Non-verbal Communication

[nemorathwald]

Many people who know me well are aware that I do not interpret non-verbal communication in many circumstances, and sometimes don't recognize it at all unless I am specifically looking for it. sarahmichigan linked to this essay on a scientific study of flirting. It's fascinating. The description of distance, posture and eye contact has wide application to human interactions far beyond "flirting." For instance, it describes unconscious signaling of discomfort, dislike and rejection. It also describes different social settings with different rules. I've drawn your attention to that before, although not on the topic of flirting.

The internet is teaching us that there are some people who rely too much on non-verbal communication. It's important to recognize when one is poor at simply meaning what they say and saying what they mean, and interpreting others at face value. To me, the word "over-sensitive" has connotations of measuring instrumentation that consistently registers false positives. This is a mild form of paranoia, an affliction which processes coincidental noise and obsessively refuses to give up processing it until it invents a pattern of meaning behind it. This can always be found by a clever enough paranoid. It can be sinister conspiricy, or divine miracles and intelligent design. In the same way, there is only so much information that can be conveyed through non-verbal communication-- good enough to be used as a rough guide-- and the rest is an illusion of love or hostility, assembled from noise. It's best to wait until someone's feeling and intent is spelled out verbally before making important decisions.

Comments

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

While I agree there can be pitfalls in reading too much into body language, I also don't put 100 percent stock in people's verbal declarations. I think actions speak louder than words. So if someone proclaims to love me, but doesn't act lovingly, I look at both of those things before making an important decision.

[natashasikorsky.livejournal.com]

Difficulty reading non-verbal communication is an important feature of Asperger Syndrome, and you might find reading about it interesting, if you haven't already. I'm not here to suggest you have AS; to the contrary I'm here to make a counter observation.

Folks who have difficulty with non-verbal communication tend to have trouble "turn-taking" in conversation, because the cues for turn taking are largely non-verbal. Trouble with turn-taking manifest in two ways: difficulty breaking into a conversation and a tendency to talk over other people. It's clear you don't suffer the former, and while you are vocal and loud and forceful in conversation I don't think you talk over other people. At least in my limited exposure to you "live" I haven't observed you trampling on conversation. So, whatever cues are used for turn-taking (I'm led to believe it is in eye contact and facial expression, but I'm one of those people who miss it), you seem to be picking up on them.

Anyway, you might be interested in this (http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050427_mind_readers.html).

Amy

[rachelann1977.livejournal.com]

It's funny you mentioned Asperger's, because before I even read your post I was thinking of Autism. Again, not in reference to Matt, who is actually probably more skilled conversationally than I am, but just because it is the only obvious example of what happens without non-verbal communication.

I seem to remember learning in physiological psychology that there is a dedicated part of the brain for processing social cues, though I'm pretty sure research is still ongoing in this area.

Most of us use these skills without even knowing it, although it can be useful in certain situations to bring these cues to conscious awareness. I do think, though, that most of the time, at least for the purposes of everyday conversation, they are better left unscrutinized (unless, of course, a person wishes to overcome a particular difficulty, such as my own problem of not being able to keep my mouth shut half the time ;-) ).

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

I'm usually a fine conversationalist, although what is more important is that I recognize those occasions when I have embarrassed myself and learn from that accordingly. I am experienced and effective at most of the article's points. But NVC is something I turn on, and by default it's off. When my attention is elsewhere and at the moment I am really not interested in the person who is present with me, and would just as soon be alone, I don't pick up anything. Sometimes that means I'm missing out on social information that will bite me later.

Another example is when someone's presence completely falls beneath the radar when there are lots of stimulating things going on. In a lineup, I couldn't identify more than a dozen people at the Indian restaurant this weekend, despite having undoubtedly been present with them many times. I just didn't look at them. For all I know you might have been communicating non-verbally, but you're kind of quiet and I wasn't looking. Sorry I didn't say hi.

I also read nothing when someone should be using words, but says nothing, such as a friend of mine who frequently tells me "hey, notice my hand. It is pointing to a bottle of ketchup next to you. What do you think that means?" Technically "turn-taking" is information, but it isn't the content of the conversation. I do not accept actual content non-verbally. Some of the people closest to me agree that they should create an all-day event where no one will say anything at all to me except to communicate with hand gestures. I think that kind of training is asking too much from the information recipient. The sender should make more effort.

[rachelann1977.livejournal.com]

I really think this has more to do with divided attention skills than non-verbal communication skills.

You know the cues when you see them, you just can only pay attention to so much at a time. It's possible this is because you are very good at focused attention. Focused attention and divided attention are not always mutually exclusive, but they can be.

Also, at least statistically, the average female tends to be better at divided attention than the average male. And the average male is usually better at focused attention. I'm only talking about adults here, and obviously, a fair number of people will fall outside the norm, given the enormity of the human race. Still, I think this one holds pretty true.

I think of attention skills as something like a personality trait, too. 50% learned, and 50% genetic.

[phecda.livejournal.com]

Something to consider is that we have literally millions of years of ingrained non-verbal communication. Most people are brought up in an environment where non-verbal counts much higher than verbal, because it can be a matter of life or death, and can be seen from further away than speech can be heard, and is generally much more accurate in interpretation than most verbal communication.

In fact, I contend that verbal communication, while it can contain a lot of information, often fails to carry intent, emotion, etc. Certainly, it is enjoyable to read prose, but you get a far better clue at the authors intent when he or she reads it, and an even greater impact if you can witness an enactment of the story.

Can you tell if while writing this I am happy, tired, angry? Do you feel any of the energy I'm putting into writing this? Or is it just dead words on the screen?

Certainly a literary medium like the internet requires strong writing skills. But I have to add emoticons to add nuance and ensure that jokes are interepreted as jokes, or to ensure that someone understands that I'm kidding them, because I don't have the time to craft enough verbage around something to ensure that it's interepreted correctly. So the emoticon ( a form of non-verbal communication) fills that function.

So, if all you want to do is pontificate online, verbal is the way to go. But if you want to speak in front of an audience, to connect with another human being, flirt, assert dominance, appear harmless, appear dangerous -- all the things that we need to do out among the rest of the primates -- then you need to learn how to communicate non-verbally.

[(Anonymous)]

It is well-documented that most communication is non-verbal. In an average conversation, 55% of the meaning is body language and other semiotics, 38% is tone of voice, 7% is verbal.

In fact this could understate the degree of non-verbal content in a communication, as it may not take into account the context. In most cultures, the social context (who is saying what, and when and where) is itself an important part of the communication. North American culture tends to discount context (which means it is still there, just not consciously acknowledged).

Many introverts have poor non-verbal and semiotic communication skills; I certainly do. But that's a flaw to be corrected, not a virtue or a rational communication strategy.

[matt-arnold.livejournal.com]

Would you link to documentation of these percentages?

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

I found 37,000 hits about this on Google. http://lynn_meade.tripod.com/id56.htm has a pie chart. It's commonly taught in organizational behavior and similar classes.