoidance impulse carries no moral weight, where does morality fit at all? If the reflex is just biology, why does overriding it feel like something more than biology? That’s what we’re going to get into today. Hey there. It’s me, Kore. And you’re listening to Exercising Consistency: From Fitness to Flourishing. Image generated using ChatGPT. The Impulse and the Response While the System 1 impulse is amoral, the System 2 response is a choice and carries moral implications. I went into this briefly in the introductory episode #338 [https://stoicstrength.substack.com/p/338-you-dont-lack-discipline-your], but I think it’s important enough to address today more fully. When System 1 triggers avoidance or procrastination, it is executing a protocol. These are not the only behavioural protocols possible, but they are the ones most relevant to any lack of consistency we are working to change. The avoidance protocol was installed by past conditioning. It fires before conscious awareness catches up. You cannot stop the initial impulse any more than you can stop a flinch when startled. That moment carries no moral weight. You did not choose it. In a very real sense, it happened to you. But the moment after the impulse is different. System 2 activates. The conscious mind registers what System 1 just implemented. And in that space between the impulse and the conscious act, a question becomes available: What is the right thing to do now? That question is moral because the response has become a matter of conscious, deliberate choice. The Audit System 2 applies what we could call a moral audit. It holds the avoidance impulse against a framework of values and asks whether alignment exists. When you feel the urge to skip a scheduled workout session, System 2 can ask: * Does skipping align with the standard I set for myself? * Does it align with who I claim to be? * Does it align with what I want to provide for the people who depend on me? If the answer is “No,” System 2 can override. The override is not a feeling. It is an enacted choice. To act from values rather than from conditioning. That choice is the exercise of moral agency. Not in the sense of cosmic right and wrong. In the sense of choosing the action that is consistent with your standard of personal excellence rather than the action that avoids discomfort. This is the distinction between impulse and agency that the model depends on. The impulse belongs to biology. The response belongs to you, the Choosing Self. The Danger There is a failure mode worth recognizing here. System 2 can be lazy or fatigued or stressed. When avoidance fires and the conscious mind feels the urge to retreat, System 2 has two available moves. * It can audit honestly and override. * Or it can invent a justification that makes the avoidance seem principled. This is rationalization: System 2 deploying its analytical capacity in service of System 1’s avoidance. You are not skipping the workout because you are tired. You are skipping because you are practicing self-compassion. You are not avoiding the difficult conversation because you are afraid. You are avoiding it because the timing is not right and the other person is not ready and you need to gather more information first. The rationalization feels like reasoning. It borrows the structure of moral thought. But it is not moral. It is System 2 working for System 1 instead of overruling it. The audit has been performed, but the conclusion was written before the evidence was examined. The only defense is honesty. Not necessarily perfect honesty, but enough to notice when the reasoning feels a little too convenient. The Obligation There is a final piece: awareness creates obligation. Before you understood conditioning, you were simply reacting to stimuli. The avoidance protocol fired and you followed it. There was no choice because there was no awareness that a choice existed. Once you know the mechanism, that changes. You now know that the impulse is a learned pathway, not a command. You now know that the gap between impulse and act contains a choice. You now know that System 2 can override. Sure, you can’t control the initial impulse, but it’s still your behaviour. You’re responsible for what you do, even if you didn’t choose to do it deliberately. Awareness removes the exemption. This is not a moral philosophy I am imposing on the model. It’s a consequence of knowing the model. If you can change the conditioning and you know you can, choosing not to is itself a choice. The past conditioning delivered you to this moment. The next moment belongs to you. The Virtue None of this requires you to feel brave. The classical virtues of fortitude and temperance are not feelings. They are trained capacities. Fortitude is the skill of enduring short-term discomfort in service of long-term alignment. Temperance is the skill of regulating impulse rather than being regulated by it. Neither requires you to want to do the hard thing. Both require you to do it anyway. And both are built the same way every other System 1 skill is built: through repetition. Every time you override an avoidance impulse, you are not just completing