The Chicken or the Egg?

We have all heard, if not used, the phrase, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”  Now don’t waste your time going down that thought trail because I’m going to give you the answer in the next paragraph. The question is an example of causality dilemma where the parameters of one state (i.e. the chicken) require the existence of the other state (i.e. the egg) and vice versa.  It is a philosophical conundrum employed to force an examination of creation.  That may have been acceptable to Third Century B.C. thinkers but in the era of modern genetic understanding, the answer is non-debatable.

“So Dale,” you ask, “which did come first?”

“Why,” I respond, “the egg!” To which, after the shock has passed you ask, “Well, who then laid the egg?”

The Proto-chicken!

Now you are wondering just what the heck is he rambling on about? You’ve been to Colonel Sanders’ (aka KFC for you post Baby Boomers), Knott’s Berry Farm, maybe Popeye’s and, if you’re very brave or very lost, even Church’s Fried Chicken.  But you have never seen Proto-chicken on the menu.  “Is it a special non-posted menu item available only to those in the loop?” you ask.

We’re going to take a stroll down science lane now so try to keep up and don’t touch the exhibits. Every animal (or plant or fungus, for that matter) has a genetic fingerprint that is totally unique. Members of a specific species have certain DNA characteristics in common which separate them from other species. These characteristics are passed from generation to generation and may result in evolutionary modification over time forced by competition for food or other survival factors.  Advantages gleaned from advanced evolution allowing members of a species to outperform lesser adapted members eventually allow the better developed to supplant their less fortunate cousins.  This is known as natural selection and is not what we are interested in for this discussion.

Occasionally, a genetic mutation occurs that results not in a better shrew, but a whole new bunny rabbit.  What triggers these mutations is open for debate. But such alterations are not due to changes happening in the living animal, they are the result of some alteration to the DNA within the female’s reproductive supply, i.e. eggs. When some environmental force “damages” the chromosome record in an animal’s ova so much that the resulting offspring is considered a unique species, we call this catastrophic evolution. Once an animal is conceived by fertilization, its DNA does not change. The change yielding a new species occurs in the chromosomes of the mother’s eggs.

Therefore, the first chicken emerged from an egg laid by a pre-DNA altered bird, or proto-chicken, if you will. Now you have acquired a new bit of esoteric knowledge with which you can dazzle you friends at your next cocktail party.  But I’ll bet, if you imbibe, that the answer to the question will be that time honored punch-line, “the Rooster!”

A Tale of Abandonment and Woe

 

An elderly lady entered the neighborhood pet store and addresses the proprietor, “I’m an old lady who lives alone.  I’m very lonely.  I thought it would be nice to have a bird that talks just so there’s a voice to hear.”

“Well lady,” the owner replied, “Right now I have only one parrot that can talk.  But he was previously owned by an old sea captain and his language is somewhat blue.  He might not be what you’re looking for.”

But the old matron persisted, “My children live all over country. They never call.  They never visit.  I haven’t seen my grandchildren in two years.  All of my close friends have passed on.  I just want to hear a human voice, even if it’s a bird.”

The pet shop owner was moved to tears, he relented with one caveat, “I’ll sell you the parrot, mother, but I have to warn you, no matter what he says, I cannot take him back.  If you buy him and are disappointed, it’s your problem.” With that, the two completed the transaction. The shop owner placed a drape over the cage and the old woman trundled on home, hopeful that her new pet would relieve the crushing loneliness.

When she got home, she set the cage on the dining room table and removed the covering.  The bird immediately came to life, “Squawk, show me your tits lady!” The prudish old lady was shocked.  She picked up a magazine and rapped on the cage, “How dare you use such profane language.”

The parrot answered, “Squawk, show me your tits lady!”

She was incensed, “I’ll teach you, you rude devil!” She ran into the kitchen, retrieved a glass of water and threw it on the bird that in turn fluffed his plumage and repeated, “Squawk, show me your tits lady!”

