Eileen Gu is 22 years old, the most decorated freestyle skier in Winter Olympics history, a Stanford student, and worth north of $20 million. When Fortune recently asked her to take readers inside her mind, she did not talk about talent or discipline in the way athletes usually do. She talked about something more specific: the daily practice of examining and deliberately modifying her own thinking.
"I apply a very analytical lens to my own thinking, and I modify it," she said. "You can control what you think. You can control how you think. And therefore, you can control who you are."
She credits neuroplasticity — the brain's capacity to change its own structure and function based on experience — as the mechanism behind this. And she is right that the science supports her. What is worth unpacking, from a psychological standpoint, is what neuroplasticity actually means, what it requires, and why it matters far beyond elite athletic performance.
What Neuroplasticity Actually Is
Neuroplasticity is not a metaphor or a motivational concept. It is a well-documented property of the brain — the capacity to reorganize its neural connections in response to experience, learning, and behavior.
For most of human history, the brain was thought to be largely fixed after childhood. What neuroscience established over the latter half of the twentieth century is that this is wrong. The brain retains the ability to form new neural pathways, strengthen existing ones through repeated use, and weaken or prune connections that go unused throughout the entire lifespan. Learning a new skill, developing a habit, practicing a way of thinking — all of these activities physically change the brain's structure over time.
The oft-cited phrase in neuroscience is "neurons that fire together, wire together," attributed to the work of Donald Hebb. When we repeatedly activate the same neural circuits — through thought patterns, behaviors, emotional responses — those circuits become more efficient, more automatic, more deeply embedded. This is why habits are hard to break: the neural pathways supporting them have been reinforced through repetition until they require very little deliberate effort to activate.
It is also why change is possible. New patterns, practiced consistently, can become as automatic as the old ones.
What Gu Is Actually Doing, Psychologically
What Eileen Gu describes — journaling, breaking down her thought processes, applying an analytical lens to her own thinking and then deliberately modifying it — maps closely onto something clinical psychologists have been doing with patients for decades.
It is metacognition: thinking about thinking. The capacity to step outside your own cognitive processes, observe them as processes rather than facts, and evaluate whether they are serving you.
This is one of the core mechanisms of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. In CBT, a significant portion of the work involves helping people notice the automatic thoughts that arise in response to situations — the interpretations, predictions, and self-assessments that happen below the level of deliberate awareness — and examine them. Are they accurate? Are they the only way to interpret the situation? Are they producing responses that are useful or responses that are making things harder?
What Gu is doing informally through journaling is a version of the same process. She is interrupting the automatic nature of her own thinking, holding it up to examination, and asking whether it is aligned with who she wants to become. The fact that she is doing this as a 22-year-old with a brain still rich in the particularly high plasticity of early adulthood gives her a real advantage. But the mechanism is available at every age.
The Therapy Connection: Neuroplasticity Is Why Treatment Works
One of the most important clinical implications of neuroplasticity is that it provides a neurobiological basis for why psychotherapy produces lasting change.
For a long time, a common skepticism about therapy was that it could change how someone felt or thought temporarily, but could not change anything fundamental. The neuroscience suggests otherwise. Effective psychological treatment — CBT, EMDR, exposure-based therapies, and others — does not just shift mood or thinking in the moment. It changes the brain.
Studies using neuroimaging have found that successful CBT treatment for conditions like OCD, depression, PTSD, and anxiety produces measurable changes in brain activity and structure — in some cases comparable to the changes produced by medication. The prefrontal cortex, which is involved in regulation, evaluation, and executive control, shows increased activation after treatment. The amygdala, the brain's threat-detection hub, shows reduced reactivity. The neural pathways supporting rumination, avoidance, and threat amplification become less dominant. New pathways supporting more flexible, regulated responding become more established.
This is neuroplasticity in action. Therapy is, among other things, a structured way of using the brain's capacity to change itself.
The Part the Success Narrative Leaves Out
The Fortune article, and the broader cultural conversation around neuroplasticity, tends to frame it as a tool for optimization — a lever high performers can pull to become better, faster, more successful.
