the “inchworm theory” is the fastest way to make progress

0:00 All right. Hello and welcome to this training. As you can see from the title, what we're going to be covering today is the inchworm theory. And as you can see from the overview, what we're going to be talking about more specifically is first the overview itself, the performance range, expanding the front, raising the back, compressing the range, the review and your action items for the day or the next few days. Now, before we get started, if you want to work with me one on one, make sure to book a call from the link in the description. If you want this training with its respective document, and make sure to join the free community from the link in the description. And if you want these trainings sent to you as a newsletter every week, then make sure to join the free newsletter again from the link in the description. With that said, let's get started and actually talk about the performance range. So if you spent any serious amount of time

0:46 trying to improve yourself, you've probably noticed something a bit strange. You can have periods where you feel incredibly disciplined, focused healthy productive, emotionally stable, and completely in control of yourself. And then a few days later, you can still look at your own behavior and wonder how you somehow became the person who basically procrastinated over eats avoids difficult conversations, waste time, or just falls back into habits you thought you had already dealt with. And most people think they need more discipline, more motivation, or another system. But there's a much more useful way to actually understand what's happening. And Jared Tendler developed an idea called the inchworm concept in his book The Mental Game of Poker. And although he originally used it to explain performance in poker,

1:31 I think it gives you one of the clearest models for understanding self-development in general. So the basic idea is that you don't have one fixed level of performance. You have a range and at one end you have your best performance what Tendler calls the A game. And at the other end you have your worst performance. So your C game and most of your actual life happens somewhere between those two points. So you live more so in the middle. And once you see yourself this way, a lot of confusing things start making a lot more sense because you can now reach a new high without actually changing very much. Because one exceptional performance only proves that you can actually access that level sometimes. And you can also go through a period where you don't hit any exciting new highs and still make enormous progress

2:16 because your worst behavior keeps improving. So you're working on your weaknesses. And so the second form of progress gets ignored constantly in self-development because people naturally pay attention to breakthroughs, personal records, big wins, and moments where they feel like a completely new person. But in this training, I want to show you how this range actually works. Why a real improvement requires you to work on both ends of it, and how to use the model across your health, wealth, love and self or health, work, relationships and inner life. And we'll start by making the range itself clear. From there, I'll show you how to push your best performance forward how to raise the level of your worst performance, and finally, how those two processes work together until your whole baseline changes. And by the end of this, you should have a much cleaner way to judge

3:01 whether you're actually improving in a practical way to decide what you need to work on next. So again, most people think about personal growth as if they have one level. They look at how discipline they are, how productive they are, how good they are in relationships, or how mentally strong they are. And they try to give themselves one answer. Jared Tendler. Informed consent, though, gives you a much more useful way to think about it. As we said, you perform across a range on your best days. You have what Tendler calls your A game on your worst case, the worst days you have your C game, and most of your life happens somewhere between those two. So once you understand that, you can stop judging your entire level from whichever version of yourself happened to show up today and start improving the full range deliberately so. You already know this from experience.

3:46 There are days where you can focus for hours, you make good decisions, you train properly, you probably communicate well and feel like you finally figured yourself out. You feel on top of the world. There are also days where the same person procrastinating over eats becomes reactive, wastes money, or loses perspective over something small, and you didn't necessarily become a completely different human being between those days, right? You move to a different part of your current performance range, and that variation matters because you can waste yours trying to eliminate it completely. But human performance changes with stress, sleep, emotion, pressure context and dozens of other influences. So some variation will always exist. But the useful question becomes how good the full range is. If your worst realistic performance

4:32 keeps improving, a bad day starts producing outcomes that your old self would have considered respectable. And this also gives you a cleaner way to judge progress right? You can look at your best recent performances, your average performances, and your worst recent performances separately. If you only measure your highest point, you can convince yourself that you've transformed after just one exceptional week. If you only measure a terrible day, you can convince yourself nothing has changed, even though your entire baseline has improved. Now, tender describes this range like a bell curve, because most performances cluster somewhere around your normal level, while fewer performances sit at the extremes. So you don't need statistics to use the idea, right? You only need to notice that your life contains recurring highs,

