The Man and the Bracken revisited. If you have not already read it, you might enjoy going to www.bobski.com/technical papers and read "The Man, The Bracken, and the Sport Psychology".
So. It had not been cleared. A year later and when, in early May, the man went to the bracken areas, there it was, healthier than ever. True, in some places where it had previously been there was now either none or much less. But in others, it was flourishing in an abundance greater than previous years. There were even some areas where pulling it up was no longer even an option - it would have to be cut, at least for a while.
So how was he to "handle" this? What sort of things about it would he be likely to say to himself, and his self, about it? Should he call himself all sorts of fool for having even attempted the job; or for having believed he might have cleared it in just one or two seasons? Perhaps it wasn't possible: how would he know?
Clearly the possibility arose for depressing himself about it. It wasn't possible for the bracken to depress him; bracken is just bracken and totally indifferent to him or any one else. But if he were to do this, why would he do it? What would be achieved?
Would it be possible NOT to depress himself about it? And if he did, what would be the PROCESS of doing it? What would need to be in place for him to be able to? The man thought about this, and about what might be different to last year. Perhaps the circumstances had changed? If so, how might they have done so?
Slowly some differences became apparent. Firstly, last year in order to get to places where the bracken was he had had to clear brambles, rosebay willow herb, small areas of blackthorn and so on. This had allowed him access to the bracken but in the process had let in more light so this year's bracken growth was enhanced. So, clearly the graph of his bracken clearance would not be a straight line - it would have accelerative phases and troughs.
Secondly, the weather this year was much better than last year; temperatures are higher, rainfall just right for growth. So he must be careful not compare like with un-like. At this point Sport Psychology came in again. His end goal, his dream, was to clear these two large areas of bracken, and it is important to have a dream and a long term objective. But if that had been ALL he had - if this had been the only kind of goal he knew about - then it could easily have been disappointing and he might have depressed himself.
Fortunately the man knew a little more about goal setting and he knew that he could also choose to create and adopt other kinds of goals. He could if he chose set himself PERFORMANCE goals; say, more yardage of cutting, in fewer minutes of work. But the man had tried these sort of goals in other areas of his life and while they had helped then, the idea didn't seem to fit in well with this job.
He was afraid that he would find that by accepting goals of this sort he would become too intense about it, and miss all the good things going on around him. When he had first set out to do this job, he had made that mistake. He had been so focused, so intense that he found hiself missing the bird song, missing the sound of the river, and missing the opportunity to stop and look at the distant hills.
So, he began considering PROCESS goals as an option. And this is the type he chose. With a process-goal mind-set he could set a goal of "making sure he did at least one area a day". He could even change that if he later wanted to, by making it "at least 12 days out of every 14" or some such. That would still quite likely be a challenge - what about the mornings he didn't feel like getting up, or the days the weather was lousy. Yes, sounded good.
He could break it up and set himself the goal of pulling up half of it, and cutting the other half; then swapping the halves over. He could include in his daily goal "stopping at least four times, to rest and look at the view, listen to the birds and hear the river singing along in the valley" why not? What a beautiful sort of goal. Wouldn't be a bad sort of goal to set yourself when you were skiing in the mountains.
He noticed that one effect of thinking things through like this was that he found he was not falling for goals that made him impatient, or inadequate. It didn't even matter that perhaps the dream goal of total clearance might not even be "realistic" - who knew, perhaps expecting total clearance in one lifetime was just pie in the sky.
It didn't matter, what mattered was sticking to the task, AND ENJOYING THE PROCESS. Maybe the world was a slightly better place if this bit of it had some bracken, who was he to say? What right did he have to dictate what would happen, perhaps it was better if he just stuck to what HE was intending to do, and leave the rest to the fates.
Maybe, if he didn't ever become quite the skier he had once dreamed of, that was a better solution because it meant he would always have the possibility of improvement, and after all it was in working toward that improvement wherein lay the real pleasure.
Bob Valentine Trueman
My fellow coach Dave Tapley reported to me that one or two skiing blogs have recently been filled with (largely rubbish) posts from well-meaning but clearly confused instructors. The kind who can ski well no doubt, but who's comprehension of skiing is shall we say rather shallowly based.
The discussion hinges on whether or not "parallel" skiing is actually possible. Dave quoted his own observation that when you are "carving" perfectly you can inspect your skis' tracks and they look to be perfectly parallel. However, they are not drawing the same radius arcs (part-circles).