She couldn’t stand the foul fowl’s abusive outburst.  In an attempt to teach the rancid beast a lesson in manners, she opened the door to the cage, reached in and grabbed the parrot by its feet.  She carried it upside down into the kitchen, beat its head against the counter and shoved the offending critter in the freezer.

 After ten minutes, she considered the bird had suffered enough.  She retrieved the parrot and set it on the counter where it shivered from its imprisonment in the ice box.  “What do you have to say now, you evil bird?

“Squawk! What d-d-did the chi-chi-chicken do? Ask f-f-for a b-b-b-blowjob?”

Why Women Dance

“Do you wanna dance?” The use of this question presumes a man has overcome all of the anxieties associated with making a new social contact. No matter how cool he is trying to be, one can still detect the signs of nervous apprehension; darkened armpits, trembling lip, forced eye-contact, lack of eye-contact, non-sequitor conversational gushes. The well adjusted female, wily in her use of body language, ceases the chewing of her gum for a beat, tilts her head coyly, twirls her index finger up in her tresses, smiles and responds, “Sure!” Tempted to translate these gestures into signals of sexual interest, the wizened man recognizes the true meaning: “I’ll dance with anyone just to separate myself from the wallflowers so don’t get any ideas, bub.”

Let’s face it, women love to dance.  This being well established, the question is why?  I don’t know.  I don’t know anything about what goes on in a woman’s mind. If you are a regular reader of these missives, you (should) have by this time recognized that I have a pretty high opinion of my ability to assess human motivations.  This is not true for women.  They are a species unto themselves (be sure to see next week’s post) and defy rational understanding.

Lest you foster the opinion that I dislike women, let me assure you.  I love women.  They are infinitely more interesting than men.  They smell better (if you can get past, “Hey, don’t stand so close, bub!  There’s plenty of room in here for everybody.”) They are certainly more pleasing to look at. And perhaps most of all, they don’t drag you into foolish testosterone fueled agility competitions that result in emergency room visits that you now wish you had included in your health insurance coverage.

Women are the reason men exist, both biologically and aspirationally (I may have made this word up… it’s happened before… hey, Brenda, do you remember “morphodite”?).  If it weren’t for your mother your biological self would be, well let’s say non-conceived just to be delicate.  And if it weren’t for the aspirational (spell check didn’t like it in this form either), you would spend all of your time eating, jumping off of things and sitting in the waiting room at the ER. Women save us from a life of obesity and pain.

I recall from my youth the Sunday evening dances sponsored by the parish CYO (that’s Catholic Youth Organization for you heathens).  We sponsored a battle of the bands competition to identify who would be the regular performers at these soirees. They were all terrible. I can understand why Jim Morrison would have drunk himself to death if he knew how his songs were being butchered.

It takes some effort to engage in the pubescent ballet of sexual awakening in the same room that last school year was your lunch room. The scent of peanut butter and Fritos overwhelmed the English Leather cologne your godmother had bought you for Junior High graduation.

Just last year, these girls were all makeup free and wearing knee-length plaid skirts and white blouses.  Now they were making up for lost time. Maybelline was raking in record profits as these newly liberated fillies plastered on mascara with a brick-layer’s trowel. Sleeveless dresses exposed arms with countless freckles. High heel pumps (all two inches) replaced saddle oxfords.  And the “House of the Rising Sun” reverberated off of the concrete block walls with such volume that our retinas were surely displaced. At least these bands played a lot of slow songs (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

When the summer ended I began the next chapter of my education at the local public high school. The culture shock that I experienced still influences my perception of the world today. Students addressed the teachers while seated!  The cliques from the local feeder public junior high schools were transplanted intact.  You were an insider, or you were invisible. The school had a cafeteria (actually, food service windows providing victuals to students in an outdoor quad), but I still brown bagged.

