Starving the Monkeys: Fight Back Smarter

by Tom Baugh

  As I closed the gap, head forward, vectoring slightly to the left of where he was headed, I could see where both of my feet would land relative to his at that last step. I saw where his right wrist would be at that moment, how much torque would be needed. I saw which bones would break first when he hit the ground, how the ligaments would tear in the followup if he was smart and gave in. And how far I would have to step to the side to put my knee through his throat if he was stupid. And whether he had any idea about this sequence which was about to play out while his girlie screamed at him to stop in slow motion. I saw her head twirling, hair defying gravity as she struggled against the jello dog which now just wanted to get back home. When dork reached the same conclusion and stopped advancing, I stopped also. Apparently the doggie-eye thing works sometimes on people, too.

  Depending on what service you want it to provide, you can train your subconscious mind to help you in any number of ways. It will summon just about any part of your brain that you need for what you value. Understanding your own personal quality of life value matrix really comes in handy here. It would be more fair to say, however, that you aren't really training it. I think the subconscious mind is much too independent for that. It has to be, since it pretty much took care of ancient versions of you when those prototypes didn't know jack about anything. Instead, you are just informing it what services would be great for both of these layers of you. Assuming that it agrees that you do know a few things and it hasn't had to snatch you away from too much stupidity.

  If your subconscious mind has confidence that, indeed, you do know enough to be trusted, then it will play ball. It will then use whatever parts of your brain it chooses to assign to the task at hand. If it doesn't have confidence in you, you are going to have to do a lot of things the hard way, thinking about each of them on the fly. You experience this in operation each time you drive a car. Or run off at the mouth with the same stories at the Christmas party each year.

  For some reason, for me, writing books or doing other specific creative activity uses the same part which says "don't keep tweaking the nibbly bits on that soft thing sitting over there." And yet, I can run a tractor just fine during these times, provided there aren't some nibbly bits bobbing by. This is why I try to avoid working in an office as much as possible. Office life around soft things with nibbly bits means that I have to keep from getting in state too deeply to lose that part, which keeps me from operating at peak efficiency.

  On the other hand, if I need to think about how to build a char pile to amend the soil, I pretty much can't be driving the tractor then. It takes some experimentation to find out what works best for you for whatever creative work you want to do. However, getting into the flow state isn't always easy. If your primitive needs aren't being satisfied, or some other obstacle arises for your attention, you won't be able to make that brain bubble. Unresolved issues in your life which threaten to later intervene during the bubble will keep it from forming. So, you find yourself having to deal with some meaningless thing now even if it doesn't need attention yet. I will discuss more of this in a moment.

  Once your subconscious mind has been armed with all of the education and experience you need, and primed with the problem statement, it is time to let it do its work. If you have never worked this way before it is hard to tell whether anything is getting done at all. You may need several primings while in state to let things get started. At this point you may be able to drop out of state and back into the real world. Or, you may need to stay there a bit longer while your subconscious mind continues communicating with you about the problem. Later, when the subconscious mind needs to deliver the answer it might tell you to get back in state. Or, if it faces an obstacle which it needs your help with, it might need you to get back in state, or it might simply watch as you fill in some missing detail.

  While in a flow state, a back and forth communication between your subconscious and conscious mind occurs, with the subconscious mostly driving the show. Perhaps you, in sort of a semi-dream, imagine all the pieces of a transmission coming apart. And then reassembling, with the part in trouble predominating. Or, you feel compelled to get up and read something, or go somewhere, or do something. To an outside observer, this can seem like insanity:

  "How can Bob sit there and read / shoot hoops / watch the game / play pool / take me to dinner / waste time on the internet / etc. when we are about to lose the house?" your spouse might wonder. Over time, she will learn better, but if not, consider trading up.

  Maybe that arc of the ball, or the movement of a player, or a wall hanging at that restaurant, or a news article you read about a customer of a stock you are following contains a vital detail which your subconscious mind needs to complete its task. Or to work on an unrelated problem which you haven't even articulated yet, or recognized as a threat.

  Others may at this point hope to use some of your "wasted time" to do something useful:

  "While you are just sitting there, why don't you take out the trash?"

  "Can you put down the cue and come change this light bulb?"

  When this happens, and interrupts, or threatens to interrupt, a crucial data- or experience-gathering mission your subconscious mind has sent you on, you will know. How? It will tell you. Clearly, I speak as if the subconscious mind is a separate entity, just for convenience of discussion. Of course, it is still you.

  So how can you tell when the subconscious mind has a need which has been unaddressed, or has a solution to a problem, or has recognized a threat which you haven't yet?

  Simple. It puts a message in the mailbox which God created for this purpose. So what is this mailbox?

  Your emotions. This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. If a primitive version of you were out picking berries and enjoying the day, you felt good. If you saw a flash of stripes in the bushes, your subconscious mind would recognize this as a tiger. And then give you a burst of fear to get your attention long before your mind could decide this was a bad thing. Otherwise, you might stand there and wonder whether the little kitty was endangered.