So, After some thought I wrote to a pupil and friend of mine, physicist Tony York. Here is the e-mail like what I wrote.
Let's say we have a skier effecting an arc, a perfectly "carved" arc - an arc during which both skis slide perfectly (no skid) -and let's say that his skis are parallel to one another all the way round that arc.
For this to happen, the inner ski must perforce travel a shorter distance than the outer ski. For this to happen without skidding, the inner ski must either, tilt more, or bend more, or a combination of both. Were this not to be the case, they would necessarily be describing segments of arcs of non-concentric circles.
To bend more it would need to be receiving greater centripetal force, which we know would be very unstable for the skier, so optimally no more than 50% of the force should be being resisted by the inner ski. Unless - I wonder - being nearer to the circle's centre it inevitably receives more force ? ?
Even in this scenario, the inner ski must be tilted slightly more than the outer ski, or it would skid. This is because were it to be tilted to the same degree it would be describing a circle of the same diameter as the outer, but in a different location - they would not be concentric; and if you draw this out on a piece of paper it becomes obvious that the two circles must cross (twice) which thereby denies the "parallel" requirement of this experiment.
Now, there is plenty enough bio-mechanical movement in the hips and ankles to permit this variation, but here a little confusion arises in my mind ( which is rather unusual - because usually there is a lot of confusion in my mind; I must do this again!).
There will be one aggregate centre of mass for the skier, supported against the centripetal force by two platforms. Here then is where my confusion arises.
Where, precisely is the centripetal force's own centre of origin? Or is this a daft question? Is there, for example, just one centre of centripetal force, or since there are two platforms, are there also two centres of this force? After considering this I feel there must be two, because each ski (platform) is resisting a force, and I feel that this necessitates having two forces, coming from two slightly different directions. This being the case, then there are two reasons for the inner ski to tilt more - 1) in order to present a platform at 90 degrees to the force, and 2) in order to enable the ski to slide perfectly around a circle of smaller radius.
But if this is so, then if you followed the directional lines of these forces (or this force) from whence do they emanate? Is it for example on the snow's surface? Or precisely at the interface between the platform and supporting surface? Or - does it emanate from somewhere else, underground? And if so, how far away/down?
I think it must be at the interface only, which is where the force and the resistance meet. Am I right? After all ( I conjecture) unless there is resistance, there will be no centripetal force - in effect they are one and the same???? Without the one, you cannot have the other.
Bob
PS - It's just occurred to me that the bend in the ski is created at least in part by a force from ahead of it, acting on the shovel through a couple between the shovel and the ski's centre. The shorter the radius of the circle being followed for any given tangential speed, wouldn't the force be inevitably greater? So might we not get more bend anyway even though the skier's mass was being equally distributed between the two skis?
Tony, after considerable cogitation answered as follows, and I'm very grateful to him.
OK, (he said) here are my thoughts so far:
Since the skis are going round curves of different radii, and are therefore travelling at different speeds, it is mathematically easier to say they are both moving with the same angular velocity (ie they would both take the same time to complete a full circle). The expression for the force is then mw2r (m is mass, w is angular velocity, r is radius). Because r is greater for the outside ski, there will be more force, which is what the skier needs, in order to be stable.
So far so good - but then how do the skis provide this force? If the outer one is producing more of the centripetal force, and they are both at the same angle, it will bend more, making it impossible for both skis to be "carving", as the inner one is following a tighter curve. If the inner one is tilted more, perhaps it could be describing a tighter arc, but be bent less, consistent with it producing less force. I should stop now while I'm ahead, but I have a horrible feeling that if you look at a still photo of a racer in a turn, the outside ski is tilted more! (Yes, but you'll usually see that the inner ski is all but "floating" and is not actually carving, even though that's what they would like. Bob)
The bending of the ski is a result of the snow pushing against it, but that won't be simple either. Even in the simplest imaginable scenario of the same force from the snow against each cm of the ski, the front of the ski will have more bending moment, as it is longer than the tail. Whether this leads to more actual bending depends on the stiffness of the ski, which varies along the ski in a very complex manner, I would imagine.
As implicit in last para, as far as the ski is concerned the force comes from the snow immediately in contact with it, but that snow is in turn supported by the snow beneath it, which is in turn supported by the ground beneath it. This is of course why the skier sinks deeper into powder before there is enough force generated to support him/her.
