Nonverbal communication: how significant is it?

[Z Buck McFate]

I do trust that you are not including me in the highlighted, as I said nothing of the sort. I would not claim it is irrational, merely something I am not good at. In fact, I asked how you do it, as in: if it is in fact a rational process, it can be explained, and learned, even perhaps by an INTJ.

Well, I did have that impression from you. It's not so much what you've said in this thread so much as comments you've previously made, rather consistently, when topic of this nature comes up. An important difference may be context; right now we are speaking primarily in the abstract, whereas my impression was formed while discussing specific incidences. I can't provide examples because (1) it's against the rules to quote private feedback threads, and (2) the reason why it's against the rules to quote private feedback threads.

But okay, noted.

How do you know that you are correct in your assessment here?

I don't. But I can roughly estimate the probability based on a lifetime of perceiving such things, routinely bouncing the perception off of others to test it's accuracy and taking that batting average into account, and just plain ol' repeatability to see if a thing consistently seems to be the case. <- Most of that isn't even consciously done though. It's instinctively done, and confidence in assessments is usually instinctively formed as well.

It also helps to check my own 'need' to be right about it, which is important to consciously do. (e.g. Is my assessment a narrative I'm telling myself to soothe my own discomfort in some way? Do I simply feel a need to be right about it as some abstract need to feel Right? etc.) If I can honestly claim (to myself - this isn't about convincing others) that I'm not feeling a 'need' to be right, that helps rule out the kind of white noise that casts a shade of doubt as well.

How often do you turn out to be wrong?

I don't actually know how to quantify this. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I think the human mind tends to err when it attempts to quantify it (either a person distorts in the direction of being too hard on themselves and thinking they're wrong more often than they really are, or they can't handle seeing/accepting they are wrong as often as they truly are). Mostly because it isn't even a conscious process.

I can say that it is definitely a priority to me to be able to hear it when I am wrong. Having that as too much of a major priority when I was younger though led me to stifle my own gut instinct in ways that came back and bit me on the ass, too many times to rely on openness as a default anymore. My own gut instinct wouldn't permit me, even if I tried forcing it on myself for ego identity ("openness") purposes. I'm probably (hopefully) on the tail end of a backlash of that though, in which anyone trying to pressure me to ignore my gut instinct resulted in my gut instinct wanting to set them on fire. I've taken to cultivating a middle road in which it's important to accept that it's okay to be wrong *and* to believe in myself when I don't think that I am. This helps me to pay attention and be more accepting in the moment of the times when I am wrong - which ultimately enables me to be wrong less often?

So I don't know. I guess, I'm wrong as often as I need to be to learn how not to be wrong?

What are usually the consequences when you are wrong?

This may be because I'm e5, but there's little more annoying to me than someone who thinks they can 'read' me or someone who inserts meaning 'between the lines' and is horribly wrong about what they're inserting. I have an exceptionally short fuse about it. I mean, actually, it's not when people are horribly wrong about what they're inserting so much as if I get dragged into any exhausting melodrama because of it. If someone is horribly wrong and they ask me about it, and the whole thing passes without incident, then it's not really a problem. But oftentimes people react strongly to their own incorrect assumptions, and for a lot of people - once that horse is out of the gate, there's no putting him back in. And so, the biggest consequence of when I'm wrong is knowing I imposed that kind of loathsome hell on another person.

Of course, that's about internal consequences and I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

Another way to answer the question is: superfluous, senseless melodrama. Offending people, for all sorts of various reasons. Brimstone, Hellfire and whatnot. I guess I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. That or I've already run out of steam thinking about this.

 

[Coriolis]

This may be because I'm e5, but there's little more annoying to me than someone who thinks they can 'read' me or someone who inserts meaning 'between the lines' and is horribly wrong about what they're inserting. I have an exceptionally short fuse about it. I mean, actually, it's not when people are horribly wrong about what they're inserting so much as if I get dragged into any exhausting melodrama because of it. If someone is horribly wrong and they ask me about it, and the whole thing passes without incident, then it's not really a problem.