  The same thing happens today when you see a snake, perhaps. Or flashing blue lights on the highway. Notice how many people stomp the brakes, including you or I, when we see blue flashing lights, even if the police car is in no way likely to pull you over. Perhaps it is on the other side of a divided highway, and has already pulled someone else over, for example. Yet, that emotional reaction, prompted by at least a little twinge of fear, is your subconscious mind telling you that there is a situation ahead which can only have negative consequences for you.

  Now immediately afterward, especially if we weren't speeding in the first place, we might tell ourselves that we did this because we were good citizens. We might rationalize that we wanted to slow down so as not to endanger the officer. Or, that we were slowing down because we knew that all the other idiots would hit their brakes, just as the idiots behind us are thinking about us. Even these justifications validate the subconscious decision to apply the brakes, whether to avoid a ticket, getting tasered, striking the officer or rear-ending the car in front. Regardless, that little flash of "oh-crap" jumps in to jolt you awake, even if your foot has already done the work on the pedal.

  When you are sitting on the couch zoning out, and wifey asks you to take out the trash since you are "just sitting there," you feel some aggravation if your subconscious mind has you working on something. Or, you might feel a sense of cooperation if your subconscious isn't too busy to interrupt.

  On the other hand, if you have learned from experience that taking out the trash is just the first step in a long series of dramas about to unfold, then you might feel aggravation in either case. Even so, just as the first aggravation was merely your subconscious trying to keep you on track to help it solve a problem, the second aggravation was warning you of approaching drama danger. The first kind feels like a reward frustrated, more like a mild anger, while the second feels like the flashing blue lights, more of a trapped animal. Learn t
o distinguish between these subtle emotions, and you will become much more skilled at interpreting the messages your subconscious is placing in your mailbox.

  Women might delight at hearing this directed at their men, as it sounds a lot like that "getting in touch with your emotions" crap which they enjoy babbling about as a way of running you down. But this isn't the booblyhoobly drama kind of getting in touch, far from it. This is the kind of getting in touch which a barbarian king might use. If the porridge your scantilyclad servant girl brings you in the morning doesn't smell right, that little jolt your emotions give you when you lift the spoon probably means something.

  It is important to note that articulation of the subconscious message lags behind the subconscious understanding of a situation. You jolt when you see the flashing blue lights, and only later rationalize your reaction. Similarly your subconscious will alert you to a problem, or a solution it has found for you, long before you will be able to articulate what exactly is going on. In some cases, you have to reinflate a brain bubble to find out the details. In other cases, you have to do some things which suddenly feel good to do and find that an obstacle you had before suddenly vanished and now it all seems clear.

  This is where the distinction between the male subconscious and the female subconscious comes in. Seeing the tiger, the primitive male subconscious will be more likely to grab a weapon and go into fight mode. But the primitive female subconscious will be more likely to grab the kids and get away. Why the distinction? Well, fighting entails a certain amount of risk of injury which isn't present when running away. But, running away also risks being chased and pounced from behind. However, for the little children to survive it is more important that the mother survive too, as well as surviving injury. A male can suffer an injury, and as long as it doesn't become septic, probably make it through OK. At least if he wins, he has some tiger meat to munch on for a while until he heals up.

  Even better, of course, is if they team up. The female grabs the kids and runs, while the male fights off, or at least intimidates, the threat. In this case, even if the male gets eaten, the female and the kids suffer zero injury. At least this time. And, if the male is injured, his females can nurse him back to health for the next time. If he doesn't suffer a scratch but comes home dragging a tiger carcass, then turn on the Barry White music, as it is time for this proven-effective team to make some more kids.

  This does not mean that a male won't decide to run, and a female won't decide to fight. No, what I mean by the above analysis is that the male is more biased to fight, and the female is more biased to run with the kids. This is also why the males were more likely to go on hunting parties, while the females were more likely to gather stuff around home while the kids toddled around her. Every now and then some pencil-necked anthropologist pipes up that some tribe or another did it the other way around, but you can count the number of these who thrived through to today on, well, no hands. And if society is working that way now it is only because we are running on the momentum of progress which resulted from the most recent cast-off of a thousand-plus-year reign of stupidity.

  Right now, deep inside you, the reader, males and females both, are charmed by the tiger story, even if only for a briefest instant. If you are offended by this sexist claim, it is only after your self-damaged subconscious has awkwardly tried to overlay offense onto what it wants to naturally enjoy. If offended, it is only because you have damaged what comes naturally to you by accepting programming shoved at you by the collective. They have provided the temptation, or the stick if you choose to not conform, but you have made the choice.

  Either the male or the female subconscious can be trained to perform any task. But, like the extra room upstairs, different architecture leads to different efficient use. Imagine that in House A the extra room has an attached bath, while in House B the extra room has a really big closet. Same square footage in either case, but different finish.

  House A is better equipped to provide a mother-in-law suite, while House B is better for housing your collection of fan trinkets. You could, for example, put a slops bucket in the closet of the spare room in House B and just keep the window open. And, you could stack stuff on the sink or on the back of the toilet in House A. Either can be pressed into either service, but each is more efficient at specific usage.