But the most interesting phenomenon was the school dances.  As they were held in the basketball gym, attendees were required to remove their shoes before advancing to the dance floor. The lights were turned down low; hubba, hubba. The bands were marginally better if exponentially louder. And the girls! From a pool of twenty the year before, I could cast my net into a sea awash with hundreds of women (almost).  And how did the fair sex handle this freedom?  They all stood around the perimeter of the dance area in their respective cliques, gossiping; staring daggers at any boy who had the audacity to inquire as to their desire to cut a rug!  It’s not like these people could possibly know me by reputation.

And now, women have the audacity to ask, “Why don’t you want to dance?”  

A Bonus 

 

Dale Holbrook’s Survival Guide: Tip One

Breathe in.

Breathe out.

Repeat as necessary.

Why Men Dance

“Do you wanna dance?” A question guaranteed to strike fear in the heart of any red-blooded, American male.

The other day I was having a conversation with a female friend of mine and the conversation turned to leisure time activities.  She mentioned that she often enjoyed going dancing with her girl friends. We agreed that women do, as a general rule, like to dance and are less than particular with whom. They will dance with men, acquaintances or strangers, women, groups of people or by themselves. That is because women dance for the sake of dance, no other motivation is needed.

You can dance, every dance

With the guy who gave you the eye

Let him hold you tight.

You can dance, every dance

With the man who held your hand

In the pale moonlight

But don’t forget who’s takin’ you home

And in whose arms you’re gonna be.

So darling, save the last dance for me! 

Men, conversely, hate to dance. They instinctively know how foolish they look trying to move in rhythm to music for which they have no affinity.  Well, this applies to straight men anyway.  Gay men dance (not that there’s anything wrong with that) to the beat of a different drummer which is apparently out of the auditory range of the straight guy. None the less, straight men dance.  Why would this be?

Oh I know, that the music’s fine

Like sparkling wine

Go and have your fun.

Laugh and sing

But while we’re apart

Don’t give your heart to anyone.

Cause don’t forget who’s takin’ you home

And in whose arms you’re gonna be.

So darling, save the last dance for me! 

My friend agreed, when pressed for an explanation as to why men willingly, even eagerly engage in an activity they find so inherently repugnant: Men dance to get women (she is so delicate in her use of language; you or I would have made reference of the mechanics of avian reproduction).  And thus we have defined the underlying motivation for rhythmic gesticulation among the males of the species.

Baby don’t you know I love you so?

Can’t you feel it when we touch?

I will never, never let you go.

I love you oh so much!

 “So what,” you ask, “of cultures where men readily embrace the rhythm and dance, dance, dance?”  I offer you these explanations:

In aboriginal cultures, dance ritual is closely tied to nature based religious ceremony.  And what is the purpose?  To ensure fertility!

Slavic and Mediterranean men participate in traditional group dancing. Why? Their liquor is not strong enough to dull their senses to the extent needed to perceive their women as attractive.

Scots, sporting the traditional kilt in cooler northern hills, need to get the blood flowing before retiring to the bridal chamber.

Pacific Islanders?  Okay, you might have me here.  Maybe there are mosquitoes in the grass skirts! But mosquitoes can’t mate unless gorged on blood.

From the time a young man first slips off his Converse All-Stars in the Junior High gym to the day he breaks his hip at his grand-niece’s wedding, it’s all about the mating ritual.

You can dance, go carry on

‘Til the night is gone

And it’s time to go.

If he asks, “If you’re all alone,

Can he walk you home?”

You must tell him no.

‘Cause don’t forget who’s takin’ you home

And in whose arms you’re gonna be.

So darling, save the last dance for me!

Mmmm-mmm-mmm!

Save the last dance for me. 

Addendum

The following e-mail message was issued to members of my blog notification list on the occasion of my 1,000^th page read, occurring May 13^th.  If you wish to be added to the notification list, send me an e-mail ( dale.holbrook@sbcglobal.net -or- daleholbrookoutwest@gmail.com ).

Mon, May 13, 2013 5:16:53 PM

Yes! Yes! Yes... er, no...