a workout session. You are training the virtue. The neural pathway for fortitude strengthens the same way the neural pathway for a golf swing does: repetition, consistency, time. Morality is not a separate domain from the training protocol. It’s the fuel that drives it. The protocol tells you what to do. Morality tells you why doing it matters. The impulse is amoral. The choice is a matter of your moral compass. That gap, that space between the reflex and the response, is where the work lives. An Invitation To exercise consistency and become the person who responds skillfully after the initial impulse of System 1, join The ACT Score Challenge [https://www.skool.com/exercising-self-control-1199/about]. That’s it for today. Catch you next time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit stoicstrength.substack.com [https://stoicstrength.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

340. The Behaviour Change Loop: How Repetition Rewires Your Brain and Changes Who You Are (Part 3 of 3)

To exercise consistency and become the person who follows through, join The ACT Score Challenge [https://www.skool.com/exercising-self-control-1199/about] today. This is the final episode of three on how skilled behavioural change happens. In the first episode [https://stoicstrength.substack.com/p/338-you-dont-lack-discipline-your] you got the diagnosis: two systems, one bottleneck, and self-sabotage reframed as mechanical conditioning. Yesterday’s episode [https://stoicstrength.substack.com/p/339-the-science-of-training-your] gave you the training method: three stages, three rules, and a written protocol locked for 84 days. Today we close the loop. The training is not the end. It is the input to a process that governs your life whether you are aware of it or not. Once you see that process, you can’t miss it. And once you understand it, you can design it. Hey there. It’s me, Kore. And you’re listening to Exercising Consistency: From Fitness to Flourishing. Image generated using ChatGPT. The Loop Here is how your life runs. Stage one: Conscious Choice. Your System 2 identifies a standard and designs a training protocol around it. This is the moment of deliberate intention. It happens in the prefrontal cortex and it costs real metabolic energy. Stage two: Repetitive Training. You execute the protocol. Single cue. Constraint-led. Progressive over-learning. Day after day, the same simple input flows from System 2 to System 1. You are not learning the skill yet. You are sending the signal that will eventually become the skill. Stage three: Subconscious Automation. System 1 absorbs the repetition and physically rewires. Neural pathways myelinate. The cognitive load relocates from the front of the brain to the deep back. What once required a decision now executes without one. Stage four: Better Instincts. The next time you face a situation that used to trigger avoidance or hesitation, System 1 responds with the trained pattern instead of the old one. You did not choose the response in that moment. The moment was already shaped by the training that preceded it. Then the loop feeds back into itself. Better instincts create new evidence about what you are capable of doing. That evidence informs the next Conscious Choice. The standard rises. The protocol adapts. The loop continues. Most people treat stage four as mysterious. They see someone who acts calmly under pressure, who follows through without visible struggle, who seems to possess a quality of character they lack. They call it discipline or willpower or natural talent. They do not see the loop that produced it. The loop is invisible from the outside. But once you know it exists, you recognize it everywhere. What You Control The loop clarifies a distinction that most personal development advice handles poorly. You do not control your immediate impulses. When System 1 fires an avoidance response in the moment of action, that response is already in motion. The neural pathway already exists. The signal has already traveled. You cannot stop the first impulse any more than you can stop your body from requiring oxygen by holding your breath. But you can choose to take control of your future programming. System 2 can design the training. System 2 can execute the protocol. System 2 can decide what input System 1 receives, day after day, until the old pathways weaken and the new ones solidify. All of that is up to you. It’s an act of imagination and planning. This is the functional equivalent of the Stoic dichotomy of control. You are not responsible for the automatic reactions that arise from your conditioning. You are entirely responsible for the conditioning you choose to install from this point forward. The past delivered you to this moment. The future is written by the protocols you run today. The Meta-Skill There is one skill that sits above the others in this context. It’s called cognitive flexibility: knowing when to hand the steering wheel from System 2 to System 1 and back again. The mistake is using both systems at once. System 2 sets the objective, the boundaries, and the preparation. Once the action begins, System 2 must