5:18 recurring lows, and a much larger middle where you usually operate. And that middle matters because real development gradually moves the whole distribution forward. So say you're working on fitness. Your A game may include training consistently eating according to plan, sleeping well, making sensible decisions around your food. Your C game may include binge eating, skipping several sessions, abandoning structure altogether. So if six months later, your bad week means that you still train twice or still eat enough protein and recover quickly, then your progress exists. Even if you haven't reached a new peak that month, right? Because you've improved your worst game. And so this explains why people constantly underestimate their own development. They expect growth to feel like a permanent new high,

6:03 so whenever their performance drops, they assume they went backward. In reality, you may have reached a new game, a new a game months ago and spent the same time since then making that level more repeatable. And you may also have removed several old C game behaviors without giving yourself any credit, because removing a bad pattern creates a lot less excitement than achieving something new. And when you start reading progress through the range, those periods make much more sense. So a new peak proves possibility. If you close your biggest deal, hit your best lift, or stay composed through a difficult conversation or experience, an unusually focused week, or any unusually great behavior, you just know that level exists inside your current capability. It just means that you have

6:49 that in your capacity. That's probably your A game at the moment and that matters. Although one peak tells you very little about it being reliable, right? It doesn't tell you anything about you being able to repeat it or how often you can repeat it. It just means it's in your capacity at the moment. You haven't established a new normal simply because you access access that once the next question becomes whether you can reproduce that performance or under ordinary conditions. So can you focus that? Well, when your motivation drops, can you communicate that well when you're actually irritated? Can you manage money sensibly after an emotional week, and you start seeing development as the process of making strong performances less dependent on ideal conditions? So your worst performance,

7:35 on the other hand, tells you something different right? They reveal the mistakes, the triggers, the habits, and the weaknesses that still have enough power to pull you down. And that information can feel unpleasant. Because your C game usually contains behaviors you'd prefer to identify as exceptions. But then there's a model makes them useful data right? If a pattern keeps appearing in the back of your range, you have found one of your next development targets. You have found a weakness that you can improve. And I like this framing because it removes a lot of the drama from failure. You can look at a bad performance and just ask what still breaks down when your capacity drops, and how can you improve it? Maybe you stop planning, maybe you become impulsive, maybe you avoid difficult work, or maybe you withdraw from

8:20 from people. You now have something concrete to actually work and improve, without turning the entire event into a judgment about who you are as a person. And once you see yourself as a range improvement splits into two different jobs. You can push the front forward by learning, experimenting, taking on harder challenges or bigger challenges and reaching levels you haven't reached before. So pushing yourself outside of your comfort zone. You can also pull the back forward by removing recurring mistakes, correcting weak habits, and making your lowest level less destructive. So tenders interim concept says real progress needs both movements because each one solves a different problem inside the range. And this is why he calls it the inchworm theory. Because you're moving your back and your forward, and so

9:07 and you're front. So the front contains your emerging ability. You develop it when you learn a better sales process or train with a better technique, or communicate with more maturity, or build stronger emotional control, or deepen a useful practice, your discovering what you may eventually become able to do consistently. And that part of growth feels exciting because you can often point to a clear new result, right? But you need periods where you deliberately exceed your current normal level for that to happen, and that may mean attempting a heavier lift at the gym. It may mean taking on a larger project, it might mean working through a harder conversation, or it might mean practicing a skill at a level that exposes your limitations. And those attempts create information about what your next level actually requires,

9:52 even when your first attempts look inconsistent, the back contains your recurring weaknesses. You improve it through correction, repetition boundaries routines preparation and just an honest analysis of your weaknesses and what keeps going wrong. So you're reducing how bad your bad performances can actually become. And that sounds less glamorous but it often produces the most stable change because you remove behaviors that repeatedly erase your progress or bring you back down. So if you regularly lose two days after one bad decision, shortening that spiral to two hours can matter a lot more than adding another productivity technique. If you regularly overspend after an emotional trigger, removing that behavior can improve your finances without necessarily

10:38 having to increase your income. So you raise your floor whenever you make an old low less likely or less intense or shorter in terms of duration. And those two jobs naturally alternate. Right? You reach forward, you discovered a new discover, a new capability. You notice the weaknesses that make it inconsistent, and you spend time correcting those weaknesses. And once your baseline catches up, you can reach forward again from a stronger position and tender. Name the concept after the movement of an inch worm. Although basically the practical mechanism here is simply this alternating improvement of your best and worst performances, working on your strengths and working on your weaknesses. In short. So before you try to improve anything, you actually need to define your current range.

