Nonverbal communication: how significant is it?

[Metis]

I don't think you cheated since it's not possible to cheat. But you're not giving enough weight towards the instinctual understanding of body language, circling around, above, beneath with wild guesses, as to why you knew what answers to give.

You're wrong. I don't instinctively "know" that the answers the quiz author chose were correct. I don't think that all of them even were correct. I think the author was wrong about some of them. I anticipated the author's opinions based on what's called in psychology "gestalt" patterns. I put together patterns from the past.

 

[rav3n]

You're wrong. I don't instinctively "know" that the answers the quiz author chose were correct. I don't think that all of them even were correct. I think the author was wrong about some of them. I anticipated the author's opinions based on what's called in psychology "gestalt" patterns. I put together patterns from the past.

Okay, then take the second test that I posted. This one's visual body language (pics of people communicating via body language) and some are quite subtle.

 

[Bush]

I don't think you cheated since it's not possible to cheat. But you're not giving enough weight towards the instinctual understanding of body language, circling around, above, beneath with wild guesses, as to why you knew what answers to give.

You're wrong. I don't instinctively "know" that the answers the quiz author chose were correct. I don't think that all of them even were correct. I think the author was wrong about some of them. I anticipated the author's opinions based on what's called in psychology "gestalt" patterns. I put together patterns from the past.

(On that test,) I also just responded with a sense of what the test writer was looking for.

It's like doing math in your head. There's a mixture of deliberate thought and stuff that just pops in your head through a globbed-together bundle of past experiences.

It's like a veteran filling out an online MBTI test. You'll take a quick glance at a particular question and skim over the answers and get what the test maker was after in about a quarter-second or less. We've all been there.

And so on.

 

[rav3n]

(On that test,) I also just responded with a sense of what the test writer was looking for.

It's like doing math in your head. There's a mixture of deliberate thought and stuff that just pops in your head through a globbed-together bundle of past experiences.

It's like a veteran filling out an online MBTI test. You'll take a quick glance at a particular question and skim over the answers and get what the test maker was after in about a quarter-second or less. We've all been there.

And so on.

If so, then take the second questionnaire that I posted. This one's different since it relies on visual body language cues.

 

[Metis]

Okay, then take the second test that I posted. This one's visual body language (pics of people communicating via body language) and some are quite subtle.

I did take it. Some of the images produced a visceral response, and I felt and resonated with a particular emotion. There were 2 or 3 of those.

Most required some guesswork and thought, and several of them look "act-y" -- i.e., they produce no visceral emotion, because they look too premeditated. With those, I have to guess / think about what the person is trying to portray.

Don't read if you're going to take quiz. Contains answers.

This quiz goes for more extremes than the first quiz, too.

The first time I went through the image-based quiz, I went with milder answers. I didn't assume too much about the people's mental/emotional states. E.g., I guessed "resentful" instead of taking it a step further and assuming that she was "jealous", because I didn't want to assume the reason why she was resentful. "Jealousy" assumes a reason. Also, I went with "proud" instead of "contemptuous" for the same reason--I didn't want to assume that the reason she was expressing pride was because she was looking down on someone else. I gave the people the benefit of the doubt.

When I go through it again with more extreme responses, I score higher. That teaches me something about the thinking of the author/s of this quiz.

 

[rav3n]

I did take it. Some of the images produced a visceral response, and I felt and resonated with a particular emotion. There were 2 or 3 of those.

Most required some guesswork and thought, and several of them look "act-y" -- i.e., they produce no visceral emotion, because they look too premeditated. With those, I have to guess / think about what the person is trying to portray.

This quiz goes for more extremes than the first quiz, too.

Don't read if you're going to take quiz. Contains answers.

The first time I went through the image-based quiz, I went with milder answers. I didn't assume too much about the people's mental/emotional states. E.g., I guessed "resentful" instead of taking it a step further and assuming that she was "jealous", because I didn't want to assume the reason why she was resentful. "Jealousy" assumes a reason. Also, I went with "proud" instead of "contemptuous" for the same reason--I didn't want to assume that the reason she was expressing pride was because she was looking down on someone else. I gave the people the benefit of the doubt.