From:	Dale Holbrook <dale.holbrook@sbcglobal.net> View Contact
To:

---

...you are not being treated to an extra post this week. I just wanted to share (hmm, never occurred to me that you might not be interested) that I experienced my 1,000th page read this afternoon (5/13/13) at 4:30 PDT. That's 2130 Zulu (? if I did the math right) for you mil heads out there.

Some interesting facts:

There have been sixteen posts in total. The most hits went to the first real story, "The Great Potato Excursion" (2/2/13) with fifty-three followed closely by "...and Taxes" (4/11/13) with fifty; which had nothing to do with taxes but quite by coincidence was posted four days before our national filing date. I wonder if I just happened to pick up some hits by people using a crappy search engine who were desperate for last minute advice... oh, well!

The ignominious distinction of fewest hits is shared by "Leap Day" (4/4/13) and "A Sticky Test" (4/18/13) with 12 each; two of my favorites.

Although 788 hits have occurred in the USA, I have a truly international audience, including but not limited to:

Germany (friends of Nicky)

Mexico (friends of Chris)

New Zealand (friends of Frank)

Russia

Latvia

Romania (communist friends of Brenda?) 

I want to thank all of you for indulging my ego-trip but specifically; Nick for helping me navigate the roiling waters of blog-site opportunities; Brenda for recognizing that I am a writer, not a blogger; and Tinkerbelle for pushing me over the inertia hump to get this thing started.

No, I am not taking the week off to celebrate; I am in the midst of a brain fever readying this week's submission... stand by! 

The Big Pffft!

This submission is about Cosmology. Guys wait, don’t close this post!  Cosmology is not a course offered at the local beauty college; it is the study of the beginning of time and the physical nature of the universe.  Girls wait, don’t close this post! If you finish this article and can send me an e-mail containing the secret word of the day revealed at the end, I will send you a free bottle of nail polish.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble (preeminent American astronomer 1889-1953) was taking pictures of space with the 100 inch Hooker telescope located atop Mt. Wilson in Los Angeles’ San Gabriel mountains.  What he discovered was the most important contribution to science since Copernicus had delivered the heliocentric model of our solar system in the sixteenth century.  Which, in turn was the most important contribution to man’s thirst for knowledge since beer.

Prior to Hubble’s work, our galaxy (named in honor of the most heavenly candy bar ever, the Milky Way) was thought to be the entire universe, containing everything we see in the night sky. His observations led to the realization that the numerous blurry smudges known as nebulae, heretofore thought to be interstellar gas clouds residing within the Milky Way, were in fact galaxies external to our own.  His work essentially rewrote the book on the size of the universe; it was expanded by magnitudes inconceivable to human experience. I would use numbers to illustrate this, but I’m afraid I would wear out my zero key.

As amazing as this discovery seems, it was only the first evolution of what Hubble’s continuing revelations offered us.  Using a technique known as spectroscopy and applying the principles of Doppler Effect he found the galaxies he had been photographing were red-shifted. No, that does not mean they were dressed in their most gay finery in anticipation of the Nobel awards ceremony. It demonstrated they were travelling away from us.  It was as if our galaxy had farted and all the others were trying to escape the stench!  The same was true in every direction Hubble turned his telescope. This phenomenon led to a singular conclusion; the universe was expanding, and at an amazing rate!

Well, scientists’ natures being what they are, they immediately began analyzing this new data.  I apologize in advance for the complexity of this next statement, but it seems that if you work in the opposite direction of a body’s line of travel, you will find the point at which the journey began.  Application of this technique to the flight paths of the aforementioned galaxies seemed to demonstrate that they all came from the same place. This in turn led to what we have come to call the “Big Bang Theory” which replaced the then widely held Steady State model.  The steady state model holds that the universe is, has and always will be the same size.

The Big Bang Theory, if you believe CBS, is a highly rated sitcom about a group of quirky but loveable nerds living in Pasadena and their growing retinue of female romantic partners.  I find it delightful.  Is it more than coincidence that Pasadena is in the shadow of Edwin Hubble’s tor of triumph, Mt. Wilson? But I digress.