11:24 Meaning pick one area and basically describe what your A game actually looks like through observable behavior, and then describe what your C game looks like when things go badly. And avoid vague labels like disciplined or confident or spiritual or successful or healthy, because those are not observable behaviors right? They're not necessarily specific. They're very vague and you can interpret them however you want. So you need to write down what you can actually what you actually do, what you avoid, what decisions you make and what results tend to follow. And in health, your A game may mean that you train according to plan or eat in a way that supports your goal, or sleep enough and get and keep basic routines even when your schedule changes. Your C game might mean that you binge or abandon your training, or stay up far too late

12:09 and let one poor choice turn into several days of poor choices. That description gives you both sides of the work immediately. Now, your next target may have very little to do with reaching a new physical peak. Your next target might. You might decide that even during a bad week, you just want to work on still going to the gym and completing two training sessions and keeping keeping food within a reasonable range. And that change raises your minimum, right? It raises your minimum standard that your life falls back to under pressure in wealth. Same same goes for that area, right? Your A game might include focused revenue producing work, sensible spending, strong sales conversations, decisions made with longer time time horizons. But your came might include

12:55 avoiding important work, or making emotional purchases, or chasing random opportunities and shiny objects, or spending several days reacting instead of producing again. You can now separate expansion from correction, and so you can do the same in relationships. You can do the same when it comes to yourself and inner life. Your A game may include perspective, emotional steadiness, self-awareness, and regular practices that basically help you think clearly. So like meditation for example, or thinking or journaling, etc.. While your C game may include anxiety spirals or comparison or self-doubt, or completely abandoning the practices that usually stabilize you, and so the point is to see both ends without pretending that either one alone defines you, right? So with that said,

13:40 we can move on to actually expanding the front. So now that you can actually see the range and you know it exists, you can work on the front deliberately. So your a game grows when you do something you couldn't reliably do before you produce at a higher level. So a harder problem. Tolerate more pressure, communicate with more skill, or reach a result that used to sit outside of your normal capacity and comfort zone. And this matters because raising your floor without expanding your ability eventually just gives you consistency at the same level. If you just keep working on your weaknesses without working on necessarily reaching for more, you're just going to stay at the same level. So you still need new skills, hardware standards, and experiences that show you what your next level could look like, and you usually discover

14:25 your front through exposure to difficulty. So maybe a business owner, for example, would learn something new when they sell to a more sophisticated buyer, or lead a larger team, or make a decision with more money at stake. Someone in fitness could learn something new when they train beyond their current capacity and have to improve technique recovery or programing. Difficulty reveals the next limitation clearly enough for you to actually work on it, and so you need to keep the challenge specific because obviously, vague ambition creates vague feedback. Wanting to become more productive tells you almost nothing. Trying to complete a defined piece of difficult work with fewer interruptions is very specific and gives you something you can actually observe and work on, and you can see where concentration breaks, what distractions actually appear, and which part of the process

15:12 currently limits you. You also move the front by adding knowledge and techniques. So sometimes your current ceiling exists because you genuinely don't know how to perform better yet, and you may need a better sales skill or better training method, or a better way to handle conflict, or a deeper understanding of your own emotional patterns. Whatever it is, good information expands the set of actions actually available to you, and so information only matters once you actually express it through behavior. Read the book learned method, study the example, but then put yourself in a situation where you have to actually use it, and you want to know whether the idea changes, which you can actually do in real conditions, because that's what moves the Front Range right now. Your first performance at a new level will usually look unstable. You might reach for it once,

15:58 but fail to repeat it for weeks, right? And this is very observable. At the gym. You might reach a new personal record on the deadlift, let's say, or bench press, etc. and then you might not hit it for a few more weeks, and you may understand the skill in calm conditions and lose it completely under pressure. And that inconsistency makes sense because you're operating at the edge of your current range, where the behavior has very little support from repetition yet. Right? So you need to treat the first successful attempt as evidence that the level is possible, and then study what allowed it to essentially happen and ask what was different when you performed well, maybe you prepared more thoroughly. Maybe you started earlier, maybe you slept better. Maybe you removed