When I go through it again with more extreme responses, I score higher. That teaches me something about the thinking of the author/s of this quiz. It doesn't show me much more than that, though.

What was your score?

 

[Metis]

What was your score?

Why?

 

[Metis]

(On that test,) I also just responded with a sense of what the test writer was looking for.

It's like doing math in your head. There's a mixture of deliberate thought and stuff that just pops in your head through a globbed-together bundle of past experiences.

It's like a veteran filling out an online MBTI test. You'll take a quick glance at a particular question and skim over the answers and get what the test maker was after in about a quarter-second or less. We've all been there.

And so on.

Exactly.

 

[rav3n]

Why?

For curiosity sake.

 

[Metis]

For curiosity sake.

Yeah, right. I don't need to see body language to know that it's not just for curiosity's sake.

 

[Bush]

If so, then take the second questionnaire that I posted. This one's different since it relies on visual body language cues.

I got 75%.

It was more difficult, but some of the questions were much like those on the first test in a way. I'd explain it like this: For some questions -- where the first test might ask, "What does it mean if a person holds their head in their hands and cries?", the second might show a picture of a person holding their head in their hands and ask you what it means. Expressions in other photos were more nuanced.

 

[rav3n]

I got 75%.

It was more difficult, but some of the questions were much like those on the first test in a way. I'd explain it like this: For some questions -- where the first test might ask, "What does it mean if a person holds their head in their hands and cries?", the second might show a picture of a person holding their head in their hands and ask you what it means. Expressions in other photos were more nuanced.

So you're saying that every choice made in the second questionnaire was premised on conscious decision making that you've taken courses and/or 'gestalt learned' body language or lucky guesses? Or might it be that the opening premise of 'guesses' is instinctual understanding of body language?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, right. I don't need to see body language to know that it's not just for curiosity's sake.

Fair enough. Frankly, your explanations don't resonate true to me.

 

[Bush]

So you're saying that every choice made in the second questionnaire was premised on conscious decision making that you've taken courses and/or 'gestalt learned' body language or lucky guesses? Or might it be that the opening premise of 'guesses' is instinctual understanding of body language?

No, all I said that some photos were as obvious as the text descriptions on first test, but some weren't.

I don't know which questions I got wrong, but I'm pretty sure that I got some of the non-obvious ones and missed others. Of those, some I had a feeling about, some probably triggered some mirror neurons and instincts, and some I had to consciously think about. I'm sure that most were fed by all of the above -- maybe as 'educated guess' or 'scientific wild-ass guess' would be.

I can't speak for anyone else -- that is, I can't reliably generalize my experience to answer your questions -- all I can share is how I took my stab.

 

[rav3n]

No, all I said that some photos were as obvious as the text descriptions on first test, but some weren't.

I don't know which questions I got wrong, but I'm pretty sure that I got some of the non-obvious ones and missed others. Of those, some I had a feeling about, some probably triggered some mirror neurons and instincts, and some I had to consciously think about. I'm sure that most were fed by all of the above -- maybe as 'educated guess' or 'scientific wild-ass guess' would be.

I can't speak for anyone else -- that is, I can't reliably generalize my experience to answer your questions -- all I can share is how I took my stab.

At 75% accuracy, that's pretty good. There's no way that you guessed what the unknown group of test creators wanted, only potentially guessing some premised on the pics. But at 75% accuracy, it evidences your innate ability to understand body language which most humans have. I suspect that a lot of people overthink things when attempting to gauge by body language. My results were premised on not overthinking the issue by trying to break down the concrete indicators, only answering premised on gut instinct of the overall body language communications in the pics.

 

[Qlip]

It's especially important with animals or people who have no tongues.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Body Language Test

77/100


But the fact is that I simply don't care about this in good amount of situations, since non verbal comunication simply doesn't give me the info that interest me.
I need numbers, graphs, maps, science talk, politics/military talk to feel that there is something really going on.