step into an observer role, focusing on external sensory input rather than internal monologue. This is called Trained Intent. You consciously decide to stop deciding. The paradox is real and it works. In the optimal state of action, explicit conscious processing shuts down entirely. Neuroscientists call this transient hypofrontality. The prefrontal cortex goes quiet. System 1 executes with full access to the automated skill, while just enough conscious awareness remains to steer toward the goal. The result is a flow state. Effortless action. Peak performance without peak effort. You cannot sustain flow all day. Nor should you try. Cognitive flexibility means structuring your time so that both systems operate in the mode in which they are best suited. Analytical blocks for System 2. Incubation blocks for System 1. Rigid checklists in one window. Free-form wandering in the next. Mastery is not using one system exclusively. It is knowing which system the moment requires and handing off cleanly. The Architect The loop is already running. At around age 3, children begin developing basic cognitive flexibility and impulse control. This allows for the direction of System 1 which has been in place since birth. Every avoidance protocol you now struggle against was installed by a loop you did not know had been conditioned without your System 2 input or one you had designed poorly. What you need to ask yourself is “Am I designing the input deliberately or letting circumstance do it for me?” When you understand the loop, your role becomes clear. You are not the athlete. You are not the trainer. You are the architect. You write the protocol. You set the constraint. You design the system. Then you let the loop do what loops do: convert conscious choice into subconscious instinct, over and over, until the standard you aspired toward becomes who you are in action. That’s how you create complex behaviour change: consistent focus on the standard, simple rules, repetitive training. That is the work. An Invitation To exercise consistency and become the person who trains System 1 skillfully, whatever the circumstances, join The ACT Score Challenge [https://www.skool.com/exercising-self-control-1199/about]. That’s it for today. Catch you next time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit stoicstrength.substack.com [https://stoicstrength.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

339. The Science of Training Your Brain to Automate Skills (Part 2 of 3)

To exercise consistency and become the person who follows through, join The ACT Score Challenge [https://www.skool.com/exercising-self-control-1199/about] today. This is episode two of three on how skilled behavioural change is done. In the last episode [https://stoicstrength.substack.com/p/338-you-dont-lack-discipline-your], we established the diagnosis: your brain runs on two systems. * System 1 is fast, automatic, and runs most of your life without your awareness. * System 2 is slow, deliberate, and has a working memory of about four chunks. What people call self-sabotage is not a demon saboteur acting with malice to ruin your plans. It is System 1 executing a conditioned avoidance protocol. The problem is mechanical. Which means it can be trained. Today we explore the training itself. Hey there. It’s me, Kore. And you’re listening to Exercising Consistency: From Fitness to Flourishing. Image generated using ChatGPT. The Three Stages In cognitive psychology, the process of moving a skill from conscious effort to automatic execution is called proceduralization. This is not a metaphor. Your brain physically relocates the cognitive load from your prefrontal cortex to your basal ganglia and cerebellum. A skill is not learned until the geography of the brain has changed. That relocation happens in three stages. * The Cognitive Stage is pure System 2. Every movement requires massive conscious effort. You make frequent mistakes. You are slow. Your brain burns glucose at an elevated rate. This stage is uncomfortable and most people quit here because they mistake the discomfort for evidence that something is wrong. Nothing is wrong. This is what learning feels like when the skill is not yet automated. * The Associative Stage is the bridge. Your brain begins recognizing patterns. You no longer need to think about the basics, but you still need conscious control for complex combinations. Errors drop. Speed increases. System 2 and System 1 begin operating in cooperation rather than in sequence. * The Autonomous Stage is pure System 1. The skill runs itself. You can perform it while talking, under stress, or with your attention elsewhere. The decision cost has dropped to zero. You do not decide to execute the skill. The skill executes because that is what the architecture now produces when triggered by the correct circumstances. The entire purpose of training is to move a behaviour through these three stages as efficiently as possible. Most people never reach the third stage because their method violates the rules that make the transition possible. The Three Rules To successfully program System 1, your System 2 training method must follow three strict constraints. * The Single Cue Rule. System 2 focuses on one cue at a time, never a whole sequence. A poor method says: “Keep your feet shoulder-width apart, drop your hips, watch the ball, follow through with your wrist, and breathe out.