16:43 some distractions. Maybe you practice before the important moment or slowed yourself down during a difficult conversation. You're looking for conditions that helped produce the performance, so you can actually recreate them deliberately and see which ones actually matter. And you need to repeat the performance under slightly different conditions. If you can only access your A game when everything feels perfect, then you have the perfect conditions. You still have a fragile skill. You want enough repetitions that you understand which parts came from real capability and which parts depended on unusual circumstances. And eventually you need to test the skill while something makes it harder. Try to communicate while you're frustrated. Try to keep your nutrition nutrition reasonable while you're traveling. Try to focus when you feel less

17:29 motivated right. Try to go to the gym when you feel a bit tired, or manage money more carefully after a stressful period. Pressure shows whether the new behavior has started moving from the edge towards the middle of your range. And this is where self-development culture can distort the process. I think new peaks feel awesome and rewarding, so keep people keep chasing another peak before the previous one becomes stable. They change routines, they collect strategies, they start new challenges and constantly search for the next insight. Because movement at the front is easy to notice and it feels exciting. Meanwhile, the same old Sea game continues underneath all of it, and so their weak weaknesses keep pulling them back and you can become incredibly knowledgeable and still lose control

18:14 in the same predictable situations because you never spend enough time correcting the back of the range. You just keep collecting more in the front of the range, and new information gives you an immediate sense of progress. You can finish a course, you can save a new system, you can buy a new program. You can get into coaching and or understand a concept and feel like something changed. Sometimes something did change, although your behavior has to prove it right. If you keep accumulating front end knowledge while the same low level behaviors repeat, you have created a wider gap between what you know and what you can reliably live. And so that gap can become psychologically uncomfortable because your standards rise faster than your baseline. You know that you know what excellent performance looks like. So your C game feels even more frustrating

19:00 when it actually happens. And this is one reason experienced people can feel strangely disappointed in themselves. Their awareness has moved forward, while parts of their behavior still belong to an older level. And when that happens, the answer may be to just stop searching for another technique for a while, stop searching for more knowledge, and actually work on what you already know right? Use what you already know and watch where it breaks. Let your worst recurring failures tell you where to actually work. You can return to expansion once the weaknesses that keep interrupting your progress and keep sabotaging your progress have become smaller, less frequent, or easier to recover from. And you can make the front end development practical by choosing one ceiling target at a time. Pick a performance

19:45 you can almost reach. Define it through actual behavior and numbers so it's measurable or a measurable result in general, and give yourself enough attempts to learn what it requires. And then you're trying to extend your current capability by a realistic amount, and then understand the skills behind that improvement well enough that you can actually begin repeating it. So in health, you might raise your fitness ceiling by completing a harder training block or improving a specific lift, or learning to maintain nutrition through a more demanding period, or developing better recovery habits, or getting to a place. Getting to a physique you haven't gotten to before, or a body fat percentage that you haven't gotten to before. The exact target depends on your goal. The important part is that you can point to a new level of performance

20:31 that your previous normal wouldn't produce consistently, and in work, you might complete deeper sessions of concentrated work, handle a larger project, improve the quality of your content, or sell at a higher level, whatever it is. Again, you need to choose something observable. You should be able to look back after a month and know whether you're front moved. In relationships. A higher ceiling may mean you can discuss a difficult issue without becoming reactive and defensive, or communicate a boundary clearly, or state a boundary in the first place, or stay present when the other person feels emotional or recover from conflict with more maturity. Those are skills you can practice and observe, which makes relationship growth much easier to develop deliberately and in your inner life and yourself. You might deepen meditation, improve your ability to notice

21:17 emotional reactions before actually acting on them, increasing that space between thought and action, right between emotion and action. Spend longer periods without compulsive distraction or just maintain perspective through stress. These improvements will expand what you can handle while remaining deliberate and aware. Now, with that said, we can move on to actually raising the back. So this is the part of the inchworm concept that I think most people completely neglect. Your life depends heavily on how bad things get when they get bad. Meaning when you're tired, stressed, disappointed, distracted emotional or simply having a difficult period. Anybody can look impressive under perfect conditions, right? Your floor, though, tells you what remains when conditions deteriorate.