 

[Galena]

I got a 93 on the second test, which feels nice because my skills here are mostly absorbed through the desire to learn them, and I did not start out with them. I was pushed into social skills classes when I was young.

Now I say "absorbed" because exchanging body language isn't any longer like executing stored knowledge to me, but has been integrated instinctually - if far from perfectly, it's at least not rote, which shows that I always actually did have the ability but somehow missed learning it as early as I could have. TBH when interacting with someone who is extremely sparse with nonverbal queues, it feels like one of my senses is covered up, and I'd prefer to be with someone who is otherwise. However, per feedback, I am also one of those hard-to-read people and can also certainly generate impressions that I didn't really want to or don't feel were right. I've gotten this less over time, though.

 

[Coriolis]

Body Language Test

And again, if you don't score reasonably well on this test, it's not a good idea to rely on your ability to read body language in order to decision make/conclude.

I got 50/100. Is that "reasonably well"? Then again I rarely rely on body language in deciding what to do. If I suspect I am seeing something real, I ask to confirm it.

For one, "horribly wrong" is an important distinction to me, but an even bigger distinction is that - as I stated already in the paragraph quoted - it isn't so much a person getting something wrong as it is the fire-breathing angry reaction they impose on me as a result. Even if it's a passive-aggressive angry reaction. If there's a very palpable anger directed at me as a consequence and I am pulled into some kind of melodrama that takes an excessive amount of work (on my end) to clear up, that's when I have a very short fuse about it. Especially if the horse is so far out of the gate that they can't begin to back up and hear where their understanding veered way off from my words (or whatever perceivable cue that set it off).

The part I was focusing on here was the "thinking they can 'read'me" or "inserting meaning 'between the lines' and is wrong". You did that when you drew a conclusion about what I wrote in this thread based on other comments and impressions. I qualified the comparison toward the end of my post by stating, "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." Meaning: you appear to have modified your interpretation based on my reassurance that I meant what I said, and it did not include your inferred meaning. Everyone should be prepared to do this, and if someone consistently finds themselves doing it when interacting with a specific person (e.g. me), they should recalibrate how they interpret what that person says, rather than go through this exercise every time.

Secondly, a modicum of someone piecing things together 'between the lines' is actually just normal communication. As I already stated somewhere in this thread: I actually find it almost as exhausting to deal with someone who can't piece any meaning 'between the lines' as someone who pieces too much. There's a sweet spot in the middle, and therein are the people with whom I tend to become better friends.

I find it exhausting instead to have to keep reminding people not to read in what isn't there, and to have to play 20 questions with them to suss out information that they may be conveying through nonverbal cues, but are somehow unwilling or unable to just flat out say. I've been known to tell people: you have a brain in your head and a tongue in your mouth. Use them.

And so, in answer to your question about how I know I'm not doing the very thing I describe: (1) I'm not breathing fire at you or expecting you to regulate the emotion that may surface as a result of reading between the lines of what you've written; and (2) while you may be offended or annoyed at my impression that you consider a certain amount of nonverbal communication "irrational leaps", I actually feel relatively confident that if I were to post the exact words you have used in past conversation with me (which I can't, because as I already stated it's in private feedback/forum improvement committee) then quite a few people would understand how I arrived at that impression (i.e. by normative standards of communication, it's not an unreasonable conclusion). I'm not saying the impression is correct - in fact, I want to preemptively emphasize I am not saying my impression is correct. The point I'm trying to make is that there's a modicum of 'between the lines' that happens in everyday conversation. If the communication issues I have with you were anywhere near a regular occurrence for me, then I'd adjust my between-the-lines-ometer.

As explained above, you did the erroneous read-between-the-lines part, but to your credit, did not "breathe fire" or otherwise get upset over it. I also cannot take offense over something like that, and it becomes irritating only when it happens frequently, especially with the same person and they cannot or will not recalibrate.