I don't think the idea of a "centre of centripetal force" is useful. The vector sum of all the forces from both skis must pass through the centre of mass of the skier and be directed towards the centre of the circle in which he/she is travelling. One also needs to be careful in talking about reaction forces. This vector sum is effectively a single force acting on the skier. There is no sense in which the skier is in equilibrium; he/she is being continually accelerated towards the centre of the circle.
God knows how ski designers do the business, & God knows how any of us can actually get the skis to do what we want (sometimes). I should probably stick to making furniture or high energy nuclear physics; that would be simpler.
I am very grateful to Tony for his observations, and if anyone wants to join in, then please do so; it won't make anybody's skiing any better, but it keeps the old grey matter from atrophying any more quickly than is necessary! And it sure as Hell beats "doing turns!"
Bob Valentine Trueman
The greatest satisfaction I get, and have got from coaching, has been so repeatedly to watch my pupils change their beliefs about their own potential. This happens with both men and with women, but more so I think with the womenfolk.
Far too frequently, women "of a certain age" come to their first Bobski coaching week scarcely able to believe that they will be able to bring about any serious changes in their skiing. They typically arrive in a last-ditch, more-in-hope-than-expectation mode. Frequently I have been the absolute last hope - "If this doesn't work, I'm giving up, the family can go on their own and I'll take up macrame!"
So far, fingers crossed, I haven't had a failure. Big changes in technique have usually not happened quickly - and nor should they, skiing isn't easy! - but changes in self-belief are the norm. "Hang on a minute, this is something I am going to be able to do, if I work at it. I'm not a failure, or a dead loss."
What a marvellous thing to happen. What more could anyone do for another person, than to do something that helps them change their own self belief?
Here are extracts from a report of a recent scientific paper which described a research project into what the differences were between women who were overweight and stayed that way, and women who were able to change. I'd be interested in any feedback.
If you are what you eat, what you eat has a lot to do with how you think about yourself, says a QUT PhD researcher whose study is part of an international research project on the healthy ageing of women.
She surveyed more than 560 South-East Queensland women aged between 51 and 66 on their exercise and diet habits and found that although women in their 50s were keen to make healthier diet and exercise changes, they had few effective strategies to draw upon.
"This is an age when women's weight tends to peak, and almost two-thirds of the survey group were overweight "Ms Anderson said.
"Self efficacy is our belief that we can produce the result we want to produce, so a person with high dietary self-efficacy believes they can eat healthily no matter what - even when bored, upset, tired, on holiday or at a party.
"A person's level of self-efficacy determines how hard they try and how long they stick at things in the face of difficulties. People with high self-efficacy are motivated and optimistic - when the going gets tough, they keep going.
"People with low self-efficacy avoid difficult tasks and when things get tough they are more likely to give up. We can improve our self-efficacy by developing skills, having role models and getting encouragement from others."
"Education is also a factor - women with a tertiary education were more likely to have high self-efficacy for exercise."
Ms Anderson said her findings were timely given the population was ageing and women lived longer than men.
That last paragraph reminded me of Jackie Mason's gag about "Why do men die before their wives? - Because they want to."
The key element in all this extract, for me, is that We can improve our self-efficacy by developing skills. A great deal of what we do on my courses is aimed specifically at this; without it all the physical stuff just runs off like water from a duck's back.
Bob Valentine Trueman
"How long?" Sohrab asked.
"I don't know. A while."
Sohrab shrugged and smiled, wider this time. "I don't mind. I can wait. It's like sour apples."
"Sour apples?"
"One time, when I was really little, I climbed a tree and ate these green, sour apples. My stomach swelled and became hard like a drum, it hurt a lot. Mother said that if I'd just waited for the apples to ripen, I wouldn't have become sick. So now, whenever I really want something, I try to remember what she said about the apples."
This is an extract from Khaled Hosseini's novel "The Kite Runner."
It sums up perfectly in my view, something that I have repeatedly seen my skiing clients do to themselves, and which not only holds back their development toward mastery of their sport, but also renders them unhappy.
In one of her songs, Carly Simon wrote "Anticipation, it's making me late, it's keeping me waiting." While ours, since World War II, has been the most fortunate generation in the history of mankind in many ways, there is one way in which perhaps we've been a little less lucky.