22:03 So if you raise that floor, you protect more of your progress because your worst days stop producing the same level of damage that they used to produce. So think about how much progress people lose through a small number of repeated C game behaviors. Someone works hard for a few weeks and then spends money impulsively. Somebody saves money for months and then spends it on something that they won't even use. Someone trains consistently unless one binge turn into several days of abandoning their diet. Someone builds a good relationship and repeatedly creates unnecessary conflict when there is jealousy and they get triggered right. The front may be improving the whole time, but the back keeps creating expensive reversals and self-sabotage. So measure those lows by their actual cost.

22:49 How much time does the pattern take from me? How much money does it cost? How much does it affect your body, your work, or another person? How long does it take you to return to a normal afterwards? Once you see that cost clearly, floor raising becomes a serious development project. Instead of some basic cleanup, you now know the cost of this and not doing it, so you don't have to eliminate the C game pattern instantly and completely to make progress. You can reduce just how often it happens, or reduce its intensity, or shorten the recovery time. If you used to abandon a routine for a week and now you return to the routine the following day, then the floor has moved, right? If you still become reactive, but catch yourself before turning it into a major argument, then the floor has moved again. And I especially like

23:34 measuring recovery because people often ignore it. You may still have a bad morning, bad conversation, poor workout or weak work session. It happens to everyone. The question is what you do afterwards. A developed person can still perform badly, although they often recognize the drop faster and return to their normal level with less wasted time. And so your C game usually repeats, meaning the exact situation changes, but the underlying pattern tends to look familiar. Maybe you avoid work when you feel uncertain, or overeat when you feel deprived, or spend money when you want relief. Or maybe you become defensive when you feel criticized or compare yourself when your confidence drops. Look for repetition because a recurring failure gives you something much more useful than a random mistake, right? It gives you a stable target

24:20 for development, and try to start by identifying what tends to happen before the behavior. Meaning, you may notice particular emotions or environments, or people or thoughts or physical states that make the pattern more likely. And you don't need a perfect psychological explanation here. You just want to have awareness to recognize the sequence early, while you still have room to choose what happens next and write down the earliest sign you can actually notice, maybe your attention starts scattering. Maybe you begin bargaining with yourself. Maybe you feel the urge to avoid a conversation. Whatever it is, an early warning signal gives you a chance to actually intervene before the full see game. Behavior takes over, and you need to decide your minimum response in advance.

25:05 So when the new pattern actually begins, what will you actually do? You might still take the walk, or complete one important task, or eat a normal next meal, or delay a purchase, or tell the other person you need time before continuing the conversation and keep the response simple enough that you can use it under the exact conditions that usually make you perform badly. And this is where baseline habits earn their value, so a baseline should survive a bad day, right? If your minimum routine only works when you feel disciplined organized, then it's not your minimum routine. It's your A game, right? It's not your C game, it belongs closer to your A game. So your floor rises when you create behaviors that remain realistic under pressure and prevent

25:50 a temporary drop from becoming a complete collapse. And raising the back often depends on removing behaviors instead of adding more things to do. So, you might already know enough about fitness and simply need to remove the bench pattern right? You might already know enough about money and need to just remove that impulse of spending. You might already understand communication and need to remove the habit of replying while highly reactive, or the habit of becoming defensive. So this kind of progress can feel strangely uneventful because you're not really achieving anything new, or it doesn't seem like it. You're more so measuring fewer mistakes and fewer reversals and fewer destructive episodes. You're more so removing rather than adding.

