Predominant Senses

Our senses are important to us all- the ability to take in the outside world and absorb it into our own psyche.  Then from there, it's up to us to interpret what it is we saw/heard/felt/smelled/tasted and do what we humans love doing.  Ready? Say it with me...Categorize things!  Yes, we humans excite easily over categorizing things subconsciously to make sense of the world.  Because wouldn't it just be so much easier to have a sweeping generalization about an entire race rather than look at each person individually?

Oh, but don't hate on yourself for doing it- it's all part of our nature.  Our instincts dictate that we need to categorize things in order to survive.  Take our cavemen (and cavewomyn, don't think I forgot about you sisters!) ancestors who noticed a rival tribe trying to take down a grizzly bear with their bare (no pun intended) hands.  I'm not 100% sure of the outcome of this hypothetical scenario, but I'm pretty sure it didn't favor the Bruce Lee tribe.  So while they were busy getting their designer furs ripped to shreds, our ancestors were categorizing "people who fight wild bears with their hands are fucking stupid".

Now in order to have witnessed such an event, at least one of the senses would have been used- maybe they saw the bodies getting torn apart, or maybe they heard the blood curdling screams, or smelled the soiling of the loin cloths as the claws ripped through their friends.  Either way, there was an external event that was being absorbed internally.  The real question though, is what was the first sense engaged when our ancestors were baring witness to the slaughter?

Okay so the above scenario was maybe a bit excessive, but it's attention-grabbing right?  Because people love reading about ancestors and the shit they had to go through due to their lack of understanding and technology (I'm looking at you, Woodpecker canopener).  I recently finished reading a psych-ish book called How to Make People Like You in Ninety Seconds or Less (hey, I got it for free leave me alone).  The majority of the book talks about things most people kind of know already- body language, generating rapport, give the person a big ol' shit-eating grin, ask them questions about their miserable life, pretty much all the shit everybody has known since they were in elementary school.  However the interesting part of the book was when he was talking about how everybody has senses they primarily rely on and how much of an impact that can have on relating to people. 

Some of it even talks about queues to pick up from people- like vocabulary of each group.  A lot of it was a bit exaggerated for the sake of proving a point, and a lot of vocabulary we use I think is just because we hear other people using it, but it could still be partially true for determining what type of sense the person relies on.  For instance,  visuals like to say things like "I'll look it over" or "I'll see what I can do".  Auditory people may say things like "you never listen to me" or "you know what I'm saying?"  Kinisthetics like to use concrete things in their speech like "hammer it out" or "walk me through this", or even when stating opinions start them off with "I feel" rather than "I think".  Like I said, it was overly generalized but it helps give some context.

Quick, think of the following scenario- you're at a rock concert. 
1. The venue is a sold-out concert hall that houses about 1000 people everyone crammed like sardines and you can feel the fat guy next you breathing on your body. 
2.The band is crazy loud, well mixed,but you heard the guitarist fuck up a few times and the singer accidentally started singing Kelly Clarkson "Since You've Been Gone" for the first verse of one of their original songs. 
3.They are eccentrically dressed, the drummer had condoms hanging off his drumset and accompanied by flashing lights and pyrotechnics. 

Now it's the next day and you're meeting your buddy.  If you had to time to only share 1, 2 or 3 because you know your friend is an asshole and will cut you off after one sentence, which detail would you pick?  If you said
1. You could be kinesthetic, meaning you favor your senses of touch.  Sometimes emotional feelings get rapped up into this too, same with smell and taste(you know, since those guys don't really fall into anything in a lot of our lives, they just kind of chill in Kinesthetic's pad).
2. You could be auditory, meaning what you hear is how you primarily discern what the hell is going on in life.
3.  You could be visual, meaning you want to see the "pics or it didn't happen". 

I remembered learning about this concept in different context, mainly about learning styles.  But for whatever reason, I always just considered "learning styles" to be based only in classroom settings.  But when the spectrum opens up to everyday life, things start to make a lot more sense. 

I'm an auditory, so subconsciously the first thing that registers to me in any new situation is what I hear.  Whenever I was learning about the learning types, since I love music so much I convinced myself that it was proposterous that I could be anything but an auditory learner, while the thought secretly lingered like a guilty cheeseburger-run while being on a diet.  But then when I started learning about this transferring over into life I was like "Holy shit!  My life is almost nothing but auditory!"  The concert scenario really "spelled it out" for me. 

Because we have a "predominant" sense, I think a lot of times it leaves our other senses kind of standing idly, waiting to process something.  Now that I am aware of the fact that I engage my hearing alone probably 75% of the experiences in my life, that I have to manually turn on my other senses and focus more on using them.  For instance, for most of my life a sunny summer day to me was just like "cool, it's light out...I can get my Vitamin D in. Double score!  Oh and it's warm so I can wear shorts.  Awesome!" while my ears were giving my head its inner dialog that goes on constantly all day "dude it's summer!  You hear that distant lawnmower?  You hear those birds trying to get laid?  You hear the sound of people driving to work while you sit at home on summer vaction, you sly self-unaware teenager you?" 