“ That is five chunks. The working memory can hold four. The system jams. The correct method says: “Drop hips.” Repeat until you cannot get it wrong. Then: “Watch ball.” One cue. One focus. * The Constraint-Led Approach. Instead of using System 2 to constantly correct your form, use System 2 to change the environment so correct form is forced. If you want to keep your elbows tucked while boxing, for example, do not tell yourself “keep elbows in.” Instead, put a towel under your armpits. If the towel drops, you did it wrong. System 2 now only has to monitor one binary: towel or no towel. The constraint does the coaching. * Progressive Over-Learning. You are not practicing until you get it right. You are practicing until you cannot get it wrong. This requires continuing the repetition long after the skill feels mastered. The neurological reason is straightforward: what feels like overkill to System 2 is the minimum input System 1 needs to physically rewire. Stop early and the pathway never solidifies. The Written Protocol Your working memory cannot hold the protocol and execute it at the same time. This is not a character flaw. It’s a hardware limitation. A written protocol acts as an external hard drive for your prefrontal cortex. It keeps the rules stable so your conscious energy can be spent entirely on execution. The format matters. Abstract goals (”be more disciplined“) and emotional benchmarks (”do it until you feel inspired“) are System 2 confusion. System 1 needs environmental triggers (”when I sit at my desk at 8:00 AM“), micro-movements (”open exactly one document“), and binary metrics (”success means the timer hit zero“). Then you lock it. The 84-Day Stability Rule says: write the protocol once, commit to changing zero variables for 84 days, and execute blindly (i.e. it’s non-negotiable). Neurobiological changes like myelination require consistency. If the trainer is inconsistent, the student receives conflicting data and fails to automate anything. Closing the Gap You can accelerate this process. * Deconstruct skills into ultra-isolated micro-components. * Prioritize perfect form over speed; System 1 will automate sloppiness just as efficiently as excellence. * Attach emotional stakes; the amygdala marks high-focus experiences for accelerated encoding. * And protect your sleep. System 1 does not solidify learning while you practice. It solidifies while you sleep. Seven to eight hours is not a luxury. It is a biological requirement for training. None of this depends on motivation. It depends on structure. Up Next: Series Conclusion The next episode closes the series. The loop that runs your life. Conscious choice becomes repetitive training becomes subconscious automation becomes better instincts. And the skill that sits above all of it: knowing when to hand the wheel from System 2 to System 1 and back again. An Invitation To exercise consistency and become the person who trains System 1 skillfully, whatever the circumstances, join The ACT Score Challenge [https://www.skool.com/exercising-self-control-1199/about]. That’s it for today. Catch you next time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit stoicstrength.substack.com [https://stoicstrength.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

338. You Don't Lack Discipline, Your Brain Isn't Wired the Way You Think (Part 1 of 3)

To exercise consistency and become the person who follows through, join The ACT Score Challenge [https://www.skool.com/exercising-self-control-1199/about] today. This is the first of three episodes on a single argument: personal-development fails when you fail to take into account how your brain functions. There are two systems sharing the same skull and one of them runs without your direct control or consent. This series is about understanding those two systems and learning how to train the one that runs almost the entire show. By the end, you will have a complete model for how real behavioural change happens. Through simple, repetitive protocols designed for the brain you actually have. Hey there. It’s me, Kore. And you’re listening to Exercising Consistency: From Fitness to Flourishing. Image generated using ChatGPT. The Two Systems Cognitive psychologists call these two systems the Dual-Process Theory. It divides all cognition into two modes. System 1 is fast, automatic, and subconscious. It operates beneath your awareness, executing learned patterns without asking permission. It’s the reason you can drive home from work and realize you remember nothing about the drive. You were not unconscious. System 1 was handling it. System 2 is slow, deliberate, and conscious. It’s the voice you hear when you think. It handles novel problems, weighs options, and makes intentional choices. It’s the part of you consider your Self. The relationship between these two systems determines nearly everything about your behaviour. Most