26:36 And so you need to make the bad pattern harder to perform where you can. So keep less tempting food around. If, for example, certain foods reliably trigger your binges or remove easy access to spending. If you repeatedly make impulsive purchases or create distance before responding. When you know you become destructive in conflict. So you don't need to prove your willpower every time if you can actually change the conditions around the behavior. And you can also prepare for predictable week periods. So if, for example, when you're traveling, it disrupts your health habits, then try to decide what your minimum routine will be before that right? If you're if stressful lunches damage your sleep, then you need to decide what you'll protect during those weeks, and preparation will

27:22 turn a known weakness into something you can actually manage. So some C game behaviors eventually disappear from your realistic range. You might still be capable of them. In theory. You know everybody is capable of certain C game behaviors, although they no longer show up often enough to define your current flaw. They're no longer part of your C game, and that's a meaningful threshold, because the old low has now stopped consuming attention. And recovery time is no longer your old low, and you can spend that energy on the next weakness that now sits at the back of your improved range. So a useful flaw audit asks one question what do I repeatedly do at my worst? That makes everything harder. Afterwards was the one domino that would make everything easier.

28:08 So keep your answer. Behavioral. We want to look at actions specifically. Don't write that you become lazy, weak and secure, undisciplined or toxic. Again, this is not necessarily actions right? What you actually do. You avoid the task for three days. Let's say you spend money when you actually plan to save it. You keep eating after your form, you withdraw. Instead of communicating. You keep snacking and grazing throughout the day rather than actually just eating your defined meals. Those are the things that we can actually work on right? That level of specificity gives you something that you can actually change, and then pick the C game behavior with the highest cost or the highest frequency. So you don't need to repair every weakness at once. Once one recurring habit or behavior or action

28:54 might create a disproportionate amount of damage across your whole life. So removing it is. So removing the big domino is really what can improve your average performance without changing anything in the front yet. So for example, if binge eating repeatedly wipes out days of good nutrition or deficits, you need to work on the bench pattern before adding another advanced diet strategy right before adding anything. So if procrastination repeatedly turns one difficult task into several days, then you need to build your correction around starting. So you need to define the smallest version of the task, for example, or remove the main distraction or create a rule for returning after a week session. Whatever it is, you're essentially teaching yourself how to fail less severely

29:40 when your motivation drops. And if reactivity creates the most damage in your relationship relationships then you need to work on the moment before the reaction. So maybe you need to notice the physical and emotional escalation and then create a pause and return once you can. Actually, once you're calm and you can communicate clearly or you can learn advanced relationship theory later right? First, remove the behavior that repeatedly causes the the bigger cost. And if comparison and anxiety create long spirals in your self aspect, then you need to focus on shortening them. Reduce the inputs that reliably intensify them. Return to a stabilizing practice more quickly, and just watch how long it takes before you regain perspective.

30:25 So your flow arises when the same trigger loses its ability to control several hours or several days of your life. So with that said, let's actually talk about compressing the range. So when you work on both ends, your best performances move forward and your worst performances move forward as well. So your full range improves in general, and you also tend to become more consistent because the distance between a normal day and a bad day becomes smaller, so you become capable of more at the front while making the back less destructive. And your average performance improves almost automatically when your lows improve. Imagine that your best work stays exactly the same for a month. While your worst work becomes much better, your average output

31:11 still rises. The same applies to fitness, finances relationships and emotional regulation. And whatever you want, you can improve the life you can actually experience by improving what happens on ordinary and difficult days. What happens when the lows inevitably come? And this creates a form of stability that peak chasing cannot give you, because now you trust yourself more. Because you have evidence that a bad mood or a difficult week or an unexpected problem no longer really destroys all of your structure. And you know you may perform below your best and still remain within a range that supports your goals. So over time, this actually changes how you see yourself, because behaviors that once required major effort become part of your normal range.

31:57 So you no longer need an exceptional week to really prove that you can do them. You've repeated them under enough conditions that they now appear in average and even weaker performances. And that's when your development starts feeling a lot less like occasional access to a better version of yourself, and more so like a genuine change in what you reliably do. So use behavior to make that judgment. If your old A game required perfect conditions, and your current C game now includes several of those same behaviors, then you have a strong evidence that your range has moved, so you don't need to feel transformed every day. You just have recent behavior that can show you that the old level has become more normal. And this also changes