This is my perspective as well. How is that not what you are doing here? I wouldn't call it horribly wrong, but you are definitely overlaying more than I have explicitly stated.

Well, I did have that impression from you. It's not so much what you've said in this thread so much as comments you've previously made, rather consistently, when topic of this nature comes up. An important difference may be context; right now we are speaking primarily in the abstract, whereas my impression was formed while discussing specific incidences. I can't provide examples because (1) it's against the rules to quote private feedback threads, and (2) the reason why it's against the rules to quote private feedback threads.

As for the difference between the concrete and the abstract, like many people, when it comes down to real world and especially RL situations, I rely on what has worked for me in the past, at least until I learn new approaches that are similarly effective. For me, this involves pretty much taking things at face value, since even when I might suspect people don't mean what they say (1) my confidence level in this conclusion is low, and (2) even if I am correct, I cannot accurately surmise their true meaning.

But okay, noted.

If this is your idea of adjusting your perspective based on my pointing out that you have assumed wrong, then that is all I can expect.


I do appreciate your detailed and thoughtful explanation of how you approach this. It does help me understand it better, even if I am not good at it myself. I will take the word of people like yourself for whom it is useful.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

you are definitely overlaying more than I have explicitly stated.

I'm a little confused by this. You're saying I have definitely overlayed more than you have explicitly stated, yet you only bolded the beginning of the sentence and not the part where I explained that my impression was more the product of what you'd stated in the past. You don't even need to know the specific exchanges I'm talking about to know I'm definitely overlaying?

 

[Coriolis]

I'm a little confused by this. You're saying I have definitely overlayed more than you have explicitly stated, yet you only bolded the beginning of the sentence and not the part where I explained that my impression was more the product of what you'd stated in the past. You don't even need to know the specific exchanges I'm talking about to know I'm definitely overlaying?

Yes, because the beginning of the sentence (what I highlighted) was what I stated here. Reading anything else into it is not supported by my actual words. Now if you think it contradicts something I wrote elsewhere, it is fair to point that out and ask me to explain the apparent contradiction. You have done this before if I recall correctly, and I have no objection to doing so.

Point being: what I wrote here is exactly what I meant to say here, no more, no less.

 

[Bush]

This may be because I'm e5, but there's little more annoying to me than someone who thinks they can 'read' me or someone who inserts meaning 'between the lines' and is horribly wrong about what they're inserting. I have an exceptionally short fuse about it. I mean, actually, it's not when people are horribly wrong about what they're inserting so much as if I get dragged into any exhausting melodrama because of it. If someone is horribly wrong and they ask me about it, and the whole thing passes without incident, then it's not really a problem. But oftentimes people react strongly to their own incorrect assumptions, and for a lot of people - once that horse is out of the gate, there's no putting him back in. And so, the biggest consequence of when I'm wrong is knowing I imposed that kind of loathsome hell on another person.

I want to read the whole exchange because it's interesting, but this especially caught my eye. In any case, same here.

Nonverbal, subtle communication exists. But of course it's generally better to verify what you think you've picked up on before you roll with it; before assigning it more of a foundation than it actually has and architecting on top of that. Plowing full steam ahead based on unverified assumptions made about another person, in a way that nontrivially affects that person, is especially egregious because it involves another human being.

Maybe I'm overexaggerating, but I personally have a complex about being misunderstood or misrepresented in the first place and I don't think I'm alone.

Not to be all gloom and doom, but I learned indicators of other people's distress and anger to reduce how they might take it out on me... From as far back as I can remember. From years of it being my primary focus, I would like to think that I am fairly skilled at it. And I think the Fe-Ni combination enhanced it all the more.

Completely understandable. I learned the ropes there for much of that same reason -- well, the ropes were burned into my brain -- though not with as much of a mastery as others out there. I don't doubt that some folks pick up on it more than others, just as different people pay attention to different things, and that there's a level of skill to reading and interpreting the whole thing correctly. It's just that when the interpretation is wrong, it can be dead wrong.