Basically, I never really tuned in to my other senses that probably most people pay more attention to since my ears OBVIOUSLY do such a great job. (if I ever lose my hearing I'll be fucked.  Somewhat of a sidenote- When you're like this, it makes reading a book kind of redundant sometimes, because I'd read a description of a place and all I'd basically do is just sum it up in different words.  There wouldn't be a mental picture, there'd just be logic statements dictating what most likely is occurring.  Maybe it's just me who does this, I don't know.)  So now that I've become more aware of what's been going on in my life, I decided to start using these crazy white and brown things I found in these sockets on my face, and these sensations that come whenever my hands touch something.  Obviously it's not like I never used them, but more like I never listened to them.  They were always telling my brain stuff that were always like supporting paragraphs of a 2 page news story(nobody reads those things anyway). 

So now, the second part of what I was interested in, was how we actually categorize all of this data we take in.  Because we fall into one of the three groups, we categorize and prioritize things a bit differently.  This can be seen in relationships and what people look for in them.  What do most girls want in a relationship?  Come on be honest.  That's right, a guy with muscles, dark-skinned, dresses nice, and hopefully doesn't beat her death.  This is because most people are visually based (58%).  Now there are other factors that enter into this too, such as stimulating conversation, makes her feel safe and secure, listens to what she has to say, and puts up with her whining.  But how people prioritize these things I think may have a strong correlation to their predominant sense. 

These things are often a way we decide if someone is even worth talking to.  For instance, whenever a person sounds like a what psychologists call "a fucking idiot", I don't really have much tolerance for them.  Basically to me, a persons value and worth is 90% based on what they have to say.  If they are funny/intelligent, I can look past their not-Kate-Beckinsale-face and non name-brand handbag.  (This could be a reason we don't necessarily notice your new shoes or haircut, ladies!) But the minute they start saying stupid shit, acting immature, or being cliche I become disengaged entirely- all just because they demonstrate to my primal instincts that "this person fights bears with his/her hands."  Which of course sounds awesome, but in practice is probably not the greatest idea.

Prop Psychology

As I was standing in line today waiting to get my Five Guys burger (which are little meat morcels of divinity), I noticed something that never really occurred to me- objects can steer our perception of the world, and the outcome of events.  Consider the following situation:

You're in line at the grocery store with your friend and there's this hot girl/guy working the register.  They ask how you're doing, scanning your groceries, and that's generally the end of the conversation (maybe ask if you found everything okay).  You two are talking about something that other people would most likely have an opinion on, like how is Dancing with the Stars still on television.  How inclined are you to strike up much more conversation past this point?  It obviously depends on your personality, but compare your answer to this:

Your waitress comes over to ask what your having for dinner while you're with your friends.  You're in the middle of some light-hearted debate- I don't know, maybe the age old debate of can communism truly exist in any civilization (okay, maybe something she'd know about like what's more manly, whiskey or beer)- how much more likely are you to actually talk to her now? 

Now whether you realize it or not, there are multiple barriers in the first scenario that typically turn most people off from carrying on more of a conversation- those barriers are actually physical barriers.  What seems interesting is that once you notice these things are here, it almost makes conversation beyond the basic greeting feel forced and uncomfortable.  The girl behind the cash register will most likely clam up a bit more than the girl standing right by your table at the restaurant.  What's interesting is that psychology dictates that when a person is standing over you that it's demonstrating a sense of dominance, and should theoretically make you feel less likely to talk to that person.  But compare that to the grocery store where everyone is standing (an equal playing field) and all of a sudden that counter/conveyer belt/cash register becomes a sound-dampening window with two people struggling to communicate. 

The other thing that crossed my mind is that when the first situation would happen to me, I'd go "Oh, well she's at work so she's thrown off guard by interaction beyond the pleasantries."  But then that wouldn't explain the waitress who seems to always have an opinion about everything.  Then the thought occurred to me, "maybe it's the type of people that apply to these different jobs".  But both occupations are virtually the same- little experience required, no education required, interaction with customers.  Sure waitresses get hired on looks, but girls with those same good looks can always be found as a cashier at somewhere and remain hushed when you're around them.

Lastly, perhaps the most likely reason, is monetary gain.  Waitresses get tipped for being personable and bubbly.  Therefore, they see a direct correlation between bubbly and hella cash.  This could be true, but I can think of several occasions of friendly conversation with a girl in Home Depot or Best Buy out on the floor. 

So my question basically is, are the "props" involved really causing this crazy social phenomenon, or is there some unwritten rule somewhere that these occupations can "talk to customers" but not "talk to customers"?