So dude is going through scent, music, colors help us choose things we like on a subliminal level. He goes through color on boxes helping us decide a better cleaner, even when the cleaner in every box we've been given is the same. He talks about scent making women prefer some pantyhose over others--again, all the same pantyhose. Even introduces a study conducted in England where if French music was playing 77% of all wine sales that day were French wine. So what? If it was German music, 72% of the sales were German wine. I could see it. A study I read a few years back took people, several samples. Dressed them in entirely black, height and size were the same for the male to male in the study and likewise for the women. They added numbers--1 to 10 on each of the male and females (total 20). None of the participants knew their number. Each group of 20 eventually divided 1 to 1 through to 10 to 10. That's right. Somehow, even without having a clue what they looked like, 1 ended up with 1. 2 with 2. 3 with 3. All the way to 10 to 10. Subliminally, they had chosen their "mate" by conversations with each other.
Okay, admittedly, I'm the odd swan. He points out the Pepsi taste challenge. Yes, Pepsi is sweeter and therefore in reality most people should choose it over Coca-Cola. In blind taste studies, Pepsi consistently wins. But Coke wins over and over when people know which one is which. I am that odd one out that always picks Coke. I don't like overly sweet. I prefer the taste of Coke. I actually like the Pepsi can more, but still prefer Coke. So, I am that weird person that typically tries to consciously override my subconscious. I like to know. But I also have over the years noticed that certain people act a certain way based on their names. I don't remember who pointed it out, but I was young and still in the military. A friend said, "oh she acts like a 'Jennifer'." The chick's name was Jennifer. He had guessed her name, never met her, and that was his response. Over the years, I have noticed that some names---the less common names--this is absolutely true. However, I also noticed that the more common the name the less applicable. Then I watched. People do tend to treat certain names a certain way. It's hard to predict who a John is since it's such a common name, but pick someone with a name like mine. A girl that goes by Alex or Elizabeth instead of Beth, Liz or another more common derivative. We get treated the way people perceive the name. More often than not, I have observed that the less common the name, the more likely they are to fall into the name "stereotype". Funny, right? Which might be why I have so many nicknames. Most people have a hard time categorizing me. So I'm Alex, Ally, Alexis, Alexa, Alexandra, Andra, Andrea....I have always joked that I had more nicknames than anyone on the planet. People have literally "re" nicknamed me to suit their version of me. "It fits better," a friend once told me when she re-dubbed me. I have heard that explanation at least half a dozen times. The name they got from me didn't fit their stereotype of who they perceive me to be. Okay. How's this book sounding like an epiphany for me suddenly? Sounds like I get it pretty well.
The book, yes, I get it. But it opened a door. We all have a subconscious that is constantly working, no matter how aware. I used to go to bed while studying engineering. My study team couldn't figure something out. At 2 in the morning, on a regular basis, I would wake up, write the whole solution, call my team members leaving messages that I got it, and go back to sleep. No one understands that the subconscious is still ticking more than me. My team referred to it as my "epiphanies". And often, we actually counted on them. So, it wouldn't be any surprise to anyone, that having this knowledge, I have always "never" dated the same type of guy twice. Nope, consciously, never. No one I've ever dated from a conscious level is the same guy. I knew this would be repeating the same mistake over and over, right?
Then I'm reading this stupid book. Ummm....no, they are not consciously the same. Hell, none of them are even similar. Then bam. Yes, technically there are some similarities amongst my favorites, and oh shit. That's got to be subconsciously. Really? I know some of my friends are like, BS. No one makes a more concerted effort to not date the same type of guy twice. For real. That is me. But, I do. The book points out the superficial stuff like looks. I like blue eyes, Yea, but not everyone I've dated has blue eyes. It is a significantly higher number, but I consciously am aware that I have a preference because of my Granddaddy and make the effort to not let this affect my decisions. Oh no, I know, and anyone that has been close to me knows, blue eyes are a big draw. But I have dated, and even been quite serious over someone without blue eyes. Again, it's the conscious effort that some of us never take, right? Yet, all of the sudden reading this book I realized, that the majority of the men I have dated have a seriously strong German background--German or Anglo-Saxon last or first name. Yup. An unusually high number. And, while I like to pretend it doesn't affect me, I even consciously am aware that a man over 6 feet, particularly from 6' to 6'5" is more likely to draw my attention. I like tall, because well, my grandfather was 6'5" and yes, he probably had shrunk over the years, but he had blue eyes, tall and a deep voice. I go completely brain dead "consciously" when all three of these meet. But, yea, who cares if the man turns out to be dumb as a box of rocks? Me. I will write off a stupid man so fast it will make a head spin. So sounds like my conscious choices are awesome, right?