The Big Bang Theory that we’re discussing here actually received it’s moniker from British Astronomer and Steady State Universe advocate Fred Hoyle during a 1949 BBC radio interview in which he was attacking the idea of a universe that began with a single event. According to Hoyle (who, to my knowledge knows nothing of the rules of popular card games), he was using the term as a descriptive rather than a pejorative in trying to describe the theory he rejected.

Pejorative or not, the Big Bang Theory has become the popular model for the formation of the universe as we see it today.  The theory holds that the entire universe; all energy, space, mass and time, were created by the expansion of a singularity, an infinitesimally small and dense point in… well, there is the rub. If there was no space or time before the expansion began, just where was this alleged singularity?

Singularity is defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary as the condition or quality of being singular; a unique, distinct, or peculiar feature or thing.  It is nice to know that I enjoy the same characteristics as the progenitor of the universe.

The theory proposes that this singularity, for reasons totally unknown, began to expand rapidly in a great release of energy. And the result of that continuing expansion is all of the energy and matter we see today and the space and time in which they reside. There are some problems reconciling the theory with observations.  Perhaps the most important is the flat universe. No, this is not a pancake house. The distribution of matter in the observable universe (keep in mind, we cannot see all the way back to the beginning of time, yet) is flat.  What we know of energy release (like an explosion) is that the force, and all of the matter carried along with it, is generally distributed in a uniform manner in all directions from the point of the energy release unless some other force interferes.  So, if there were no other forces or structures to influence the pattern of universal distribution, why is the Universe not a big ball?

Well, the staunch defenders of the Big Bang Theory would have you believe that a phenomenon they call inflation is responsible. At 10^-36 (that’s a really small number) seconds after expansion began, the process sped up until 10^-33 seconds when it slowed to a much more reasonable rate. If you blinked, you missed it. It seems very convenient for the theory of inflation that all of this occurred beyond the limit of our powers of observation. It does, if you believe the proponents, explain away several glitches in the Big Bang measurements but there is no empirical evidence. It also asks us to believe that for those few very, very, very brief nano-moments, the Universe expanded at a rate greater even than the speed of light. Hmm!

So what these learned men of science are asking us to believe is that unobservable data that applies only to this singular event that is inconsistent with to our understanding of the natural world is plausible because it makes their model of the creation of the universe work!

I don’t mean to be the skeptic, but it kind of sounds like religious dogma to me.  What do you think? 

 

“Platypus”

What's the Worst that Could Happen?

This is the first in an indeterminate number of volumes authored by Dale Holbrook (internationally renowned creator of the “So?” method of accountability avoidance) designed to help those afflicted with anxiety create a stress free life.

Many people suffer from stress in some aspect of their lives, be it at work, home or outside a pay toilet while wearing pants with no pockets.  In fact, I would venture to say, without any research data to back me up, that at some point in a lifetime every human being suffers anxiety about something.  And let me set your mind at ease.  You will never be able to eliminate the sources of stress in your life.  They are just going to keep hammering away at you from birth canal to sepulcher; day after day, year after year (and for those Hindus out there, lifetime after lifetime), relentless in their assault on your peace of mind.

Yes! Yes, you got it, because if you have no pockets, you have no change! Now back to the point.

First, some personal history; I learned at an early stage in my life (pre-alcohol, of course) that my personal reaction to stress was sleeplessness.  And as I love to sleep as I love living, it was obvious that I must find methods of driving the stress out of my life, or at least my perception of life.

This series of essays is intended to share my experiences in developing stress elimination techniques for my own use in hopes that it will offer you some guidance in building your own stress fighting arsenal. To keep it simple, and reduce the need for you to reconcile conflicting concepts, I will limit the content of these missives to one approach per.

The first is, and I know that those of you who have spent time with me will recognize this, “What’s the worst that can happen?”

Well, that’s it in a nutshell. Yeah, I guess that sums it up pretty nicely. But, as I write to boost my self-esteem (remember, you don’t pay to read these… so you owe me) and a writer’s self-esteem is measured by word count, I will continue.