  Similarly, the female subconscious is more adept at nurturing small children, while the male subconscious is more adept at teaching skills required by adults. You can see this if you think of the normal classical reaction to a stubbed toe: Mommy runs to kiss the boo-boo, while Dad says "well, that's what you get for stupid. Don't do that again."

  Which one is best? Both are. The kid needs the boo-boo smooched to know that he is loved and will have any injury seen to, but he also needs to learn what things are stupid so as to not repeat them. The first is best for his short-term well-being, the latter is best for the long-term. Both are important. And each behavior is best suited for the respective genders and comes naturally to each.

  If, however, the parents listen to the collective and role-swap, it just seems weird. If Dad kisses the boo-boo and Mom says stop it, at a gut level we know that this is stilted. The kid, responding to countless generations of successful parenting programmed into his genetic makeup, thinks they have both lost their minds. And so turns elsewhere for guidance about life's issues, just as the collective needs him to do in order to suit him for their purpose, and not his.

  Even worse, if the collective has decreed that neither parent chide him for being stupid, he never learns about stupid and keeps doing things which get him smooched. Both parents are kissing boo-boos, but Mom's psychological architecture is better suited for this use. Dad, squelched from his normal role, either stays silent or awkwardly tries to smooch the booboo. But, since Mom is much better equipped to nurture, she gets all the boo-boo business. Dad soon becomes seen, by kid and Mom alike, as a superfluous wart who just brings stuff home. If Mom also has a job, then why do they need him at all?

  Add this up over a few generations, and you have a real problem on your hands. Needy kids become needy adults, and vote for more and more of the stuff which made them needy in the first place, because now it is too late to tell them "don't be an idiot." Because they don't know any better, they raise their own kids this way, and so on. At some point, those needlings outnumber the rest of us, and some of them get positions of real power. Ouch. Whatever shall we do? Someone clever should write a book about how to resolve this problem.

  For the primitive, Dad's "don't be an idiot", combined with whatever bitch slap he thought appropriate for the occasion, served a purpose. Enough of these chidings, combined with the knowledge of what skills and response worked and what didn't, children learned to grab the kids and run, or fight, as appropriate, and to do so effectively. What you wind up with is a bunch of independent family units. To someone who wants to steal or otherwise take value they haven't earned, this could be a bad thing.

  To the subconscious mind of a primitive me, a thief looks just like a furless, upright tiger. Either prompts me to turn to the girls and say "Ladies, get the kids in. And dust off that Barry White album, I'll be there in a minute." And then turn down the dial on that perception clock. The only distinction in these situations is whether or not you decide to eat the carcass.

  To a cheater, this situation is intolerable. A cheater may prevail a time or two, but eventually they encounter someone more skilled, or just simply make a fatal mistake. Self-reliant individualists, on the other hand, have no need for the conflict which leads to very many fights, and thus are exposed to hardly any more risk than is encountered from the random tiger. Even the tigers learn to keep their distance, so all is well. Individualism weeds out cheaters through natural selection.

  Sure, some cheaters may arise who are particularly skilled at stealing or fighting, and might even band together to make raiding parties. But, absent any external preventative authority, eventually the individualists will get enough of this nons
ense, get together, and track them all down. Then go home and bust out the Barry White.

  Notice I said "absent any external preventative authority." This part is key. A clever cheater, to be successful, has to deal with all those highly tuned subconscious minds out there, and avoid hitting their tripwires. A clever cheater has to not look so threatening as to be detected, by either gender, as an upright furless tiger. The resulting fight from the males, or flight by the females, defeats his purpose.

  Of the two responses, the male's fight is the greater threat. He can still raid the crops if the female runs, of course. Better if he can steal from her basket, though, or get her to give him the basket willingly, but this would trigger a fight with the male.

  The optimum plan would be to come up with some way to get the males to behave as if they were females. Then everyone would give him, and his offspring, stuff for free. This will take time to evolve in them, however, so he has to take baby steps. His approach must be gentle, and nonthreatening. This allows him to slip below the male radar. As a cheater, he has no willingness to trade value for value. He thus has no appeal which will work with the male, and so he must subvert the female against her male. To appeal to the female nurturer, he must either appear weak or damaged, or claim to represent those who are.

  He must appeal to the female's nurturing spirit without triggering a threat-of-mating response in the male. A soft, weak and genderless appearance, perhaps combined with a proclaimed vow of chasteness and virtue, if not outright chastity, helps a lot with hitting that tripwire. These vows don't have to be real, by the way, they just have to sound real.

  Now it is time to trigger the female's subconscious. Avoiding the flight response, he triggers her boo-boo smooching, and convinces her to give a little of her excess to the weak. He reinforces her behavior by praising her compliance. He avoids mention of the male subconscious responses at this point. Over time, he encourages the female compliance with a combination of boo-boos and praise. At just below the level at which the male might notice, he then has to modify his approach to the female slightly.