That framing is not wrong, but it is incomplete in ways that are clinically important.
The same mechanism that allows Eileen Gu to deliberately shape her thinking toward her goals is also the mechanism by which anxiety, depression, trauma, and dysfunctional patterns become entrenched. Neural pathways supporting worry, self-criticism, avoidance, and threat perception are reinforced by the same process as neural pathways supporting confidence and clarity. The brain does not distinguish between patterns that serve us and patterns that do not. It strengthens what it uses.
This means that for people who have lived with chronic anxiety, early trauma, or years of negative self-talk, the task is not simply to "think positively" or "rewire the brain" through journaling and good intentions. Those pathways have been reinforced over years, sometimes decades, and they run deep. The work of changing them is real work — it requires sustained effort, often professional support, and a tolerance for the discomfort of doing things differently before the new way feels natural.
This is not pessimism. It is accuracy. And it is actually more hopeful than the optimization narrative, because it takes seriously what change requires and points toward approaches that are evidence-based rather than simply aspirational.
What This Looks Like in Practice
For the people I work with in therapy, neuroplasticity is not a concept I invoke by name very often. But it is the implicit foundation of almost everything we do together.
When someone with anxiety practices responding to a feared situation without avoidance, they are weakening the neural pathway that links that situation to danger and building a new one that links it to manageability. When someone with depression practices behavioral activation — engaging in activities even before motivation returns — they are using behavior to shift neural states rather than waiting for the neural state to shift first. When someone examines and challenges a long-held belief about themselves and practices holding a different one, they are doing exactly what Gu describes: modifying their own thinking through deliberate, repeated effort.
The key word is repeated. Neuroplasticity does not work through insight alone. The moment of recognizing a pattern is important, but it is not the same as changing it. Change requires practice — not perfect practice, but consistent, sustained engagement with the new way of responding, thinking, or behaving, often while the old way is pulling hard in the other direction.
This is why therapy is not just a conversation. It is a structured opportunity to practice new ways of processing experience, with support, feedback, and the gradual accumulation of a different neural history.
You Do Not Have to Be 22
One of Gu's more notable comments was that she has neuroplasticity "on her side" as a young person. She is right that the brain's plasticity is particularly high in early adulthood, when the prefrontal cortex is still developing and neural networks are especially open to reorganization.
But neuroplasticity does not end at 22, or 35, or 60. The research on adult neuroplasticity is clear: the brain retains meaningful capacity for structural change throughout the lifespan. The rate may be somewhat lower and the effort required somewhat greater than in early development. The capacity itself does not disappear.
What this means practically is that it is never too late to change a pattern, learn a new way of responding, or build a different relationship with your own thinking. The evidence base for psychological treatment shows this consistently: people in midlife and later adulthood make significant, lasting changes through therapy, and the neurobiological substrate for those changes is the same one that allows a 22-year-old Olympic champion to deliberately shape who she is becoming.
The brain you have now is not the brain you are stuck with.
What is genuinely interesting about Eileen Gu's approach is not the success it has produced, though that is impressive. It is the orientation it reflects: treating the mind as something to engage with deliberately rather than something that happens to you.
That orientation is at the heart of good psychological work. The thoughts that arise automatically, the emotional patterns that feel like personality, the self-assessments that feel like facts — none of these are fixed. They are the current output of a brain that learned, through experience, to run those processes. And a brain that learned something can learn something different.
That is not a promise that change is easy. It is a statement that change is possible — which, for many people carrying long-standing patterns they did not choose and did not deserve, is exactly what they most need to hear.
APA CITATIONS
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. Wiley.
Linden, D. E. J. (2006). How psychotherapy changes the brain: The contribution of functional neuroimaging. Molecular Psychiatry, 11(6), 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4001816
Pittenger, C., & Duman, R. S. (2008). Stress, depression, and neuroplasticity: A convergence of mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology, 33(1), 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1301574
Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Hashizume, H., Sassa, Y., Nagase, T., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2011). Effects of training of processing speed on neural systems. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(34), 12139–12148. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2948-11.2011