Well, no. Germanic name. A large majority as I've already stated have a Germanic first or last name. (Anglo-Saxons are Germanic.) Yea, but that's a name and no, I haven't actually ever dated anyone with the same last name and even for the most part never dated many with same first. Yet, all the sudden, I realized that an unnatural selection have deep voices, Germanic or Anglo-Saxon names, tall larger builds, blue eyes, and yes, some of my grandfather's traits. Ummm....in fact, at least 2 out of 3 if not 6 out of 7. Add a degree, a little bit controlling (minor to huge), and certain personality traits, and yes, this girl is looking for her grandfather. Damn it. Damn it. Damn it. In fact, the closer a match to my precious Granddaddy the more likely I am to be attracted. I'm not going into all of my grandfather's traits--it would be like laying out a roadmap--but cripes. I thought I was very conscious. At least over stuff like this. I have whittled out the extremely controlling. I have whittled out the cheaters (or I like to think). My Granddaddy wasn't a "cheater" per se, but in his generation, they almost all were compared to our current expectations. I've whittled out the men who wouldn't defend me like my grandfather defended my grandmother. But, for all my conscious decisions, I've still been looking for my version, subconsciously, of ideal. And no one, no matter what bad or good my grandfather was in reality, the ideal that was placed there at a very young age is still the guiding mechanism to my choices in men today.
In fact, this is so strong that I still expect the proper courting niceties. I actually refused a date, literally turned around and walked back into my house, letting my oldest son tell the guy I wasn't going on the date, because the guy didn't open my door to his truck for me. I mean, I have overlooked it later in a relationship, but subconsciously, I'm insulted. I don't want to open my own door. It's not about me being an independent woman; it's about being shown the proper respect you show a lady. Oh sure, I can cuss like a sailor; I'm a sailor afterall. But I expect to be treated with the correct nuances for the situation. I went out on several dates with one guy, who has some control issues that are neither annoying nor more than I could handle, but if that were all I would probably have just dropped him completely. Except he stood up when I left for the restroom and he stood when I came back. I expect this. Subconsciously, I was so impressed that I overlooked that he's a bit overbearing in some ways. It's like a trade-off going on in my subconscious. Some fellas have all the preferred things without having the subconscious things that I expect. They get dropped like hot potatoes. In fact, there's little doubt in my mind that I have allowed my conscious mind to make choices that the two parts of my mind have little recompense that will never work for both. The selection has to work for both. The conscious makes up its mind simply to avoid continuing to try and admit that what the pair are looking for may not exist.
Granted I have often joked that I have chosen people on purpose of not getting any further involved and I have made a concerted effort to not do so anymore. Holy crap. So, in reality, my subconscious assessments have been set loose, and it's actually a higher, much higher bar. Now what? Is anyone like my grandfather, crossed with certain parts of my father, and all the idealism that I had in my mind that both of them were back then? Add in a little of my favorite uncles--the parts that I adored about them. Uh, that's what my subconscious has been looking for, I think. I mean it is a subconscious for a reason, but yea, maybe that's what is right and wrong with me at the same time.
Subconsciously, I have known the best decisions for me, but overrode them for various reasons over the years. The subconscious thoughts have always proved more right. What I have consciously wanted has never been as right as what I have subconsciously wanted that eventually brewed over into the conscious. Is this book right? Of course it is. We are the sum of the pair, and the subconscious is the more powerful of the two. Now consider this. Many of us, albeit not a majority by any means, are more conscious of our decisions than others. An intellect thing perhaps? But, those of us that are truly more aware even realize that we are all a majority of subconscious thought. I certainly do. So what does that mean when talking to those that are barely any truly conscious thought? What if they are so lacking intellect and depth that they are completely guided by little more than subconscious? It would mean that there was no conscious decisions at all. Nothing would be deliberate other than the basic needs of self absorption and self preservation. The most basic and base of who we are as human beings. Little more than animals. While I get that my choices in a man are totally guided, almost entirely by certain factors that I have had instilled in me at a much younger age, I still have the conscious mind to assert what is right and wrong.
The book while interesting implies we are more subconscious than any of us want to admit. True, indisputable. But, it is those conscious decisions that we make that divide us from actually being animals. I'd say it was just intellect that makes that difference, but it's not all nature. My Grams. Granddaddy, father, mother, all nutured me to be more thoughtful, more deliberate, more conscious of who I am, what I think and do, and be aware. Did I not already know that my subconscious guides way more than I would like? Yes. Is it a bad thing? An aunt once told me that "gut" decisions were wrong. Yes, for those driven by self absorption, of course. Their "gut" is driven by insecurities, self doubt, and false views of the world. My "gut" doesn't get ignored, but it also doesn't get "carte blanche" either. Perhaps that is the difference. Problem is that those that are not using much of the conscious would never recognize the difference. They perceive who they are as conscious and all their subconscious decisions as conscious also. According to the wine study, only 1 in 7 noticed the music might have affected their choice. Not a crying call of consciousness over subconsciousness, and perhaps a sign that we still have a long way to go as a species.
No comments:
Post a Comment