“What’s the worst that can happen?” is predicated on the belief that most stress is induced by the need to make a decision; the more imminent and hazardous the event, the greater the stress level, but this approach works for trivial matters just as well.  Let me give you a somewhat contrived, albeit historically validated, example.

Let’s say you are taking a leisurely stroll through the Burmese jungle one afternoon, having left your 12 bore Howdah Double Rifle at the lodge because of its prohibitive weight and the dearth of suitable gun bearers due to a lackey labor-management dispute when unexpectedly you happen into sunlit clearing concurrently in the possession of a tiger. Suddenly, you notice your stress level leaps into the red zone.  Now those uninitiated into my techniques will immediately identify the tiger as the source of subject anxiety (or stress, if you will, but is this really the time to pick nits, your staring down a lethal killer and all?) But there you would be wrong.  The tiger is not the source of stress.  He is there and will decide on his course of action without regard to your needs, want and concerns. Your stress is one hundred percent driven by your need to make a decision as how to handle this all too common phenomenon.  Your choices would seem to be limited to: a) run like hell (GTFO in testosterone speak), or b) yell loud enough to strike fear into the heart of the beast (let’s face it, in the world of flight or fight, screaming like a little girl is likely to be as successful as any other defensive maneuver one could employ in this oft reported scenario) hoping he will opt to avoid conflict now in favor of finding a more cooperative meal in the future.

So then, to the application of my technique: Having identified the source of stress is your need to make a life affecting decision post haste, we turn our attention to the options and their likely outcomes upon implementation.  First, you could run for your life.  What’s the worst that could happen? Well, as we know that the large predatory mammals are genetically programmed to chase down and kill fleeing prey, the worst that could happen is you would die.  If you die, then what do you have to worry about?  Nothing, stress supplanted by recognition of one’s own fate.

Then what of option two?  You begin shouting and waving your arms in a threatening manner. The tiger is suitably annoyed by both the noise and your impudence in the face of a fifteen-hundred pound killing machine and he chooses to use you as a claw sharpening implement to allay his disgust at your pitiful behavior. What’s the worst that could happen? Once again, you would die. Then what would you have to worry about?  I think you are probably starting to understand the power of this stress elimination process.

There is yet another option. You could stand there whimpering (I’ll bet you are wishing you’d paid the extra money for the waterproof boots right about now) frozen to inaction. The tiger is moved to embarrassment by your girl-like display and leaves for another part of the jungle in hopes he can find one of his deer-eating buddies to share his new joke, “Did you hear the one about the hunter who wandered into the jungle without his Howdah?”

Dopplewhat?

The other day, in a place and time probably better left undisclosed, I shared a brief conversation with a woman that touched on the subject of twins. As you have been following these missives for some little time now, you have probably guessed that the event prompted me to ponder the nature of twins and write a completely non-authoritative thesis that somehow will fall just short of enriching your life or adding anything to the collective scientific wisdom on the subject. Twins are an interesting biological phenomenon. It seems that in most mammalian species, multiple births are rather common.  In humans, there are two types of natural multiple births; fraternal, wherein multiple ova are present at fertilization and identical; where multiple births is the result of a less common genetic condition that prompts a single fertilized ovum to split early in the development process resulting in two offspring of identical DNA makeup.  None of this has anything to do with the off-ramp of convoluted thought my mind chose for this particular journey into the absurd.

My thoughts turned immediately to the question of good versus evil.  We are all aware of the concept of the evil twin.  Who among us has not made an attempt to assign responsibility for some nefarious deed to an evil twin in hopes of escaping culpability ourselves?  Of course, nobody admits to being the evil twin.  We all claim to be the good twin, hapless victim of the actions of another.

Let’s explore this phenomenon a bit more closely.  Evil acts are common, we witness them every day. But who actually engages in these misdeeds?  Not you and I, certainly. I postulate that no person will commit an act they know to be evil.  We have built-in defense mechanisms that prevent us from bad behavior.  Instead, when we engage in actions held by society to be criminal or immoral, we rationalize them away. It is our tendency to justify what we have done by offering some extenuating circumstance as dispensation from acting counter to natural or statutory law.