We have never had to do without anything; just about everything has been possible. I think it's just possible that we have somehow come to expect everything, and everything now. Which was the rock group that sang "I want it all, and I want it now!" Queen? Can't remember, but it sums up quite a lot I think, and it's a recipe for unhappiness.
I know of no shortcuts to anywhere worthwhile. If you wish find mastery of skiing, you will have to pay your dues, do the work, and be both patient and persistent. That, at any rate, has been my own experience, and so far I haven't come across anyone else who just raced away to success in a short time.
If you are impatient, either to get what you want, or perhaps with yourself, you will find yourself employing the kind of self talk that will make you unhappy and lead you further away from your goal, not toward it. You'll find yourself saying (perhaps only internally, and maybe that's worse) things like - "I ought to be better than this by now." [Why should you?]."I feel such a fool because I can't do ....." [What's has foolishness got to do with anything? You are where you are that's all]
There is nothing else; there is only what we do, and what we don't do, and the consequences thereof.
So, why am I saying this - well, I happen to believe, through many years of observing aspirational skiers, that knowing how to learn is the key piece of knowledge we need, and this issue of patient abstraction, while still working hard at our tasks, is essential.
Bob Valentine Trueman.
On my ski courses, and whenever I am in conversation with ski instructors, I spend a great deal of time, stressing the importance of the mind, over the mere physique.
It is not enough to just attempt to “do”. Unless you have applied your mind before the “doing” phase, you are unlikely indeed to achieve what you want to achieve – or if you do it will likely be more luck than judgement.
The most important 150cms on any mountain, are those between your ears. If you do not have the clearest, and most precise of intentions, plus an advance awareness of how you will monitor the results of your intentions, you will get yourself stuck on the “plateau” before you know it.
This morning on the early morning BBC Radio 4 programme (which is really still called The Home Service but any of us who are really in the know) there was a fascinating piece about very recent neurological research.
It’s now possible for the neuro-scientists to monitor brain activity in real time, whilst observing the human subject, and some extremely interesting stuff is coming out of it.
The research referred-to has indicated that a full ten seconds before a subject becomes aware that (s)he has decided to perform an action, the unconscious mind has made that decision.
I haven’t yet had time to fully absorb and consider this, but to me the discovery (if real) is mind blowing, and has all sorts of potential implications.
If we are making decisions in ways of which – or at times of which - we are completely unaware, it almost seems to beg the question of “who’s in charge?”
It also perhaps makes it quite interesting from the point of view of how quickly we may need to consciously countermand an unconsciously made decision (and how much chance we have). This, especially if the decision made is a bad one, like burying an axe in someone’s head!
I would be really interested in any feedback anyone wishes to let me have on this, because if it does nothing else, it most certainly reinforces the proven fact that if we wish to master skiing (or anything else) then gaining more command over our subconscious minds is pivotal. Fortunately, it is also perfectly possible if you employ the techniques which I for one am so diligent in promoting.
Let me give you an example – some years ago I unintentionally upset, and lost as a client, a young woman who fell of a T-bar. What I did, was to say to her that I had seen the moment at which she had decided to fall off it. She was unaware that she had “made” this decision and got very upset about it, saying that it wasn’t her fault, somehow the T-bar, or the universe had made her do it.
Well, now I know, I had spotted the ten-second delay at work, but the neuro scientists hadn’t released the research findings back then.
Bob
Yesterday in my wife’s Telegraph I was lucky enough to be able to read a short piece about Haile Gebrselassie, the world’s greatest ever distance runner and holder of the Marathon world record. I show extracts of it below.
What he had to say about mind control and self control was fascinating. It echoes exactly the approach that I have been advocating for the past ten years or more to my own skiing pupils. To have it said by someone of such incredible talent and success is extra reinforcement though. (So, I’m sure he will be grateful! J )
Years ago at a Neuro Linguistic Programming conference I was particularly struck by something one of the keynote speakers said – she said: “I’ve come to believe that ‘state’ is everything.
The ‘state’ she was referring to was mental state, and the important point she was making and with which I totally concur, is that your mental state is a matter of choice; it is not forced on you from outside of your self. There are forceful techniques which you can learn and with which you can become skilful, which facilitate your creating your best mental state before and in readiness for whatever it is you plan to do.
Here’ what Gebrselassie said:
Successful athletes need to display "a strong set of values".
First win the internal battle: then don't let anything stand in your way.