32:42 how you interpret periods where you don't necessarily reach a new peak. So sometimes you've stopped expanding the front because your attention has moved to integration and correction, and your results may look flat from the outside, while your worst performance is improve underneath them. And you can easily misread that as if you only celebrate new highs. But the interim framework gives you another possibility to investigate. Maybe your back is catching up, so you need to look for signs of consolidation during those periods. Like are you actually repeating the skill more often? Do you recover faster when you slip? Have you have certain mistakes become a lot less common, and can you maintain this decent performance under conditions that used to derail you? Those are the changes

33:28 that can show you that a skill is becoming more reliable, even if your maximum result hasn't changed recently. And this is where patients becomes a lot more practical. Right. Because you aren't waiting passively for another breakthrough. your strengthening what you already developed until it survives ordinary life. and once your baseline rises far enough, the next front end push starts from a stronger position and usually exposes a more advanced set of limitations. So eventually you reach a point where the back no longer needs most of your attention. The old mistake has become rare. Your minimum standards hold and recovery happens a lot quicker when something goes wrong, and that gives you a clear signal to reach forward again, to attempt to go outside of your comfort zone again, to choose a new ceiling

34:14 target and restart the cycle from the stronger range you now have. And you can run this process across every major area of your life. Although I would avoid trying to overhaul every area at the same time. So pick the domain where your range currently creates the most cost, or where your improvement matters most to you, and then map the A game. Map the C game. Choose one front end target and choose one back end weakness, and that will give you a complete development cycle without turning self-improvement into a giant collection of disconnected goals. So here's how I would actually use this. Choose one domain and review the last month or two as honestly as you can identify three examples of your strongest performance and three examples

34:59 of your weakest performance, and look for the behaviors that repeat on each side. From there, define one a game behavior you want to expand, and one C game behavior you want to actually reduce. And then from there, keep those two targets long enough to see whether the full range begins moving. So for the A game target, ask yourself what level sits just beyond your current normal, and then pick something difficult enough to require development, but also realistic enough that you can actually practice it repeatedly and then work out that what skill, preparation, information, or condition will help you access that level more often and then give yourself repeated attempts. So review what worked after a strong performance and what broke after a week or once, and you're trying to move the new behavior

35:45 from a rare peak towards ordinary performance through repetition and correction. For the C game target, ask which recurring behavior creates the most damage, and then from there, when your performance drops, actually identify the trigger, the earliest warning sign, and the minimum response you will use, and then measure whether the behavior has become less frequent, less intense, or shorter over time, and then revisit the range regularly so your old A game may eventually sit near the middle of your current range, right? You have improved and your old C game might appear from might disappear from your realistic behavior. So when that happens, you need to map the new range again, because your development has exposed a new front and a new back for you to work on

36:30 and keep alternating, reach forward until you discover a new level. Strengthen and correct until your baseline catches up and reach forward again once the improvement becomes reliable. And that's the practical value of tenders inform concept. It gives you a way to basically improve without confusing a temporary peak with transformation, or a temporary low with failure. With that said, let's go over the review. We talked about the overview, the performance range, expanding the front, raising the back, compressing the range, the review, and finally your action items for the day or the next few days. First, choose one area of your life today and write down your current A game and see game through specific observable behaviors. Use recent examples. Keep the descriptions honest and make sure you can clearly see what you do at your best,

37:16 what you do at your worst, and which behaviors currently define the middle of your range. Then pick one front end target and one back end target and decide which new capability you want to develop at your best. Then I the recurring C game behavior that creates the most cost when things go badly, and keep the pair focused enough that you can actually practice and review both of them without turning this into another giant self-improvement project, then finally track the range over the next several weeks and judge progress from both ends. Right? Notice your new peaks, notice fewer or smaller lows, and pay special attention to faster recovery after weak performances. So when your old A game begins showing up as ordinary behavior and your old C game becomes difficult to recognize

38:01 in your current life, then you need to map the range again and begin the next cycle. With that said, I hope you enjoyed this. I hope it brought a lot of value. If it did, make sure to let me know in the comments. Subscribe to the channel. If you want this training along with this respective document, then make sure to join the free community from the link in the description. If you want weekly newsletters helping you improve every aspect of your life, then make sure to join the free newsletter again from the link in the description. And if you want to work with me one on one, make sure to book a call from the link in the description. With that said, thank you for being here and I'll see you in the next one.