I suspect you misunderstood what I meant by my distinction between real and abstract. I'm not asking how you avoid making "irrational leaps" in the concrete. I'm saying that I've gotten the distinct impression, many times, that you perceive my assessments as being "irrational leaps" in actual conversations with me.

If that was my opinion, I would have said as much.

Finally, if you have questions about anything from a private communication, feel free to PM. If possible, I will sanitize it and post an explanation here.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The part I was focusing on here was the "thinking they can 'read'me" or "inserting meaning 'between the lines' and is wrong".

Yes, it's 100% clear that's what you were focusing on. You couldn't have been clearer about that.

My point is that removing a statement from its context can change the meaning of the statement. Directly after the statement I made, I added caveats to make it clearer.

Frankly, I kind of feel like removing the statement from it's context (and continuing to focus on the meaning you derived from the statement, removed from its context) is mincing my words. You've derived a meaning from the statement that I did not intend - that, in fact, I actually tried to prevent from the get-go by adding the caveats that I did.

Cloudpatrol once posted this quote in her blog, which she attributed to Larry Barker:

Effective listeners remember that "words have no meaning - people have meaning." The assignment of meaning to a term is an internal process; meaning comes from inside us. And although our experiences, knowledge and attitudes differ, we often misinterpret each other’s messages while under the illusion that a common understanding has been achieved.​

That first statement of the paragraph that you're focusing on - I know what I meant when I wrote it.

You did that when you drew a conclusion about what I wrote in this thread based on other comments and impressions.

And I know this^ isn't what I did. It might be according to your understanding of that statement, but then your understanding of it would not be my intended meaning.

As explained above, you did the erroneous read-between-the-lines part, but to your credit, did "breathe fire" or otherwise get upset over it. I also cannot take offense over something like that, and it becomes irritating only when it happens frequently, especially with the same person and they cannot or will not recalibrate.

If you had meant to type "did not" - then at least you seem to begin to see the point I'm making.

And yes, it does try one's patience to deal with someone who seems to repeatedly make the same mistakes in hearing a meaning that was not intended. But so long as no one starts breathing fire, imo, then it can actually feel rewarding. IMO. Part of the problem is that "breathing fire" is different for everyone. I think I'd personally define it as behavior or words directed at another person that either 'blames' them for our own unwanted feelings or any other kind of attempt at externalizing our own feelings of shame on to others (regardless of whether it's done consciously or consciously).

Another quote I love, this one by Claudio Naranjo:

The superimposition of past on present is linked to persons and desires from the past which are not conscious for the subject and that give his or her conduct an irrational seal- the affect does not seem appropriate either in quality or quantity to the real, actual situation.​

For me - when I close down and have a difficult time feeling benevolent enough to continue trying to understand where another person is coming from - is when it seems they are misunderstanding my words in a way that has this "irrational seal" and they're "breathing fire". Misunderstanding is one thing, but coming at me with both (1) such a confidence that their understanding IS correct that they plow forward without an ability to back up and figure out how they got the impression they did (which is what I mean when I say the horse is so far out of the gate that it seems unlikely to get him back in) and (2) this confidence that I 'deserve' the fury my words/actions seem to have opened up for them makes me a target for their aggression. <- That's the part I lose patience with quickly, not simply overlaying a meaning I did not intend on my words.

As I already explained above, when planting the first outside quote - it's my belief that ultimately all communication is more or less overlaying our own meaning over someone else's words anyway. Someone simply overlaying meaning I didn't intend, in itself, isn't a trigger for me. (And I'll admit to the exchange about this frustrating me because I did attempt to make this clear the first time I said it).

 

[rav3n]

I got 50/100. Is that "reasonably well"? Then again I rarely rely on body language in deciding what to do. If I suspect I am seeing something real, I ask to confirm it.

Considering the coin toss results, your strategy of verification is a good one. But IMO, this does reinforce that there's no one size fits all, that people who have difficulty reading body language should verify and people who don't, won't necessarily need to verify.