Therefore, as we are prevented from committing evil acts, and know that evil acts are indeed committed; the perpetrators must be our evil twins!  Recalling the previous discussion of biologic twins, we can establish that given the rare nature of their incidence, not enough such twins exist to account for all of the evil observed in the world.  So there must be some other explanation.  I offer the doppelganger.

It is a commonly held belief in many cultures that for every individual, there exists an exact duplicate somewhere in the world. No hereditary link exists, just a coincidence of physical attributes. While no scientific data supports these claims, have all of us not been approached by a stranger at one time or another who believes we are someone known to them when in fact we are not.  After some embarrassment and confusion does the stranger not claim to know someone who looks just like us?  Many of these legends prescribe a malevolent nature to the doppelganger.  Clearly this offers a non-verifiable hypothesis for the presence of evil in a population where no individual will admit to actually being evil.

So, now that we have identified the purveyors of evil, what is to be done?  I believe it should be the responsibility of every citizen of the world to seek out their doppelganger and kill them.  Remember, these are evil twins engaging in immoral or criminal behavior.  Their presence is a bane to regulated society.  Caution: I am not encouraging you hunt down and murder your biological twin (put the scissors back in the drawer, Heather); they are not your nemesis. Your target is that evil entity out there committing unspeakable acts for which you are then assigned responsibility.  Whether you have been issued a parking ticket or indicted by an international tribunal for genocide, you know it wasn’t you fault.  They did it, not you!

Think as well of the collateral benefit.  By halving the population we would free up demand for precious natural resources.  The price of goods and commodities would return to affordable levels.  Pressure on the environment caused by over population would be eased.  If you happened to be married to a worthless so-and-so, when the good twin eliminated the evil twin you could enjoy the romance of which you had always dreamed.  You would always be able to find a parking place at the mall during Christmas!

Note: The contents of this missive should not be construed as a legal directive to inflict injury on any other human being actually living.  However, if you have an imaginary friend averring no claims to biological existence…

 

A Sticky Test

I was born an analyst. It is impossible for me to observe anything and not have a question form in my conscious mind.  I don’t care what the question is; I just want to find an answer. Heck, I don’t even care what the answer is as long as I can form one that makes some kind of sense; even better if I can get others to agree with me.

I am intuitive. I form an answer based not on evidence or reason but my own model of the world. This is otherwise known as deductive reasoning. I begin with a theory (of everything, sometimes) and compare my observations against that theory to see if one supports the other.  There is one key personality element necessarily present in the deductive thinker; confidence… some would say overconfidence.

The bastard son of modern psychiatry, Carl Jung, (he must be the bastard son as Freud was the father and was not, as far as we can divine, married to Carl’s mother… although from what we know of Sigmund, he probably schtuped her) theorized that there are four principal psychological functions by which we experience the world: sensation, intuition, feeling and thinking, with one of these being dominant most of the time. If you care to further develop your understanding of this model for how people gather information and make decisions, I refer you to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.  For now, I will skip over the scientific niceties and jump right to the baseless personality test I have developed.

A bit of personal history; I am an only child born of parents who were not overly emotionally demonstrative.  Oh, you women stop cooing in feigned sympathy.  I was not a neglected child.  In fact, I sometimes believe I received too much attention, but I digress. As a youth, I spent much time alone.  That allowed me plenty of space to observe the world and form purely speculative opinions as to its mechanics ranging from the nature of the cosmos to the sinister workings of the human psyche. Yes, I have it all figured out. Get over it!

It occurred to me at some point in my life I cannot pinpoint in memory, probably fueled by a Tequila driven stupor, that there are different personality types.  Having a quick reference personality-type list might certainly be a valuable survival tool.  Of equal value would be a simple, easily performed (or observed) test to classify an individual’s type. It is essential that such a test be conducted in a manner which does not betray its occurrence as awareness by the test subject would likely skew the results due to the subjects’ (as is the case with most people) desire to conform their behavior into a favorable outcome.  I believe this is known as the please-see bow effect.

