![]() |
| pics are unrelated today bc we’re still doing the same stuff except even less now bc the world is apparently on fire… |
I’ve read some of the books he mentions, and so was already familiar with a classic research study he cites, the “Good Samaritan” experiment from the 70s.
The gist is: Seminary students participating in the study were sent across campus to give a talk (the topic varied, but for some was the parable of the Good Samaritan). On the way, they would encounter a stranger slumped on the ground, in obvious distress. In some cases, the stranger was quite literally blocking the seminarian’s path.
The study’s striking result was that whether the seminarians stopped to help the stranger was most strongly predicted by how much time pressure they felt. Those who were told to get across campus ASAP were far less likely to stop (in some cases, they even stepped over the stranger to get to their sermon on the Good Samaritan, #irony), whereas participants who’d been told they had plenty of time helped more often than not.
It’s obviously a fascinating and famous study for a lot of reasons, and is referenced in a ton of books on behavioral and social sciences.
Kim’s finding from this study is that specific features of a situation can influence how we choose to act more so than any individual personality traits. Or, more bluntly, it’s not only possible but easy to get ‘good’ people to behave ‘badly’ with the right situational conditions.
He concludes that as situational forces grow stronger, our “individualistic” forces grow weaker, and therefore the notion that our characters alone will dictate how we act is simply wrong.
![]() |
| it was another good ride tho <3 |
Which… Ya know… Is maybe worth mulling over in a variety of contexts — as Kim does in his book on trust. For OUR purposes, however, I had a more topical framing in mind while listening to that chapter on the way to the barn.
I’m always interested in trying to adapt or apply findings from behavioral sciences to my horsey pursuits. We all know riding is just plain hard, and for a lot of different reasons. And particularly, sometimes it feels like there’s this gaping chasm between how well I might understand a thing, compared to how reliably I can do it. Everyone has a plan until you get punched in the mouth your horse bolts sideways bc #bunnies, right??
So I’m always looking for little hacks, insights, little tweaks or changes to my approach that make it easier to get the outcomes I’m looking for, to establish consistency and reproducibility. To improve the quality of our routine practice etc.
![]() |
| but then… the apocalypse …. oof. no worries, tho, i’m sure more tariffs will fix it! |
So this chapter in Kim’s book caught my attention, specifically within the context of the key commandment that came up again and again across ALL the sessions at the Windurra camp: Don’t get desperate.
Kim’s conclusions add an interesting nuance to that mantra, right? Which, in case you didn’t read my lengthy posts (lol), came up in multiple sessions including the sports psychology keynote with Natalie Hummel, the dressage demo with Silva Martin and Laura Graves, and the show jump course walk lecture with Peter Wylde.
Each, in their own way, cautioned riders against getting too sucked into the drama of the moment, letting things escalate or snowball to the point of sacrificing position, precision or intention. Instead, they wanted riders to recognize those moments, take a beat to reset and try again.
What the study’s conclusions clarify for me, tho, is that “getting desperate” is generally a function of specific situational circumstances rather than just a lapse in our individual skills or abilities. It’s not that “I suck under pressure,” it’s that pressure — especially time pressure — is a strong enough force to override all my good intentions.
So learning to recognize that external pressure (time-related or otherwise) in the moment is key. And to take it a step further, it’s worth examining that pressure itself — how much of it is real vs basically self-imposed? Is there a way to consciously design or structure our environments to counteract negative pressure or actually create positive pressure?
Instead of consistently struggling in a given scenario and feeling like, ‘what is wrong with me?’ — maybe it’d be more productive / useful to reframe, asking, ‘what is it about this scenario that’s making things harder?’
For example, I’m a little-too-type-A about all things clocks and timing. Especially when paired with my “overthinking” and “trying to control everything” habits. One of my personality, uh, charms is that I’m kinda always watching the clock, estimating how much time a thing should take, setting expectations etc.
Just the other day I was literally being an INSANE person overthinking my interval timer app. It’s programmed to ding every 2min for about 35 minutes, and I use it to provide structure and keep track of minutes trotting.
I was torturing myself tho bc our round pen sessions are ~15min, and the riding session is usually 20-35min… Plus there’s the ‘intermission’ for leaving the round pen, getting on, riding up to the arena, doing a couple laps to settle in, etc…
And I was going around and around in my head calculating exactly when to pause / resume / optimize this scenario to fully leverage the 35min program, without a lot of fussing with my phone or putting unnecessary pressure on Doozy by thinking that “once I press Resume we have to Go Right Now!!”…
When… it hit me… Emma. WTF chill out, stop making everything a math problem— re program the app to go for like 60 or 90 minutes and call. it. a. day, dear lord LOL.
Ahem. Cough cough. Moving on!
Insanity aside, tho, that realization was a little bit of an “Aha! for Dummies” moment lol. Bc that whole “external forces can overpower our normal inclinations, especially when time pressure is involved” thing works both ways, right?
Reprogramming the app literally reversed the effect it was having on me — from making me hyper-fixate on ‘optimizing each moment’ to… just taking advantage of the intervals in whatever way worked for us in that moment, bc “we have plenty of time!”
It’s sounds so obvious, like such a no-brainer, and maybe it is. But to me, it was the perfect demonstration of an environment design choice that helps facilitate my best possible decision making and actions.
In the same vein, Peter Wylde suggested using strategically located cones to cue riders for a downward transition mid-course — to enforce a reminder to breathe and reset.
Matt Brown talked about this in our last lesson, too — that flatwork can be so tricky bc of the *absence* of physical landmarks like an actual literal jump. Which, ya know, is maybe actually why dressage uses ring letters lol.
To me, the idea of deliberately designing our environments to support better behaviors is super appealing. And maybe kinda what last year’s Brit Bot was helping to accomplish too.
A way to use external signals to help me stay proactive vs reactive, while also explicitly cuing exactly the reminders I know I need. A way to reinforce good choices and make executing on my intentions easier, without needing to rely solely on memory, instincts, willpower or discipline.
Obviously, we can’t avoid negative pressure forever — especially in competitions, when it’s time, it’s time. But we have a lot more control over the circumstances of our everyday practice. So the idea, I think, is to structure practice as well as we can, and use the resources we have available to make a positive experience always the likeliest outcome.
Or ya know. At least until the next rabbit jumps out at us lol….
























