 

[á´…eparted]

It sort of fascinates me to see people not do well with being misunderstood. It just doesn't bother me despite experiencing a lot of it in my younger years? I think part of it is due to being able to sense of its going to happen or is happening. I promptly adjust to it and manage it out. Doesn't cause me problems. I either correct the person, or do it over the long term. Or I just write the person off if their reasons or things they misunderstand suggest a bad person. Sometimes it is just of no consequence either.

idk it's long been something that I can navigate.

 

[Bush]

It sort of fascinates me to see people not do well with being misunderstood. It just doesn't bother me despite experiencing a lot of it in my younger years? I think part of it is due to being able to sense of its going to happen or is happening. I promptly adjust to it and manage it out. Doesn't cause me problems. I either correct the person, or do it over the long term. Or I just write the person off if their reasons or things they misunderstand suggest a bad person. Sometimes it is just of no consequence either.

idk it's long been something that I can navigate.

Also understandable. There's a matter of how much is actually at stake: often less than my first reaction tells me. Some stranger or an acquaintance misinterprets you? Fine. Your partner misinterprets you? Well, it's more than likely that you'll learn one another and it'll get smooth as the relationship matures. Internet people? Well, they're Internet people. And with coworkers and bosses and all, there's more at stake but usually nothing that can be ironed out.

The whole thing is irrationally irritating and grating to me, but in the end nothing that usually can't be handled. Usually.

My complex is larger in scale, generalizing "nonverbal communication" as "reading incorrectly what's actually there" and leading to this phenomenon.

Best example is the widespread misinterpretation of this study, like this or this or this or this or this, resulting in clarifications like this that folks never read but that shouldn't be needed in the first place.

Basically, not being able to put the genie back in the bottle when it absolutely needs to be.

 

[rav3n]

Check out this ten question test, relative to your ability to read/enact body language. My results were 10/10 first try.

Are you fluent in body language? – quiz | Guardian Small Business Network | The Guardian

 

[Tilt]

Check out this ten question test, relative to your ability to read/enact body language. My results were 10/10 first try.

Are you fluent in body language? – quiz | Guardian Small Business Network | The Guardian

I got 8/10. I tend to use a mixture of "vibes" + nonverbal cues.

 

[rav3n]

I got 8/10. I tend to use a mixture of "vibes" + nonverbal cues.

Vibes are non-verbal cues.

If members don't do decently well on this easy quiz, they likely shouldn't be in reliance on their ability to understand body language.

 

[Coriolis]

Nonverbal, subtle communication exists. But of course it's generally better to verify what you think you've picked up on before you roll with it; before assigning it more of a foundation than it actually has and architecting on top of that. Plowing full steam ahead based on unverified assumptions made about another person, in a way that nontrivially affects that person, is especially egregious because it involves another human being.

Exactly. There is another aspect to this as well. Say a person is feeling something or preoccupied by something that they really want to keep to themselves, and they are doing their best to do so, but some especially perceptive or skilled person is able to surmise that anyway. IME this is little better than having that person read their journal, or eavesdrop on their phone conversations. It is none of their business, and they should pretend it doesn't even exist.

Maybe I'm overexaggerating, but I personally have a complex about being misunderstood or misrepresented in the first place and I don't think I'm alone.

I wouldn't call it a complex, but I do take note of it and especially how often it happens. It bothers me only when it interferes with something I am trying to do, or comes from a good friend or someone who I would have expected to understand me better.

 

[á´…eparted]

Check out this ten question test, relative to your ability to read/enact body language. My results were 10/10 first try.

Are you fluent in body language? – quiz | Guardian Small Business Network | The Guardian

10/10, but honestly I find these sorts of questions too reductionist. For several of them I knew what the answer should be, but disagreed with it to some extent because it's too simplified. For example, if someone pulls a double handshake (and I do not have an established rapport with them) I will not trust the much and keep a distant and critical eye. It's frequently not genuniely used. There is so much more nuance.