First they must win themselves. How do they do that? First, do enough training.Then believe in yourself and say:"I can do it.This is my day.The one over there, he is the same as me; he has two legs same as me, that is all.
Like some high official you have to tell your brain:Do it. Come on. I have to do it. Always, if you win mentally, you can win physically as well.
This sense of separation of mind and body, the idea that orders are given almost remotely by a dominant internal spirit to a flagging set of muscles and tendons, lies at the heart of Gebrselassie's preparation.
The single greatest factor determining his own success, he insists, is discipline - a sharply self-improving attitude.
If you have a fear of failure, says Gebrselassie, "when you start, don't be nervous. Why be nervous? It's not the end of the world. (the mountain) will be there tomorrow and tomorrow: it will be there year after year, after that.
Run (ski) in the present, but remember you have a future too.
Much of what Gebrselassie is saying lies at the core of coaching; as much as anything the ability to master something, such as skiing, depends on how you handle the setbacks and the hold ups.
It takes mental strength and determination to succeed, at anything. That can be built, but it won’t build itself.
I have a number of “white papers” which many of my pupils already have copies of, and which are available on request – you can find my email on www.bobski.com and you are welcome to copies.
Let’s face it, if it’s good enough for world record holders, we could all do a piece of it, and to find that it’s not some arcane secret available only to the chosen few, but that it’s there for you and me, is good news isn’t it?
Bob
Sounds a little impolite that - "watch your language" but it was just to get your attention, and to illustrate that the words you choose will have very different effects on your reader, or listener.
Human beings are tribal, and a feature of all tribes is that they have a language which is exclusive to them, and often is designed to be exclusive of non-members.
A good example of this is the street language of adolescents - all that "I'm like, Doh!" stuff; and "radical man", and much more that I can neither comprehend nor remember.
Of interest to me is the ski instructor tribe. This tribe also has a language of its own, which is readily bought into especially by younger trainees and instructors, and those new to the activity. Its use is one of the ways that a great many ski teachers can help themselves to feel that they are a part of the group.
Unfortunately, an unintended side effect is that your client, your pupil, is excluded in the process, because (s)he is not privy to the secret meanings attached to the words and phrases.
Let me give you an example - take the word "edge". This is one of the commonest words in the ski instructor's lexicon, and one of the least efficacious. It is often employed in totally meaningless phrases dreamt up by the marketing departments of the manufacturers of skis. A classic example is the "this ski is faster edge-to-edge than that ski".
What in Heaven's name is this supposed to convey? Here is a short list of some of the things it does not define :-
1. It doesn't define what an "edge" is, in this context.
2. It doesn't define when a ski is on an "edge" and when it isn't.
3. It in no way illustrates what is required to get the ski to move from one edge to another, nor why it is perceived to take less time to do this than on any other ski.
I could go on, but I'll leave it there.
Does it perhaps mean, "this ski is easy to get to change direction"? And if that is what is intended to be conveyed, why not say so? Because that wouldn't be tribal, exclusive, and sound "cool" would it?
One of the essential precepts of Neuro Linguistic Programming, with respect to communication, is that the only mechanism humans have for conveying ideas from one mind to another's mind, is words.
The process goes something like this - I formulate an idea in my mind; I then have to search for words - and a structure for those words - which within the framework of my experience, I believe expresses my idea.
I then utter those words, which are picked up by my intended recipient, who first of all runs those words through a kind of database in his/her mind and via some form of cross referencing retrieves their meanings for those words, which when assembled in the order that I gave them, builds an idea in their mind.
During this process there are manifold opportunities for omissions, distortions, and deletions. You can see, I'm sure, that the chances of the two ideas being congruent are minimal indeed, even at the best of times. The potential for misunderstandings is so huge that it is a wonder any of us can communicate at all with anyone else. Perhaps we don't!
N.L.P. tells us that words are merely labels for experiences. For example when I see a colour, which I know as blue, I give it the label "blue". You also have a label called "blue" and you apply it to the colour which you have become accustomed to apply this label to. But is the colour you see, the colour that I am seeing? We can never know. The colour that you are seeing, when I see it, I perhaps give the label "red" to.
I might be seeing the colour which you call "red" but I have become accustomed to labelling it "blue". I saw an hilarious example of this once, when I met a gun dog trainer who had trained his dog to do the opposite of every instruction he gave him. When he said "sit" it stood up; when he said "away" it came back; and so on. The instructions were the same, but their labels were reversed, to the watching throng "sit" meant one thing, but to the dog, another.