people assume System 2 is in charge. It’s not as simple as one or the other. System 1 is the default. It handles the overwhelming majority of your daily actions. System 2 only activates when System 1 encounters something it does not have a preloaded response for. And even then, System 2 has severe limits. The Bottleneck Your conscious mind can hold roughly four chunks of information in working memory at any given time. That’s the ceiling. This limitation has consequences that most personal-development advice ignores. When your method requires five steps, your brain freezes. Anxiety rises. You have exceeded your working memory. And System 1 learns nothing from a jammed signal. The plan fails, and you conclude you lack discipline. You do not lack discipline. You exceeded a neurological constraint that does not care about your intentions. This is why simple rules outperform complex programs. Not because simplicity is philosophically elegant. Because it respects the hardware. System 2 can only focus on one thing at a time. When you ask it to manage more, it drops something. And this can be the thing you most wanted it to hold. What Self-Sabotage Actually Is This brings us to what people call self-sabotage. The term suggests malice. A part of you working against your own interests. A hidden saboteur. That framing is not only a poor metaphor of what’s happening, it creates an imaginary complex of problems that complicates what’s necessary to move forward. What behavioural science and neurobiology reveal is far simpler. Your non-conscious brain has one primary mandate: survival through energy conservation and threat avoidance. To your System 1, the familiar is safe, even when the familiar is miserable. The unfamiliar is dangerous, even when the unfamiliar is a positive goal. When you procrastinate on a difficult project or avoid a workout, your brain is not trying to ruin your life. It has coupled that action with an expectation of discomfort, negative judgment, or failure based on past conditioning. It is executing a highly successful avoidance protocol to protect you from what it perceives as unwanted consequences. That is not a moral failing. The impulse to avoid is amoral because you, the Choosing Self, can’t instantly control this reflex. It’s conditioning doing exactly what conditioning does. It’s a physical neural pathway built by input. While the initial avoidance protocol is a biological mechanism rather than a moral failing, choosing whether or not to change that conditioning is where morality applies. Once you become aware of this conditioned impulse, your subsequent conscious choice matters. You decide to let the habit rule you or choose to overwrite it as an exercise of agency and personal responsibility. In contrast, the psychoanalytic tradition, rooted in Freud and Jung, taught people to dig for hidden conflicts and buried drives; to excavate the unconscious for the origin of their dysfunction. The problem with this approach is that it cannot be falsified. Karl Popper, an Austrian-British philosopher of science celebrated for his concept of falsifiability in the scientific method, used psychoanalysis as the textbook definition of pseudoscience. If a patient agreed with the analyst, the analyst was right. If the patient disagreed, the patient was “in denial.” A theory that cannot be proven wrong cannot be scientifically proven right. Modern behavioural science has moved on to actual evidence-based methods of behaviour change: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Exposure Therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. These approaches treat the brain as an organism with conditioning that can be systematically retrained through simple, repetitive action. The problem is mechanical. Which means it can be fixed. What This Changes So, good news. You are not fighting a personal demon or uncovering a psychological wound. You are working with a system that learned a pattern in response to triggers in the environment, and is running the pattern on repeat. System 1 responds to training. That means you don’t need to figure out what happened to you that resulted in the pattern or why that pattern and not another or any other psycho-babble. You just need to decide on the result you want and how you’ll train yourself to fire a new pattern in the same circumstances. That is the work. Next Up: The Training Itself In the next episode, we move from diagnosis to method. The three phases every skill must pass through on its way from conscious effort to automatic execution. Why your protocol must be written down and locked in for 84 days. And the single most important rule for programming System 1: one cue at a time. The student is ready. The trainer has to show up. An Invitation To exercise consistency and become the person who trains System 1 well, whatever the circumstances, join The ACT Score Challenge [https://www.skool.com/exercising-self-control-1199/about]. That’s it for today. Catch you next time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit stoicstrength.substack.com [https://stoicstrength.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]