 

[Tilt]

Vibes are non-verbal cues.

If members don't do decently well on this easy quiz, they likely shouldn't be in reliance on their ability to understand body language.

Oops.. I meant body language. I am above average on pure body language but much better picking up on vibes.

 

[rav3n]

10/10, but honestly I find these sorts of questions too reductionist. For several of them I knew what the answer should be, but disagreed with it to some extent because it's too simplified. For example, if someone pulls a double handshake (and I do not have an established rapport with them) I will not trust the much and keep a distant and critical eye. It's frequently not genuniely used. There is so much more nuance.

I don't disagree with what you're stating but you're conflating intentions with results.

 

[Coriolis]

10/10, but honestly I find these sorts of questions too reductionist. For several of them I knew what the answer should be, but disagreed with it to some extent because it's too simplified. For example, if someone pulls a double handshake (and I do not have an established rapport with them) I will not trust the much and keep a distant and critical eye. It's frequently not genuniely used. There is so much more nuance.

I got 6/10, but only because I have heard often enough what people are "supposed" to do. Several points also just relate to general professionalism in the sense of not providing a distraction from your main point. Sure - that is body language, too, but more like making sure the litter is picked up.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Yes, because the beginning of the sentence (what I highlighted) was what I stated here. Reading anything else into it is not supported by my actual words. Now if you think it contradicts something I wrote elsewhere, it is fair to point that out and ask me to explain the apparent contradiction. You have done this before if I recall correctly, and I have no objection to doing so.

Point being: what I wrote here is exactly what I meant to say here, no more, no less.

Okay, I think I figured out at least part of the communication fail here. I expressed the following poorly:

What I liked about this clip as an example though (the part that starts at :56) is that the guy's reaction to the latte is a very clear and pronounced example of nonverbal communication. I want to say that most people will see the internal dialogue I described when watching him, and I feel confident saying "most" would be accurate, but to be on the safe side I said "more people than not." But it's very clear. I mean no offense to [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] when I say this: I think discussing it further with anyone who sees it as an irrational leap would be akin to pursuing an argument about the existence of "red" with someone who is colorblind.

I started out the paragraph talking about that specific clip I posted, and so the "it" in the bolded sentence probably seems in reference to that specific clip. In my head, I meant "it" to mean the significance of nonverbal communication - the topic of the thread, not the clip. No one has implied any such thing (irrational leap) about green tea latte man. No one would dare. For he has touched all of our hearts, and made me personally take a closer look at the direction my life is headed.

But anyway, "it" was regarding the bigger topic of the thread.


Also, I got 9/10 on the quiz. I missed the hand shake question. Hand shakes give me the creeps.

 

[rav3n]

Oops.. I meant body language. I am above average on pure body language but much better picking up on vibes.

Same difference. That said, IMSO, vibes might be more targeted towards microexpressions.

 

[Coriolis]

Okay, I think I figured out at least part of the communication fail here. I expressed the following poorly:



I started out the paragraph talking about that specific clip I posted, and so the "it" in the bolded sentence probably seems in reference to that specific clip. In my head, I meant "it" to mean the significance of nonverbal communication - the topic of the thread, not the clip. No one has implied any such thing (irrational leap) about green tea latte man. No one would dare. For he has touched all of our hearts, and made me personally take a closer look at the direction my life is headed.

But anyway, "it" was regarding the bigger topic of the thread.

That is how I interpreted it as well, with the green tea video just one example.

 

[Frosty]

7/10.

I suck at this. Too many MAYBE choices. Like the first one. My first thought is oh yeah thats a warm gesture... but also probably the warm gesture of someone who is confident enough to be the dominant one. I mean.

This quiz is under protest imo.

Too many possible interpretations.

 

[Tilt]

Same difference. That said, IMSO, vibes might be more targeted towards microexpressions.

Ahhh... I differentiate the two because for example, you can't get a feel for body language through texting/phone calls/online dating but the way things are phrased, subtle changes in patterns can be very telling.