Now let's just revisit that word "edge". If you are ski instructor, then you know perfectly well what you mean by "edge", and the idea doesn't bother you at all; in fact as an instructor and excellent skier you might even like it. But how many other people like edges? Not many.
To most people, edges are narrow, sharp, unpleasant, easy to fall off, and associated with knives and things; altogether to be avoided. And here are you telling them to "get an early edge"; "get the ski on the edge" (without you will note, advising them on what to do to achieve this).
What I'm saying is this - if you want to communicate with others, and especially with pupils who are not members of your tribe - pay attention to their likely experience of skiing; to their possible perceptions about the labels you use; and do your best to keep the jargon out of it.
Bob Valentine Trueman
www.bobski.com / www.blogstoday.co.uk (Search for Limits to Growth)
A pupil sent me this self critical comment: "I was on the verge of calling the
airport and running away as I felt such a fool/failure."
This happened toward the end of an off-piste-training course. The whole point of the course was that it was for folk who were not expert off-piste skiers. During these courses, I spend the first half of the week helping pupils try out on piste some of the slightly different techniques that might be needed when we venture off piste.
These courses are not for folk who can already do it - they don't need me, all they need is a guide. So, it follows that everyone on the course is likely to be struggling a lot of the time - including me! No one on the course should expect it to be easy, and should expect all sorts of new experiences: or perhaps old experiencs to be revisited!
Expect to get scared. Expect to get more tired than on piste. Expect to be elated every now and again. Expect to have to keep working at it - just as you did when you first started. Indeed, it's a bit like starting all over again.
So the potential is there for all sorts of self criticism and this is what so much of my coaching is about - how to handle your self, how to handle defeat, how to handle disappointment, and how to keep hanging in there and coming back for more. How not to self critical - it doesn't help you.
Frank Dick, once upon a time Britain's top athletics coach used to say that you can achieve anything you want if you have three things in place.
These things are interlinked of course, and you might need to want it really rather a lot. In the case of gold medal winners they often want it so much that everyone around them ends up suffering, so you may need to check out the "ecology" around your desire.
You will find your desire qualified to the point of being lost altogether if you really don't think that in the end you will find it possible - not easy; not achievable without lots of work and setbacks, but certainly possible, if you go about it the right way and pay your dues.
If you have those first two in place, the issue becomes one of working with your self to maintain your determination and stickability in the face of setbacks, disappointments, self-doubt and maybe even injury.
This is where your ability to control how you talk to your self becomes so crucial. The good news is that you can learn this too. You do not have to accept talking to your self negatively, even though for most of us this is our default mode. I believe that this is completely optional, but that because the way most of us were brought up it's hard to change.
When you're really young and you are surrounded by all those giant adults who seem to have a direct link to all knowledge, you are frequently reminded that you shouldn't think too much of yourself; you certainly should never be self congratulatory; you should never think you're any good; and you should always both demand and expect to perform everything perfectly. If you don't you're bad /inadequate / a fool, or worse.
What rubbish! What clap-trap! What a horrible way to get people to feel about themselves. It's just plain wrong.
I don't know where your skiing is, but wherever it is, that's where it is. There is no reason whatsoever why it should be anywhere else. You came to skiing at some point; you were taught by good bad or indifferent teachers, using good, indifferent or usually bad systems. You have spent a much too limited length of time being able to practice.
So there is no reason why you should be any better at skiing than you are. There is no reason why your rate of progress just now should be anything other than it is. Your level of skill, and speed of development is in no way related to that of anybody else, currently in your line of sight or not. Why should it be?
If somebody else is doing a bit better at the moment, so what? It doesn't make you a fool. If you were doing better just now than everyone else on the course, does that make them fools? Of course not.
What we're talking about here, is your internal dialogue; the things that you say to your self about yourself.
Whatever else you may think about this, you would have to agree that what you say to your self is entirely optional. No one makes you say anything at all, nor could they. So if you tell yourself you're a fool, or that you're hopeless, or (more significantly) "I can't do this", then you will soon find that what you are saying will come true.
There's no need for that - you can change what you habitually say to your self. It's very simple. It isn't easy, but it's perfectly learnable. You should learn how to do it, it will help you be happier, and a better skier.
Bob Valentine Trueman