The first step in developing a personality type list is to observe the population and identify the characteristics to which one can assign traits.  Because we are expecting assessments to be performed in any environment on a real-time basis, we must surrender specificity and detail to assumption and innuendo. The most expedient method is to establish two main types; those like me and those unlike me.

Now I know from experience that I am trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. Therefore, my personality opposite would be untrustworthy, disloyal, etc., etc.

The next step is to design an unobtrusive, easily conducted test or observation that speaks to the person-of-interest’s character. I have developed just such a test and successfully deployed it dozens of times with nary an erroneous result. Ask your test subject to make you a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and observe their method closely.

If they go to the cupboard and produce a jar of Skippy brand peanut butter, you know there is some hope they will end up on the correct side of the ledger.  If it is any other brand, be dubious but don’t discount them immediately. Should they claim not to have peanut butter on hand, you may be assured they are not trustworthy and terminate the test. Travel home by a route that will take you past your preferred purveyor of food stuffs and buy an extra jar of Skippy.

Once they have produced their jar, turn your attention to their jelly preference.  Welch’s grape jelly will suggest that they are a stalwart traditionalist. They are probably trustworthy but will likely be dull and tedious company. If, on the other hand, they offer something more exotic, like mango or apricot, while they will build a tasty sandwich, they may be living life in the fast lane; in a manner requiring no small effort on your part to keep up. Proceed with caution.  Be certain to note the locations of exits as a rapid escape may become necessary.

The ideal offering will be Knott’s preserves made from any of the popular berries. Note: I am referring to whole fruit versions; not seedless.  Any man (or woman) who expects some unidentified minion in some secret jelly factory to pick the seeds out of his jam for him will prove to be feckless and of no use in a critical situation. Not only does the presence of seeds guarantee the maximum flavor, it promises you’ll have plenty to do with your tongue for hours to come, bringing fond memories of your recent culinary ecstasy; crunch, crunch, crunch!

Now, if your subject offers you honey or molasses in lieu of jelly, write them off as a reliable friend as they demonstrate total disregard for following directions.  Do stay for lunch however, especially if they suggest sliced bananas, as you are in for an epicurean delight.

And that takes us to the final and most critical phase of the test. Observe the manner and order with which the spreadables are applied to the bread. It must be peanut butter on bread then jelly on peanut butter, topped by clean bread.  This is a must!  If they insist on applying peanut butter to one slice and jelly to the other then joining the two they are the least favorable candidate for friendship and you would be wise to abandon all hope.

Peanut butter one side, jelly the opposite purports a life of excessive order and neatness. They will get caught up in ensuring a smooth even application of peanut butter probably thin to the point of veneer. When they spread the jelly, it will be smooth to the edge of the crust, no variation, no élan. These people apply all of their effort to style over substance. They will never complete anything to their own satisfaction due to their weakness for perfection.  Their anal retentive nature will ensure they always arrive late but impeccably dressed; no jelly stains on their shirts!

On the other hand, the little pools of jelly collected amid the crests and troughs of peanut butter when both are applied to the same slice of bread offer the promise of the occasional squirt of jelly into your cheek. Spontaneity will rule the lives of your new BFFs. You know that they can be counted on to favor chaos over order, the natural state of the universe. Add them to the “A” list of your heart.

There is one last indicator. Suppose they apply peanut butter to both slices of bread and then jelly in the middle.  These people are over compensating; trying too hard to please all tastes.  Such sandwich makers cannot be trusted as their public behavior reflects that of those they are trying to impress.  Look closely, they are probably employing a steak knife or some other combat ready cutlery in the construction of your lunch. You can discern only one thing from this … they are communist subversives and should be reported to authorities immediately!

Note: No top-hat wearing, cane swinging, monocle sporting peanuts were harmed in the making of this missive.